Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–245 of 245 posts

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#241

Post by cmurf »

forgottenpass wrote: post #127
eykanal wrote: post #39

The comments here really surprise me. My dad's a pilot, and I've heard from him firsthand how drones are a very serious problem for airplanes. Comments like "this is just one more example of tracking" or "I can't believe I have to do this even if it's only for my house" seem to be said out of anger rather than from serious consideration of the issues with drones. Your $30 drone can very easily cause someone else's $1…

I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". There is a subconscious line of reasoning a lot of people in The States (and I assume similar nations) get that goes something like: "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."

Yes, stupid people with no imagination often think this way.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#242

Post by cmurf »

bigiain wrote: post #219
god_bless_texas wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FAA could write a FAR that kept birds out of the airspace, it would happen.

Sure, but they can't - and it doesn't matter (obviously, because we still all get in airplanes in spite of an identifiable but uncontrollable risk). Just because they _can_ write a FAR about drones, should they? Does it matter any more or less than the risk of birdstrike? What _is_ the risk? If there were a real quantifiable and indisputable number there, surely we'd all know about it and be able to look it up and ev…

Yes. That's why so many FARs exist in the first place. Most are the result of incidents or accidents.

One of my favorites is 91.119a "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

It's one I do not think drones or their operator should be exempt from.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#243

Post by jnbiche »

bdamm wrote: post #158
jnbiche wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps in some urban areas, but I seriously doubt there are federal regulations about throwing rock projectiles into the air with no intent to hit or harm a person.

FAA says that pilots may drop objects from airplanes, but puts the onus on the pilot to ensure "no hazard is created". And, once the object touches the ground, it becomes subject to local laws. So dropping a rock onto someone's property could be quite a few violations depending on the outcome and the property.

The question was concerning throwing rocks "up into the air", not throwing projectiles from an airplane.

If it involves airplanes, you can rest assured that the FAA will regulate it, so no surprise there.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#244

Post by ctdonath »

CountSessine wrote: post #167
ctdonath wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No results found for "airline drone near miss" Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss". But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.

But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue. close but no harm done Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot…

Yes, I'm serious. As someone who thinks nothing of near-misses involving drivers dozens/hundreds of times daily with a head-on speed differential of >100 MPH missing by _feet_ , I understand the concern for impact yet still scratch my head over the angst indulged over a single miss by _miles_.
Post reply on HN