21–30 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also... weight is not a useful metric. A 1lb rock has very different ballistic properties than a 1lb feather. A typical 9mm bullet weighs 0.01lbs.
Right, but a box with a 1lb rock in it, and a box with 1lb of feathers are going to fall from the sky to your head about the same.
> The FAA is also proposing allowing discretionary waivers ... for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement. Huh? What would be a legitimate reason for that?
Imagine someone operating out in the bush in Alaska where there are no people. There's no need for the same safety precautions out there. Or operations in mountainous terrain where it's not possible that a manned aircraft would fly -- no need for anti-collision lighting there.
The FAA is quite strict and is very unlikely to hand out waivers unless the operator can clearly show an equivalent level of safety.
This seems inconsistent, coming from the administration of a president who is hyper-concerned about terrorism and tends to overstate the security implications of just about everything. Close the borders, but open the skies?
Maybe there is an informative comparison of border policy to airspace policy, but it has yet to be written here. Otherwise it seems the two aren't very related
Lots of safety concerns are brought up, but I'm really curious how drones will play out in conjunction with noise and NIMBYism. Drones are loud, so I can't imagine that commercial drone activity (Especially at night) will happen without heavy pushback from locals. NASA did a study and found that the noise drones make is perceived to be more annoying than those from cars [1]. They acknowledge noise-based pushback as a…
You can barely hear (or even see) a small drone above about 100m.
> Under the FAA’s proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. > For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an “unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold.” I assume this also inclu…
Lots of safety concerns are brought up, but I'm really curious how drones will play out in conjunction with noise and NIMBYism. Drones are loud, so I can't imagine that commercial drone activity (Especially at night) will happen without heavy pushback from locals. NASA did a study and found that the noise drones make is perceived to be more annoying than those from cars [1]. They acknowledge noise-based pushback as a…
They are loud for now. That will change.
You can't escape the physics that moving air causes noise.
Should I be worried about thief drones? If a drone can deliver a package, surely another drone can steal it too?
That's not necessarily meant to be flippant; it's a real question: what unknowns have dissuaded us from doing this until now? Are they resolved now? Would they be resolved in the future given some kind of delay until this (inevitably) happens?
Lots of safety concerns are brought up, but I'm really curious how drones will play out in conjunction with noise and NIMBYism. Drones are loud, so I can't imagine that commercial drone activity (Especially at night) will happen without heavy pushback from locals. NASA did a study and found that the noise drones make is perceived to be more annoying than those from cars [1]. They acknowledge noise-based pushback as a…
That being said NIMBYism isn't always logical. Even if you presented a plan that proves their would be no increase in noise, I could see a lot of people not believing it.