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

U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 202 posts

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#31

Post by hashkb »

vokep wrote: post #23
hashkb wrote: post #8

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?

Close the borders to foreigners, open the skies to citizens, yes. 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

The point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to me like something you could choose to make very frightening, if you were in that business.

Engaging your argument... domestic terrorism / mass murder of citizens by citizens is quite real.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#32

Post by maxxxxx »

golemotron wrote: post #10
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #6

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.

How? Helicopters are still obnoxiously loud after decades.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#33

Post by hashkb »

ricardobeat wrote: post #14
hashkb wrote: post #12

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.

Since this is about objects falling from a certain height, yes, weight is a useful metric for rough safety estimates. A bullet does damage because it holds a lot more energy from being accelerated - a 9mm bullet will go around a mile up before falling down (source: MythBusters). Two 500g boxes dropped from a likely much lower height will have a similar effect (concussion?) when dropped on a pedestrian regardless of t…

The bullet, falling from the same height as a crashing drone, is at least as lethal if it strikes a human. There is no "safe weight" for a falling object... but there may be a "safe momentum".

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#34

Post by perennate »

todd3834 wrote: post #9

> 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…

I haven't read the proposed regulations, but most likely it is a typo and should be 55 pounds not 0.55 pounds. Because the existing FAA regulations have a lot of things that change at the 55 pound threshold.

0.55 pounds doesn't really make sense, such a light drone can barely fly in modest wind and won't have enough battery life to go very far.

Edit: maybe 0.55 pounds is correct. Because that threshold is also used in other FAA UAV regulations. (e.g. UAV less than 0.55 pounds doesn't need to be registered)

Edit2: maybe not, see https://www.apnews.com/1c50bdd96d6244198df93d84c86bf156

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#35

Post by asynchronous13 »

drusepth wrote: post #29

This is one of those things that you assume is going to happen eventually no matter what. Why not just do it now? 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?

The major unknown that prevented this until now was the average age of the people working at the FAA. For a long time any request for something unusual was met with the simple response, "No". The FAA's mandate is safety, and they could justify disallowing new things for the sake of safety. They've finally realized that this is inevitable, and they can't just say "No" forever. A lot of the old guard is retiring, and the newer employees are figuring out how to integrate new technology safely.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#36

Post by kuhhk »

Forge36 wrote: post #24
taneq wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can barely hear (or even see) a small drone above about 100m.

It's like a bee. You know its there, you can barely hear it. I can see why people get annoyed by them

Not really. I have a drone, and if it's high enough, I can't hear it, and have trouble even seeing it.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#37

Post by theoh »

todd3834 wrote: post #9

> 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…

I don't get this either. Almost any existing consumer drone over 0.55 pounds could possibly fall straight down onto someone's head and kill them, in an unlucky scenario.

Maybe the requirement is trying to encourage (or allow) the development of drones that are spatially extended/soft, e.g. drones that contain inflated components.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#38

Post by deanCommie »

superfrank wrote: post #30
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #6

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…

No way drones are louder than cars, so worst case scenario, they get restricted to flying over already established roadways. Not a brilliant solution, but better than nothing. 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.

Yes way, and it's not the volume it's the pitch.

Drones emit a high pitch whine that is annoying and irritating, and ruins plenty of quite natural viewpoints with assholes trying to get that pullback shot for their vlog.

This isn't NIMBYism or Ludditeness - I'm pro drones for practical uses. I'm anti Drones X Instagram Influencer culture that permeates hikes, and stresses out my dog (who is even more sensitive to high pitched noises than I am)

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#39

Post by taneq »

Forge36 wrote: post #24
taneq wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can barely hear (or even see) a small drone above about 100m.

It's like a bee. You know its there, you can barely hear it. I can see why people get annoyed by them

I don't mean "barely hear" as in it's quiet, I mean "if you didn't specifically know where and when to look for it you'd never know it was there."

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#40

Post by the_reformation »

hashkb wrote: post #31
vokep wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close the borders to foreigners, open the skies to citizens, yes. 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

The point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to me like something you could choose to make very frightening, if you were in that business. Engaging your argument... domestic terrorism / mass murder of citizens by citizens is quite real.

An FAA regulation isn't going to stop a domestic terrorist.
Post reply on HN