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

121–130 of 202 posts

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

#121

Post by black-tea »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #66
cronix wrote: post #41

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life w…

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

There is an electric BMW that has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine to people outside of the car.

I think the negative effects of noise pollution are underestimated. It's never properly taken into account when people plan things. Part of it is many people don't understand just how soul destroying it can be (yet).

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

#122

Post by jsty »

black-tea wrote: post #121
bigmattystyles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

There is an electric BMW that has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine to people outside of the car. I think the negative effects of noise pollution are underestimated. It's never properly taken into account when people plan things. Part of it is many people don't understand just how soul destroying it can be (yet).

> has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine

This is however exceptionally helpful for blind people navigating near a road.

I haven't seen the BMW in question so it might be unnecessarily loud, but electric cars are often so quiet you could barely hear one coming.

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

#123

Post by avar »

asynchronous13 wrote: post #95
reaperducer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? I'm not an expert, but if an company wants to use drones to monitor its industrial site, that's fine. It's private property. Just like construction companies use drones to monitor construction. But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property, even if it's for something as seemingly good as mon…

Actually, you do have the right to fly over someone else's property. It's well established law that Delta airlines does not need to ask permission from every land owner that they overfly. A long time ago, property rights were 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos' -- from hell below to heaven above. (now referred to as the 'ad coelum doctrine') But that law was changed a long time ago. Just because…

Why would it need to be tested in court? It falls under the well-established doctrine that the FAA / EASA etc. is allowed to regulate air traffic.

You'll be able to fly your drone at whatever altitude they tell you you're allowed to fly at.

If they didn't get to decide by fiat you could just make up your own rules and seek to sort them out in court. E.g. "no I don't feel like following the FAA rules on airline safety, I'll just make my own airliner & airline and make my own rules".

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

#124

Post by test1235 »

chaostheory wrote: post #116
eftychis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is a good idea for the sanity of people to tell them to stay inside and have really good sound insulation. We have to remember that sound pollution is a health issue and impacts people's lives. I have my doubts how efficient insulation one can get against air traffic -- from personal experience, it doesn't work.

I'm speaking from experience, and I didn't intend to sound patronizing. I live really close to an airport. Have been for years. Lived in my home both before and after energy efficient improvements e.g. triple pane windows, more insulation, roofing, stormdoor, ... It works. If NIMBY lobbying fails, you have to take into account all tools available including smart earphones.

as if you're going to go put in earphones everytime someone flies a drone around your property ...

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

#125

Post by amelius »

cronix wrote: post #41

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life w…

I guess army drones are silent.

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

#126

Post by usrusr »

iancmceachern wrote: post #54
neaanopri wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this happening. The propeller physics aren't changing. If you are using the quadrotor architechure, directly lifting your playload with no wings, there's a sound-per-kg number that can't be engineered away.

Is Active noise canceling an option?

Active noise canceling is equivalent to beam shaping. It can work in headphones because you can aim the minima at the ear and the maxima away from it, but the best you could achieve by adding speakers to a drone would be selecting where the energy hits. Directing everything to the upper hemisphere would be nice, but that's not how beam shaping works.

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

#127

Post by sschueller »

jstplanecurious wrote: post #96
codedokode wrote: post #69

First thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone. Most of the drones I've seen have no protection. The manufacturers and owners don't care about the safety at all. Also, what if the drone flies into someone's window or a car? How do you identify the owner?

>First thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone. Does anyone know why this isn't standard? I Googled this question: "why don't quadcopters have safety cages" https://www.google.com/search?q=why+don't+quadcopters+have+s... ... ... and even saw cages that go around the whole quadcopter (not just the propellers as I was expecting). If those were a bit squishy they could seriously reduce…

They reduce lift and make the drone less efficient.

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

#128

Post by lovemenot »

asynchronous13 wrote: post #84
reaperducer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the average age of the people working at the FAA That's ageism, plain and simple. I hope you don't ever have to hire people, or you'll get your company fined.

This was a very polite version of what an FAA employee told me.

and if she'd told you it was all the fault of blacks / gays whatever ?

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

#129

Post by breatheoften »

tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #88
bigmattystyles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

I am not advocating loud motorcycles but as a rider I know from experience that cars on the roads will pay more attention and give more caution to a louder motorcycle. A simple fender bender on a motorcycle can be fatal which is the reasoning behind the phrase "Loud pipes save lives." Are some people doing it to be obnoxious? Probably. Are some people doing it out of the desire for increased safety? Yes.

Harley’s are terrible motorcycles with severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reasons — the argument that they should be made loud for real safety reasons employs deeply flawed reasoning.

I rode a (non Harley, well engineered) motorcycle for years and always thought the claim that you needed to make your bike loud to enhance perception was bollocks. The right answer is to always ride with the awareness that people can’t/don’t see you and plan lane position accordingly.

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

#130

Post by slap »

breatheoften wrote: post #129
tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not advocating loud motorcycles but as a rider I know from experience that cars on the roads will pay more attention and give more caution to a louder motorcycle. A simple fender bender on a motorcycle can be fatal which is the reasoning behind the phrase "Loud pipes save lives." Are some people doing it to be obnoxious? Probably. Are some people doing it out of the desire for increased safety? Yes.

Harley’s are terrible motorcycles with severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reasons — the argument that they should be made loud for real safety reasons employs deeply flawed reasoning. I rode a (non Harley, well engineered) motorcycle for years and always thought the claim that you needed to make your bike loud to enhance perception was bollocks. The right answer is to always ride with the awar…

> severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reason

Could you explain what exactly ?

Post reply on HN