who would even remotely trust the FAA at this point?
It's a broken agency that is very much bought and paid for by commercial interests at the expense of the people it is ther to protect.
FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
101–110 of 283 posts
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a lot of doubts on the cost/efficiency of this. Keeping things airborne will always cost a lot more energy than rolling things around. Ground-based delivery robots make some sense, air-based ones likely don't.
I had the crazy thought that drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure (like a skyscraper or antenna), take advantage of the height differential to efficiently glide toward their delivery destination, and then make their return with less weight to carry. Probably very few locales where this could make sense compared to automated sidewalk deliveries like Starship. The speed…
This is not totally crazy. A problem would be you then need a lift to carry everything to the top floor and an expensive structure to support it. You also have local wind and weather conditions to deal with at altitude.
Alternatively, you could use a ground-based slingshot to vertically propel gliders, an approach that is already used in the military and for some long distance UAV testing. However, the wing-based UAV vs. rotor-based UAV physics are very different. Landing an elevated glider with a clear path to its target is one thing, maneuvering between trees and power lines in a complex environment without rotors is quite another.
Then you need to look at a 'convertible' UAV with both features... undoubtedly this raises the cost, reduces the carrying capacity, and is already being pursued.
Finally, you could zoom out and re-evaluate the business case. Why not use a network of local dispatch points (handover points to ground-based UAVs or vans) to reduce the distance to the consumer and with the smaller geographic scope negotiate private airspace access on locally agreeable terms. I believe this is the future for general consumption (food, regular deliveries within small package weight/dimension limits).
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom window. Some people have very different concerns about accountability of drones.
Magnetron and a wok for a dish. Kitchen counter measures.
Be careful there tough guy, drones receive the same protections as aircraft. A threat against one is punishable under 18 U.S. Code § 32.
"Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat [against an aircraft] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#104Even though I don't fly over people, I retrofitted a parachute onto my DJI drone just in case. It automatically deploys if the drone loses power or control. It doesn't impact flight characteristics or battery life by much. I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the silly int…
Do you have write up of this retrofit? How is it triggered?
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Birdshot?
I’d pay good money for a shotgun-like device that had power enough to take down the drones foreigners like to fly meters from my face videotaping me as I walk down the beach, but not powerful enough to be dangerous to use in such contexts.
Obviously not a shotgun - but if you're serious about wanting to safely disable drones you can buy net guns that actually work.
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
hard to see how this could be legal. you don't get to destroy other people's stuff just because they are annoying you with it. even if what they are doing is not quite legal, you would probably end up on the wrong side of the law yourself.
> you don't get to destroy other people's stuff just because they are annoying you with it. https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/news/a17969/m...
right, but that was on the dude's property, not a public beach. also it was in kentucky.
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#107goodbye blue sky
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noise pollution can be regulated separately.
It should be part of the rule allowing them to fly at night. It's clearly related, why delay?
because the Gov. only likes to combine laws when it suits them... i.e.: corona virus stimulus package and felony for streaming
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#109Whenever I encounter people flying drones - for example at the park - I find it highly obnoxious. The buzzing of their rotors is noise pollution that ruins the peace of a park/natural area, and while I recognize the right to record in public spaces, there’s something especially creepy about a drone flying along a jogging path near you armed with the latest 4K cameras. I think drone enthusiasts don’t understand how th…
As long as there are no rules against a Harley Davidson which can be heard by anyone within a mile radius cruising down the street at 10pm (same goes for loud muscle cars, trucks etc), it seems like we shouldn't go arbitrarily restricting drone noise.
With regards to cameras in public places, I'd be far more worried about somebody hiding in the bushes quietly with a DSLR that nobody knows about. At least with a drone you're very aware that it's there. If you want to change the laws about taking pictures in public places - fine (and good luck!) but again, singling out drones doesn't make much sense here.
Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
#110The final rule looks to be a big win for everyone who was protesting the original proposed rule: "The final Remote ID rule eliminates the requirement that drones be connected to the internet to transmit location data; the final rule requires drones to broadcasts remote ID messages via radio frequency broadcast." This is great because RF broadcast-based Remote ID is much simpler and cost-effective to integrate into ex…
It is extremely hypocritical in any form. At the same time that the FAA is asking hobbyists to broadcast identification, they are modifying the rules to allow the rich and famous to change their identifiers at will preventing any sort of public accountability. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/
I bet that's to make it harder to track domestic surveillance planes more than anything to do with wealthy privacy concerns.