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

FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 283 posts

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#171

Post by randycupertino »

triceratops wrote: post #100
jakear wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> drones foreigners like to fly meters from my face videotaping me Please explain. I'm genuinely curious.

I was doing yoga in a sports bra and short shorts on my back deck that faces a canyon and had a drone with lights and cameras fly down to my house directly above the deck railing within a few meters of me. It was completely obnoxious and completely startled me. I thought it was a neighbor playing with an RC car out in the street at first until I saw the lights in the sky.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#172

Post by randycupertino »

kreeben wrote: post #20
xnx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure Wouldn't the cost of elevating the loaded drones to the rooftop of that tall structure negate any monetary gains? Wouldn't the cost be exactly that of simply using grounded vehicles that elevate themselves? (edited for clarity)

Reminds me of the pneumatic tubes used in hospitals to send labs between units. You can tour the pneumatic tube system at Stanford- it's several miles long. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/pneumatic-tubes-at-stanf...

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#173

Post by jakear »

triceratops wrote: post #100
jakear wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> drones foreigners like to fly meters from my face videotaping me Please explain. I'm genuinely curious.

Not sure what there is to explain. I regularly walk my dog along a ~1 mile stretch of secluded but public beach, and a handful of times groups of foreigners have had their drones follow me obnoxiously closely for prolonged periods, I assume recording me. The camera stays pointed at me, though I very clearly shoo it away with my hands, avert my gaze, and block my face with my hair.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#174

Post by robbrown451 »

Sodman wrote: post #109
throwawaysea wrote: post #35

Whenever 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…

But you have to consider that things are grandfathered in because we are used to them. I mean, if tobacco was discovered today, no one would be allowed to sell it. Changing rules on things like motorcycles and other existing vehicle is really hard.

This is a new thing, and (in my opinion) we should make rules based on how those things will affect us as collectively, rather than purely out of a need to be consistent with all existing things.

Remember also, how often are you bothered by a loud motorcycle? Living in a city, it is fairly regular here, sometimes in the middle of the night, but not THAT regular.

For all we know, drones over my house might be an every five minutes thing. Even if they are much quieter than that occasional window-rattling Harley, it could be far more annoying overall.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#175

Post by jamiek88 »

souprock wrote: post #131
chrisdalke wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not why the FAA is regulating it, and these regulations won't stop that. They're regulating because people are flying recklessly above 400ft, above roadways, and in restricted airspace.

Flying above 400 feet is only a problem because aircraft can fly down at 500 feet. Do we really want aircraft at only 500 feet? I wouldn't want even a typical general aviation aircraft going over my house at that height. Make it an Airbus 380 and it might be entertaining. The solution is to raise the height for normal aircraft. That makes room for drones. We could give the drones from 500 to 1900 feet, putting normal…

Aircraft have to land and takeoff.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#176

Post by throwawaysea »

Sodman wrote: post #109
throwawaysea wrote: post #35

Whenever 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…

I disagree. A drone can be used to harass them with its presence in an anonymous manner. It can also more easily follow someone around, as opposed to someone in the bushes. A DSLR with a long lens doesn’t have that mobility, is considerably more expensive, and stabilizing video at very long distance is hard.

I’m also not sure what bearing a Harley has on this situation - we can reason about this without bringing motorcycles into the picture. But for consistency sake I am also against vehicles that are as loud as motorcycles and don’t accept the weak argument that the loudness is a “safety feature”.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#177

Post by mynameisvlad »

macintux wrote: post #163
grumple wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t sharp. Doesn’t seem like a realistic concern tbh.

Being hit in the eye with a flying object spinning at high speeds...how much would it matter how sharp the blades are?

This comment thread is about someone adding a parachute to their drone if they lose power, so it doesn’t fall on someone.

The propellers would not be spinning, and the object would be gently gliding down.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#178

Post by throwawaysea »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #75
post_break wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this just sounds like NIMBY. First there are loud drones and quiet drones, noise pollution can be regulated. Next the video from a drone for spying on a woman jogging is nothing compared to someone with a decent DSLR with a telephoto that makes zero noise. And third drone deliveries could have airspace carved out that avoids residential or places that would annoy people. Now that said some people are obnoxio…

The idea of police drones flying around is honestly even worse

Personally I am less worried about police use of drones because their use is presumably helping deter crime and catch suspects who have committed a crime. With the right regulations and controls, I feel less violated from a privacy perspective than from random individuals using airspace for greater reach of their cameras - especially when they do things like hover over your private hedged backyard.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#179

Post by macintux »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #177
macintux wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being hit in the eye with a flying object spinning at high speeds...how much would it matter how sharp the blades are?

This comment thread is about someone adding a parachute to their drone if they lose power, so it doesn’t fall on someone. The propellers would not be spinning, and the object would be gently gliding down.

The start of the thread was about either losing power or losing control.

The GP dismissal of the danger of the propellors sounded suspiciously like the guy on YT who just got fined $182k by the FAA, who argued that the first offense for hitting someone in the head should be a $20 fine.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#180

Post by clamprecht »

snuxoll wrote: post #154
clamprecht wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish drones could, at least optionally, transmit on ADS-B, with some "drone" flag. That could help pilots with ADS-B IN a lot, as long as it was clearly indicated as a drone.

With the proliferation of drones the entire ADS-B system would get overwhelmed, which is why the rules explicitly state that uSAS' are NOT allowed to transmit on ADS-B. Not to mention ADS-B OUT is expensive as all hell, power hungry and heavy - not a good match for lightweight unmanned craft.

I hear ya... maybe ADS-B isn't the solution here, but I wish pilots could somehow see drones on the traffic screen.
Post reply on HN