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

231–240 of 283 posts

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

#231

Post by dannyw »

bosswipe wrote: post #142
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #24

I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow. My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping in through the windows. Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?

Everyone on HN is cheering the relaxation of these rules but I'm angry because of concerns similar to yours. I'm now of the mind of "if you can't fight them join them", I want regulation-free counter-attack drones that destroy any drones that approach my property. But I'm really afraid that this robot vs robot future that we keep rushing towards is not one that we should be creating.

Laws and regulations revolve. When bad things happen, regulations will change. When bad things don’t happen and there is public utility in allowing more things, regulations will eventually change.

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

#232

Post by dannyw »

pc86 wrote: post #21
lumost wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely that the energy cost of drone delivery is a small fraction of the cost a human delivery driver incurs walking to a stoop, particularly if one considers the not insignificant injury risk. flight is appealing over ground based drones as one delivery truck or base station could concurrently service multiple blocks with lower risk of someone abducting or damaging the drone. Although in all honesty I'm not sur…

You're naive if you think a company is going to take on increases costs via drone-based deliveries to marginally decrease delivery driver injury risk.

Even if you’re a “independent contractor” for Uber, if you get injured while working, their health insurance will kick in as a last resort.

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

#233

Post by noizejoy »

rangersanger wrote: post #76
noizejoy wrote: post #38

Earlier 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?

> It's clearly related, why delay?

Different regulations are handled by different authorities. Noise is often regulated at a local level.

For example, someone living close to the Niagara Falls may not be bothered by the same drone noise that someone in a remote area without much ambient noise might be.

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

#235

Post by noizejoy »

Triv888 wrote: post #108
rangersanger wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And (some) HN commenters only like to combine issues when it suits them :-)

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

#236

Post by 10000truths »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #219
xvector wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the dumbest thing I experienced with my Model 3. I was expecting my regen brakes to work after I pulled out and I had to brake super hard after. Why can’t Tesla just give us an option to keep it consistent? I guess adding video games is more important.

Because that's not how batteries work. Regen works because the batteries are being charged by the induction of the motors taking energy from the moving car. If the batteries are full they cannot take any more change and hence cannot draw power from the motion of the car. What do you expect them to do? Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?

> Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?

That's called an induction brake and it's already widely used in trains and semi trucks. That said, you still need a friction brake at low speeds, since the induction braking force is proportional to velocity.

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

#237

Post by poof131 »

While I applaud this move, I still feel the FAA is woefully failing at integrating UAS into the airspace. The Beyond Visual Line of Site issue still seems like a blocker to real adoption and with no real path forward yet. It baffles me that the airspace up to 200’ above private property can’t be BVLOS for the owner. This would enable advances in agriculture, construction, security, ranching, utility inspections, and certainly many more areas.

Additionally, the idea that the FEDs can manage all this is insane. Drones are not airlines, where a city 30k’ below a flight path shouldn’t have a say in the flight. If drone flights take off, land, or transits a cities boundaries, that city should be more involved than the FEDs, who should just manage overall safety and compliance. The future of drones and beyond visual line of sight over other people's property will be more akin to cars, the DMV, and public roads, than to aircraft, airlines, and the ATC. It will require a ton of local involvement, which, unfortunately, the major corporate players focused on delivery don’t want.

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

#238

Post by meekrohprocess »

phkahler wrote: post #55
treeman79 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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.

Sure, but then what happens when you give your neighbor's dog RF burns for walking in the vicinity? Unshielded magnetrons aren't exactly safe...

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

#239

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

xvector wrote: post #189
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teslas turn off regenerative breaking if you charge too far, but the car tells you that pretty prominently: however, the car handles very differently without Regen brakes.

This was the dumbest thing I experienced with my Model 3. I was expecting my regen brakes to work after I pulled out and I had to brake super hard after. Why can’t Tesla just give us an option to keep it consistent? I guess adding video games is more important.

I mean, the solution is not to charge past 90%: for most practical purposes there’s no reason to go past 90% anyways.

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

#240

Post by rexf »

heartbreak wrote: post #62
leetcrew wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't followed drone stuff closely in a while. any idea how this affects an older drone like a DJI spark that wasn't designed with these requirements in mind? is it just impossible to fly legally now?

These requirements won't affect a DJI Spark for at least another 2.5 years, by which point hopefully DJI will have a retrofit solution.

I genuinely wonder how much DJI cares about supporting older drones such as the discontinued Spark. Or would they rather sell you the latest drone instead (Mavic Mini or future equivalent)?
Post reply on HN