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

Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

dronehire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#81

Post by baddox »

jccooper wrote: post #42
cryptoz wrote: post #6

Okay, time to build drones full of atmosphere sensors! The weather forecast is about to get a lot better....this is excellent news for crowdsourcing remote data about the atmosphere. I've been pulling pressure measurements from smartphones for a while, but a core problem is that a lot of weather develops over areas of low smartphone density. Sending out drone fleets will be a most excellent solution; they're reusable…

Unless you're collecting your data under 400 feet, this ruling isn't going to enable such a system. Only "model aircraft" operation is involved.

Are you sure that's the case? The 400 feet rule comes from FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 (in 1981), which is essentially a public memo with ambiguous (weak at best) legal status.

AC 91-57 (pdf): http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisor...

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#82

Post by efuquen »

skue wrote: post #66

This appears to be the video that upset the FAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17 And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's he…

Man, that looked rather dangerous and the pilot seemed to have a complete disregard for potentially crashing into buildings and harming someone if that thing fell to the ground or went through a window. If he was just meandering around in what would have looked like a safe manner I wouldn't care as much, but intentionally getting extremely close to buildings and doing acrobatics in a populated area seems pretty reckless.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#83

Post by Crito »

sosborn wrote: post #71
outworlder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you go around randomly destroying other people's property?

That question is as appropriate as "So, you go around randomly trespassing on other people's property?"

I suppose that question prompts the question, "So, do you normally shoot at aircraft that are above your property?"

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#84

Post by bnzelener »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #67
001sky wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks pretty grey "There are already hobbyists that operate "drones" by any reasonable definition. The term in the hobby is "FPV" (First Person View) - you install a camera and a transmitter on your aircraft and pilot it from a first-person perspective using a monitor on the ground. The radios on these operate by line-of-sight, but the range is far beyond visual range. You can find plenty of videos on Youtube just se…

I'm interested in controlled drones not by radio control, but with waypoints, and telemetry provided over LTE. Further investigation required!

A friend and I are working on this verbatim! Building an iOS interface for controlling the drone in-flight and planning missions, and a little "black box" that will connect to the autopilot computer and send telem data over LTE. We'll post on DIYDrones and FPVLab once it's ready for testers.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#85

Post by andymoe »

Here at my little company Fighting Walrus [1] (we make a radio accessory so small commercial UAVs can be controlled via iPad) we are really excited that there has been some forward movement on the legal front. My personal view has always been that commercial drone use would be worked out in the courts before the FAA really got a handle on their (much delayed) roadmap for integrating them into the national airspace. However I would caution that the FAA is probably going to appeal the decision to the full five member safety board. The FAA is not going to give up regulatory control of this class of small unmanned aerial vehicles (SUAVs) easily.

[1] http://www.fightingwalrus.com

ps. If this stuff interests you come to the SF Drones Startup Meetup my Co-Founder Bryan organizes - http://www.meetup.com/SF-Drones-Startup-Meetup (About 700 members so far!)

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#86

Post by bnzelener »

efuquen wrote: post #82
skue wrote: post #66

This appears to be the video that upset the FAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17 And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's he…

Man, that looked rather dangerous and the pilot seemed to have a complete disregard for potentially crashing into buildings and harming someone if that thing fell to the ground or went through a window. If he was just meandering around in what would have looked like a safe manner I wouldn't care as much, but intentionally getting extremely close to buildings and doing acrobatics in a populated area seems pretty reckl…

To my knowledge, "Trappy" (nickname of the pilot) is one of the best RC pilots around. He flies for Team Blacksheep, and is a big figure in the drone community for encouraging safety, education, and progressing the tech.

He's definitely known for pushing the envelope on reckless flight, but I get the sense that he would take responsibility if something happened.

These flying wings (foam plane model) absorb a lot of force on impact. Even with the GoPros and all radio equipment loaded on. Aside from causing commotion, I think it's unlikely that you'd severely injure someone. Possible, but unlikely. A quad-rotor heli falling out of the sky would really hurt, though.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#87

Post by bliti »

jccooper wrote: post #37

It's not quite so big as the headline, but it's still good. Here's the scoop: The FAA has long had rules for model aircraft, which would include many small "drones", and under which you can personally operate them now. You're supposed to stay low and away from stuff you could damage. They also (as of fairly recently) have some rules for UAS (unmanned aerial systems) that are more like the rules for real aircraft, and…

I know of several engineering companies who took aerial photos with R/C airplanes. Ranging from project sites, to land surveying, to real estate, etc. Does this ruling stop them from doing what they have been doing since the 1990s?

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#88

Post by atourgates »

efuquen wrote: post #82
skue wrote: post #66

This appears to be the video that upset the FAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17 And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's he…

Man, that looked rather dangerous and the pilot seemed to have a complete disregard for potentially crashing into buildings and harming someone if that thing fell to the ground or went through a window. If he was just meandering around in what would have looked like a safe manner I wouldn't care as much, but intentionally getting extremely close to buildings and doing acrobatics in a populated area seems pretty reckl…

I think there's a pretty low risk of serious damage occurring from this drone colliding with much of anything. This is the model being piloted in the videos: http://www.ritewingrc.com/Zephyr_II_ARF.html

It's basically two pieces of EPS foam with some electronics and a pusher prop. If you were going to be hit in the face by a "drone" - you couldn't really pick a less damaging one.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#89

Post by bostonpete »

skue wrote: post #66

This appears to be the video that upset the FAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17 And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's he…

If the video was filmed "for" UVA, it's strange that they didn't include a more complete/balanced picture of the grounds. 80-90% of the video seemed to revolve around the hospital area.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#90

Post by simonk »

bliti wrote: post #87
jccooper wrote: post #37

It's not quite so big as the headline, but it's still good. Here's the scoop: The FAA has long had rules for model aircraft, which would include many small "drones", and under which you can personally operate them now. You're supposed to stay low and away from stuff you could damage. They also (as of fairly recently) have some rules for UAS (unmanned aerial systems) that are more like the rules for real aircraft, and…

I know of several engineering companies who took aerial photos with R/C airplanes. Ranging from project sites, to land surveying, to real estate, etc. Does this ruling stop them from doing what they have been doing since the 1990s?

Looks like this makes that legal.
Post reply on HN