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

91–100 of 143 posts

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

#91

Post by [deleted] »

bnzelener wrote: post #86
efuquen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by toomuchtodo »

bnzelener wrote: post #84
toomuchtodo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brilliant!

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

#93

Post by king_jester »

atourgates wrote: post #88
efuquen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the drone has any significant speed, it will cause serious damage to an individual if hit. If it causes a traffic disruption, the danger then comes from a vehicle that may make a maneuver to avoid getting hit or if a driver loses control after colliding with the drone. It it shatters glass, serious lacerations could occur for pedestrians.

This kind of flying is highly reckless and only an asshole would do this.

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

#94

Post by commandar »

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!

Very much possible. Ardupilot is one of the more full-featured open source packages, but there are simpler autopilots out there as well. It's pretty common practice to at the very least have a GPS based "return to launch" system on long-range FPV craft as a failsafe for the connection to the ground station being dropped.

http://ardupilot.com/

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

#95

Post by abruzzi »

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'm curious what property owners rights will be for private drone overflight. What altitude will they have to be? I also wonder if I put a 70ft radio tower (amateur radio) with guy wires for support, will the amazon drones be smart enough not to run into my equipment when overflying my house.

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

#96

Post by fooqux »

fixedd wrote: post #76
luckyno13 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I am way over simplifying this but I always thought integrating something similar to the Roomba's ability to find "home," land, recharge and resume would be a nice solution.

Better yet, have it find an overhead power line ;)

Oh sure, the FAA wouldn't mind that at all. ;)

Besides, the various utility companies would surely not be pleased by the theft of energy.

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

#97

Post by lholoubek »

biblio777 wrote: post #80

Let's stick with some facts (I'm a pilot and work closely with the FAA for my dayjob so I know a bit about this space) ... - The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground. - There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or…

It appears this issue is exactly what the decision addressed. At issue was whether the definition of "aircraft" applied to the model aircraft that Mr. Pirker was flying. You're correct in stating that every aircraft, as defined under the regulations, must have FAA approval (in most cases, a COA). The judge concluded specifically that "aircraft as defined in 14 CFR Part 1, Section 1.1 does not include model aircraft.[1] The conclusion to be drawn is that the FAA approval process does not apply to model aircraft. This finding was in addition to finding that the FAA policies on model aircraft - including the ban on commercial use - are not legally enforceable.

[1]"Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition."

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

#98

Post by elliottkember »

bnzelener wrote: post #86
efuquen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

The issue is the example being set. Trappy is definitely one of the best, but his videos don't demonstrate his hours of experience, or safety considerations, to a novice pilot. The affordability of the machine plus some examples of fancy flying are sure to put dangerous machines in the hands of idiots, and that's best avoided. Remember - these things fly out of the box with no training.

Trappy also has access to many more multicopter spares than the rest of us. This may have something to do with his reckless flying!

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

#99

Post by commandar »

SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #31

So as a pilot of a manned aircraft what does this mean for the safety of my flights? Do I need to start trying to avoid unlicensed, unlit, and unannounced drone aircraft whenever I'm below 400ft AGL? Edit: Thanks to everyone below for your thoughtful comments. My replies are as follows: 1) Regarding model aircraft - I would argue that the low density of these operations at the moment is what has prevented an incident…

The same advisory that puts a 400ft ceiling on model aircraft also requires the operator to contact and get approval from ATC if they're within a 3 mile radius of an airport.

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

#100

Post by maxcan »

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…

> 1500ft AGL

Thats critical. Below 500ft and away from airports you're basically out of manned use airspace. above that (depending on the area) and now you're creating a very real hazard for manned aircraft.

Post reply on HN