FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by swiley » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

rkagerer wrote: post #78

Even 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…

That's an extremely good idea, I'm surprised that isn't a standard feature. Do you have any STL files/firmware you'd like to share to help other people do it?

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

#272

Post by swiley » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

on_and_off wrote: post #128

rkagerer wrote: post #78

Even 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…

I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features. I would pay extra for a drone with such safeguards. just the prospect of less chances of ruining it would be enough. Similarly, eskates often have a regenerative battery charging while braking which is a great idea. but it also cannot handle charging while already full. So if you go down a slope while the board is full,…

Geese is shunting a resistor across the motor so hard?

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

#273

Post by p410n3 » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

fjabre wrote: post #125

donatj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean there is mass surveillance of basically all communication.

Little different when a drone is hanging out over your 52nd floor penthouse with an HD cam of your most of your apartment and the ability to get closer and see things in your place that you can't even see with your naked eyes. Then I don't even have the option of throwing my phone or alexa in the fireplace. This makes sense to me. Not sure where people are getting lost. This commenter p410n3 is clearly a cynic. Some…

> I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall.

How is CCTV that much different? Or people with cameras?

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

#274

Post by Sodman » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #174

Sodman wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I'd be more amenable to this argument if motorcycles etc were products that stopped production years ago, and we were left with a handful of privately maintained vehicles. The reality is though that you can still buy a brand new Harley today, for a relatively affordable price (starting at ~$7.5k). To be clear - I'm not saying we should outlaw motorcycles entirely... my point is that since I can buy a brand new loud motorcycle for funsies, neighbors noise complaints be damned, I should also be able to buy and operate a drone too. I'm all for new noise restrictions, but they should apply to everything.

I don't know if I can put much stock in the frequency argument either... If you live in a neighborhood and 3 guys with motorcycles move in, you'll be hearing them very regularly. Drones aren't going to come any more often than delivery trucks do today, and they're certainly loud enough to be heard, not even counting the extra wear on the local roads, and increased pedestrian danger.

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

#275

Post by robbrown451 » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

Sodman wrote: post #274

robbrown451 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I'd be more amenable to this argument if motorcycles etc were products that stopped production years ago, and we were left with a handful of privately maintained vehicles. The reality is though that you can still buy a brand new Harley today, for a relatively affordable price (starting at ~$7.5k). To be clear - I'm not saying we should outlaw motorcycles entirely... my point is that since I can buy a brand new loud m…

"they should apply to everything."

Well that seems based purely on consistency, and I just disagree with that. I'm all for outlawing (or heavily taxing) newly produced, loud motorcycles, but it's not a hill I want to die on. Internal combustion is a fading technology anyway.

Remember that internal combustion replaced horses, which at one time covered city streets in massive amounts of manure. As new transportation technology arrived, should we have just said "anything that is equal or better than tons of horse crap is A-ok"? Or should we hold new technology to higher standards, while letting the annoying old stuff fade away on its own?

"Drones aren't going to come any more often than delivery trucks do today"

I find that an odd assumption. If the cost gets low enough, as it will, you'll have people ordering drone-delivered trivially small purchases that they want delivered immediately, such as cups of coffee. Meanwhile, the frequency of loud motorcycles will get less and less, as electric vehicles become more common over the next few decades.

If it were up to me, drone deliveries would just have to pay an annoyance tax, to compensate. This would create an economic incentive to develop other alternatives, such as robotic deliveries that roll on the ground.... which to me makes far more sense anyway, since they aren't spending most of their energy simply keeping themselves airborne as drones do.

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

#276

Post by Sodman » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #275

Sodman wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be more amenable to this argument if motorcycles etc were products that stopped production years ago, and we were left with a handful of privately maintained vehicles. The reality is though that you can still buy a brand new Harley today, for a relatively affordable price (starting at ~$7.5k). To be clear - I'm not saying we should outlaw motorcycles entirely... my point is that since I can buy a brand new loud m…

"they should apply to everything." Well that seems based purely on consistency, and I just disagree with that. I'm all for outlawing (or heavily taxing) newly produced, loud motorcycles, but it's not a hill I want to die on. Internal combustion is a fading technology anyway. Remember that internal combustion replaced horses, which at one time covered city streets in massive amounts of manure. As new transportation te…

ICE powered regular passenger cars are going to die off sooner or later sure, but I don't think motorcycles are going away in our lifetimes without some heavy regulations.

My gut says an annoyance fee makes sense, but I think we need to be careful... Maybe it's only something you enforce after you hit a threshold of deliveries per day/week or something? Today I can place a single amazon order for multiple small items (think batteries, toilet roll, etc), and there's a decent chance they'll all come on separate trucks, maybe even from different mail carriers. That doesn't feel much different? I can't think of too much more beyond a fresh cup of coffee that a drone could deliver that you can't already get today with services like UberEats et al. Should my neighbors pay an annoyance fee when they order pizza and the 18 year old delivery guy swings by with his radio on full blast? I'd love if the answer was yes, but that doesn't feel realistic.

Re: holding new technology to a higher standard... Sure, but we have to make sure not to disadvantage the new tech so much as to completely prevent adoption. If it costs $50 to get some batteries delivered in the next hour via drone vs $0 on an old ice-powered truck in the next day, we'll never move on. Even if we electrify the delivery trucks, they still cause significant wear and tear on local roads, and still pose a hazard to pedestrians (especially kids playing in otherwise quiet residential streets). We should be incentivizing companies and consumers to move away from this as fast as possible in my opinion. Make triple-glazed windows cheaper, invest in quieter drone motor tech, whatever it takes. If we regulated car emissions in the early days like we do today, we might still all be on horses...

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

#277

Post by Accujack » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

Phlarp wrote: post #141

bluescrn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want to spy on somebody, you don’t use a noisy buzzing drone right outside a window, or hovering in an otherwise empty sky. Even something as crude as a smartphone on a stick could be more covert. Surprised that even tech enthusiasts are often so fearful of drones while not worried about the hundreds of cameras already filming their activities in most public places.

Even further than this, the type of camera found on most drones is quite terrible for detailed surveillance work. Even if it does have a "high definition" camera recording to local storage these are Gopro style lenses with massive FOV, fisheye distortion and calibrated to handle a very wide range of light exposure up to and including direct sun. Shooting meaningful video through a window is a joke at best. As you've…

So all those government types using technologies like "gorgon stare" from aircraft and other aerial platforms aren't consequential?

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

#278

Post by Accujack » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

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?

There are existing laws that make that illegal/an invasion of privacy. There's no need to make a law about drones doing it, especially since it would be mostly unenforceable.

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

#279

Post by saagarjha » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 3:53 AM UTC

datameta wrote: post #87

kreeben wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An elevator indeed. But there's a cost involved in elevating goods to the top of a tall building. My question was, is that cost smaller than the cost of having drones with elevation capabilities take of from the ground?

Presumably the predominant portion of the energy used to raise an elevator is for the mass of the elevator itself

Usually elevators are counterweighted fairly significantly.

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

#280

Post by datameta » Sun, Jan 03, 2021, 8:34 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #279

datameta wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the predominant portion of the energy used to raise an elevator is for the mass of the elevator itself

Usually elevators are counterweighted fairly significantly.

As you say it is actually using very little energy in overcoming the inertia of the system to go up as the counterweight outweighs an empty elevator, and the weight of a drone is insignificant in this regard. However when coming back down the system must raise the heavy counterweight which is only partially balanced by the empty elevator.