11 ms·

The comments here really surprise me. My dad's a pilot, and I've heard from him firsthand how drones are a very serious problem for airplanes. Comments like "th

• jsprogrammer 11y ago
  How is the dollar value of the aircraft relevant here?
  • eykanal 11y ago
    It's not. I was trying to point out that it's more important to think about who else is in the the sandbox rather than how much you paid to get in.
    • pc86 11y ago
      I think it is relevant to a point. $30 is an incredibly low barrier to entry. It means you're much more likely to have an issue than you would be if the cheapest drone you could buy or make was measured in thousands of dollars instead.
  • ctdonath 11y ago
    An hour's earnings can destroy a decade's earnings. That tends to make some people understandably nervous to the point of lobbying lawmakers to threaten some with serious penalties for toy/hobby activities.
  • toggle 11y ago
    Million-dollar aircraft tend to have people on them, while $30 drones don't. I think that's what he was getting at.
• Glyptodon 11y ago
  Because your aircraft is going to routinely buzz residential areas at sub-500-feet and is entitled to do so risk free because it costs a lot of money or something? It's not like drones are risk free - quad copters are like hockey pucks floating in the air and can easily drift or fall. But that said, considering how many of them are in private hands and what most owners actually do with them, the registration requirements are completely onerous. You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park, you don't register to hit a baseball at the park, and it's accordingly totally not clear why you need to register to fly a small aircraft at the park when it's pretty much going to stay lower than maybe two and half telephone poles.
  • eykanal 11y ago
    If I'm following your argument, you're saying, "drones are currently not that powerful, so they should be viewed as a toy." The problem is, that argument is destined to become false. Drones are only getting more and more capable. Intelligent legislation works not only for the current scenario but also future ones. Additionally, there are many stories regarding how current drone operators either ignore common sense regarding where to fly, or make mistakes that put planes in danger, or whatever. You can simply google "airline drone near miss" to see examples. Just because people theoretically could act in an intelligent manner doesn't mean we can rely on them to actually do so.
    • ctdonath 11y ago
      No results found for "airline drone near miss" Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss". But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.
      • mikeash 11y ago
        Google turned up 137,000 results for me for "airline drone near miss." Are you sure you're using it properly? Many of the hits describe the specific near misses, thus answering your question. But the question about how many actual problems we are talking about is missing the point. Drones are at an inflection point. People have been flying them for decades as a hobby (they were called "radio control airplanes" back then) without issue, but they're set to become far more popular, far more available, and far easier to use really rapidly. The question is not so much how many problems there are today, but what it'll look like in five or ten years, and how we can get ahead of any potential problems now.
• Someone1234 11y ago
  If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc) and below 1,000 feet, and somehow an aircraft and drone collide then it is the aircraft pilot's fault. It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet except in an emergency or in controlled airspace. If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules and I hope they get fined. Also, this is why most aircraft have insurance...
  • bargl 11y ago
    If a drone is flying within a certain distance from an airport (5 miles I think) or above 400 feet they are breaking regulations... The problem is that if a pilot breaks the rule that have a tail number and might very well die. If a done does there is no tracking number and the pilot is safe at home.
    • simoncion 11y ago
      > If a done does there is no tracking number and the pilot is safe at home. Thing is, model aircraft hobbyists have been -for the most part- safely and responsibly flying RC aircraft for nearly a hundred years. These fliers haven't had any FAA registration requirement, and have not been required to put identifying information in their aircraft. The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around -and doing great good- since 1936. It has encouraged the development and nurturing of a culture within the model aircraft pilots' community that highly values safe, sane, and reasonable operation of model aircraft. One of the big ways that they do this is by chartering local model aviation clubs. Every store I'm aware of that specializes in model aircraft will -when you purchase an RC aircraft from them- steer you towards your local model aircraft club. This lets you know that there are folks who can train you (and let you get hours or months of fun from your new toy, rather than seconds), and lets those folks train you so that you learn how to not a hazard to yourself and others. It's a damn shame that so many retailers that sold "drones" failed to point their customers to their local model aviation club. So, anyway. People have been -entirely legally- flying aircraft that are substantially heavier, substantially faster, and -potentially- substantially more dangerous than "drones" for many, many decades. Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now is that the majority of folks then [0] were encouraged to learn how to operate their toys safely, and took the time to do so. [0] And when I say "then", I don't mean to imply that this effort is not still ongoing. The AMA is still around, and doing its damnedest to reach the drone-flying yahoos who are endangering themselves and others with their reckless behavior.
• cooper12 11y ago
  How does registration solve the problem of people flying in airspace though? It sounds to me like this would only be used after the fact to find out who was responsible.
  • eykanal 11y ago
    It lets you know who's playing in the sandbox, to extend the analogy. You can then use that to require training or stay in touch regarding changes to restricted airspace or whatever.
    • cooper12 11y ago
      Now that I think about it it does let them take preliminary action before something happens and talk to the owner. So it's not as bad as I thought.
  • god_bless_texas 11y ago
    You're exactly right.
  • dntrkv 11y ago
    If the drone is registered in your name, people will be more careful to make sure they don't break any laws. Some of the same reasons we register cars and have license plates. People tend to act shitty when they know they won't be held accountable.
    • mizchief2 11y ago
      or people will just take off the tag before doing something shitty with it.
  • stonemetal 11y ago
    In and of it self nothing. Though I have to say I have never registered for anything that didn't include receiving a set of rules. I would be really surprised if registering didn't get you a pamphlet on how not to get arrested while flying a drone.
• ctdonath 11y ago
  "drones are a very serious problem for airplanes" Can we get an elaboration on this? I understand pilots being very skittish about things moving anywhere too close (as in "if I can perceive it, it's too close"), but is there a brighter line between "objectively problematic" vs "hysterically paranoid"? I assume the Parrot Bebop drone I want is over 250g, and don't see the reasoning for registration when I'm not stupid enough to operate it anywhere close (however construed) to a potential manned aircraft flight path.
  • teddyg1 11y ago
    When flying, spotting anything from a higher elevation is very difficult - you essentially have to track the differential velocity of the bird / plane with respect to the ground. That's the reason why generally, the right of way in air goes to the airplane with higher elevation. Adding additional things to spot in the air, especially slow moving objects like drones, demands focus and divert attention away from flying. Other airplanes in the air are fine to spot because they move quickly, and in unrestricted airspace, generally communicate on a universal radio channel. Drones have none of these capabilities and are essentially high flying birds to avoid. In non-urban spaces, airspace above 500ft is always a potential manned aircraft flight path.
  • click170 11y ago
    I live in Vancouver. Not too long ago we had someone flying their drone in coal harbor quite likely because they didn't realize it was an active airport and float planes take off and land from that exact location. How sure are you that you know all the relevant things? http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?cno=2015P1470&dtef=&dtet=2015-08-05&otp=-1&ftop=%3e%3d&ftno=0&ijop=%3e%3d&ijno=0&olc=&prv=-1&rgn=-1&tsbno=&tsbi=-1&arno=&ocatno=&ocatop=1&oevtno=&oevtop=1&evtacoc=3&fltno=&fltr=-1&cars=-1&acat=-1&nar=&aiddl=-1&aidxt=&optdl=-1&optcomt=&optseq=&optxt=&opdlxt=Results+will+appear+in+this+list&mkdl=-1&mkxt=&mdldl=-1&mdlxt=&cmkdl=C&cmkxt=&rt=QR&hypl=y&cnum=2015P1470 http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?...
• mikeash 11y ago
  The last time I saw the topic of drones and aircraft collisions on the front page (maybe a week ago), the entire comment thread was filled with people downplaying the dangers, casting doubt on whether it even mattered, saying a three-pound (!) drone wouldn't do any actual damage on impact, etc. I find the community attitude here to be completely insane. Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway."
  • kayfox 11y ago
    I don't think the dangers need to be downplayed. The incidence does need to be looked at. I think we blame drones for all sorts of things that are not drones these days.
    • bdamm 11y ago
      There are already many cases on the books of drones flying into approach paths of airliners in many airports, including several into JFK. Just last week there was a case of a police helicopter that had a very close call with a drone (the helicopter pilot did execute collision avoidance, and police on the ground tracked the drone operator.) Incidence is there and rising.
      • mizchief2 11y ago
        So what difference would registration make in that case? I have no problem with prosecuting people who do stupid and dangerous things with drones, but making everyone who buys a toy to fly on their own property under 100ft is over reaching and treats everyone like a criminal.
    • mikeash 11y ago
      What do drones get blamed for that aren't drones, exactly?
  • ubernostrum 11y ago
• wyager 11y ago
  A plane will smoke a civilian quadcopter every single time. The only place where pilots should be close enough to the ground to hit a quadcopter are near airports, where quadcopters are already banned. This is a non-issue. Pilots are complaining about nothing. They did the same thing with lasers a few years back. Civilian diode lasers have such a high divergence that they pose no risk to a pilot more than a few thousand feet off the ground, but pilots kept fear mongering and claiming that we needed to ban lasers everywhere. Again, the only vulnerable locations were airports.
• forgottenpass 11y ago
  I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". There is a subconscious line of reasoning a lot of people in The States (and I assume similar nations) get that goes something like: "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."
  • Buttons840 11y ago
    > "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any." That actually seems like a reasonable thought, despite the logical fallacy that "if I can't see any problem, there must not be a problem". Unfortunately, another line of reasoning may soon be common, "X seems safe, but I better double check with the government to ensure I wont face several hundred thousand dollars in fines and years in prison if I do this." I have flown kites higher than I ever would a model drone, and they are heavier and take up more space because of the string. Of course, I was a child at the time; kites are primarily a cheap children's toy. Even so, better watch out for those several hundred thousand dollar fines. Even if its safe and reasonable, better just double check.
  • cmurf 11y ago
    Yes, stupid people with no imagination often think this way.
• InclinedPlane 11y ago
  For most people it should be close to a non-issue. Learn the rules of operating safely, don't be dumb, you'll be fine. If all you do is play with drones recreationally you're not going to run afoul of the rules. The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high (which isn't easy for a lot of off the shelf drones to start with), or flying in areas where they obviously shouldn't be to start with (rescue situations, controlled airspace, etc.)
  • CountSessine 11y ago
    What about airports located within city limits? The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high The people flying the drones aren't getting themselves into trouble. They're getting others into trouble. They themselves are perfectly safe. They're dumping a huge externality onto anyone who flies in an airplane.
    • bigiain 11y ago
      <devil's advocate> How is that different from the externality people choosing to fly in airplanes are dumping on anyone else's use of airspace? Why should _your_ right to fly your Cessna/JetRanger/A380 trump _my_ right to fly a drone/kite/model-rocket?
      • CountSessine 11y ago
        If these two activities are incompatible, it's going to be because drone pilots refuse to be bound by regulations that pilots observe. We live in an open society. If we need to choose between these two activities, we can have a referendum or plebiscite. The general public can decide. Some people will vote in favour of a small, entitled minority who want to play with a dangerous toy without responsibility. Others will vote in favour of the continuation of general air transportation, which we have had for about 100 years. We'll see how that goes.
        • bigiain 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I remember a great quote, "If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, then the answers don't matter." Model airplanes have been a threat to airplanes since they became popular in 1915. Yes, 100 years ago. So why regulate them beyond the existing regulations now? A better question is "What changed?" Anyone who owns a quad copter of the type they show on various stories about this, knows they are a pain in the ass to fly in high wind environments. Even with 9DOF IMU assisted station keeping a stiff wind will blow them around. So why now? Why haven't people complained about 1:10 scale jets they fly around at RC plane meetups? Those things are fast and can fly straight through a gust of wind. This program isn't about "danger to aircraft", this program is entirely about identifying the owner of a R/C model and being able to jail/fine people who don't agree to link their model to their identity. That ownership link is essential in prosecuting the right person when their model photographs something that someone else doesn't want photographed, whether it is a celebrity sunbathing topless in their back yard or police officers beating down protestors. Its about identifying the owner of one of these devices when they are used in the commission of a crime, whether it is unlicensed surveillance or simple burglary. Its about identifying the owner of the R/C model that just crashed into your sports car and scratched the paint. None if the prosecutions can be cost effective if the perpetrator can argue that it is plausibly not their R/C model. And having hundreds of identical models sold? Sure anyone could have been flying that particular unit as it buzzed your beach house. This program is about tying people's identities to the R/C models they operate so that they can be prosecuted when they do something that someone else doesn't like with them. It is couched in terms of "safety of aircraft" because that is a narrative that the general public can get their head around, however the risk to aircraft is already "priced into" the existing regulations.
  • euyyn 11y ago
    I don't see why can't one attach a camera to an RC plane. You didn't answer "what changed / why now".
    • ChuckMcM 11y ago
      They could (and have), POV cameras in R/C planes have been a thing for a while now. It was just more expensive and so people didn't do it without consideration. It was more complicated to fly an R/C helicopter. (search for 'learn to fly an R/C helicopter' some time :-) ). Now however you can put a camera on a quad-copter (or buy one with one) on an image stabilized mount, and take HD movies of areas you couldn't get too before. That has really irked / woken up some people. All without any training and only a bit of practice. That is what changed that people have asked the FAA to "fix."
• yuhong 11y ago
  If you only fly indoors you don't have to register BTW.
• paulddraper 11y ago
  So when my drone flies through a jet engine and causes $1m of damage, the FAA is going to look at the identification number on my done? Impressive. Humpty Dumpty should've called these guys.