5 ms·

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 somethi

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.
  - sveiss 11y ago
    A "near miss" in aviation terms would be anything close enough to potentially compromise safety if anything else went wrong. This tends to be taken very seriously – for example, every such reported incident in the UK is investigated and a report issued – even when the distances involved seem very large for a ‘near miss’. The UK investigative authority cites an example where the aircraft involved were 3 miles apart horizontally, and yet it was still handled as a safety issue ( http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagetype=70&gid=947&faqid=677 http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagety... ). I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant. The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!
  - rfrank 11y ago
    1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/06/near-collision-with-drone-forces-chp-helicopter-to-abandon-search-for-stolen-car-over-martinez/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/06/near-collision-w... 2. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-helicopter-drone-20150812-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-helicopt...
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    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. close but no harm done Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot of my airplane to be distracted by your asshat-ery no matter how much distance you think you have from the airplane.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Why would a pilot be distracted by a drone?
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        On my next to last landing at my home airport, I was warned of "remote controlled aircraft" on the final approach path, 1.5 miles from the runway. At that point on a 3* approach path, I'm a little over 400' above the touchdown zone and the land rises slightly in this direction, so I'm a little under 400' above ground. Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?
        ryanlol 11y ago
        How is your average drone different from birds? Non-zero doesn't mean worth mentioning.
        sokoloff 11y ago
        Many birds have eyesight and a dive response to approaching aircraft.
        ryanlol 11y ago
        Most drones have cameras and operators (which also have eyesight).
Qworg 11y ago
> You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park Actually, you do if you'll exceed a certain height or if your rocket engine is larger than H (or perhaps I) class.
- jonnycowboy 11y ago
  H or I class rocket engines are definitely not "park rockets".
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  Yeah, H class requires level 1 certification from Tripoli or NAR. And for good reason I'd say. I just happened to launch an F-class yesterday - definitely not your kid-friendly little model rocket that you could launch from the baseball field nearby; that things goes far and carries quite a bit of mass. If something goes wrong and it shoots into a person, it could do some damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classificat...
CamperBob2 11y ago
I'm not clear on how these are more dangerous to aircraft than large birds are. The latter probably outnumber drones by a million to one.
- bdamm 11y ago
  Any pilot will tell you that birds do most of the work when it comes to collision avoidance. Drones, not so much.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Nevertheless, it's not hard to find reports of bird strikes. What are some good case studies of drone strikes that I can review?
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      As you yourself point out, birds outnumber drones a million to one. So obviously the available number of examples is much smaller. That doesn't, however, change the potential danger.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        Perhaps not, but some of us would like to see more than "potential danger" to justify panicked, knee-jerk lawmaking. "Think of the airplanes!" is no better a rationale, in itself, than "Think of the children!" or "B...b...but terrorists!" Or, rather, it's a great rationale if you have an agenda that needs more political support than it would otherwise be able to garner. It's not hard to imagine why governments would be utterly terrified of a civilian population with widespread drone ownership and ongoing development.
        bdamm 11y ago
        Notable this year was the two drones that crashed into the White House, and a whole string of incidents involving drones and airliners landing at JFK: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-airport-shuttle-america/ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-ai... http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arrest/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arr... etc.. these are not hard to find. Now actual compendiums are being done, but I couldn't find the raw data. The FAA says it has gathered "more than 650" reports: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445 As a pilot, I do not see this as being surprising. People are doing dumb things with drones, just like pilots did dumb things with airplanes in the '20s and '30s, leading to the precursor of the FAA and the creation of the airspace system. But the real reason for registration is so that when there is an accident involving a drone and someone on the ground, such as a person shooting down a drone, the owner of the drone can be identified. Finally, if a drone gets involved in my airplane's propeller, it will probably be diced into chunks so small you'll never find all the pieces. However the propeller and engine will need to be rebuilt, at a cost of $20,000+, so you can bet that I'll be on the ground looking for those bits so I can stick that insurance claim.

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.
- sveiss 11y ago
  A "near miss" in aviation terms would be anything close enough to potentially compromise safety if anything else went wrong. This tends to be taken very seriously – for example, every such reported incident in the UK is investigated and a report issued – even when the distances involved seem very large for a ‘near miss’. The UK investigative authority cites an example where the aircraft involved were 3 miles apart horizontally, and yet it was still handled as a safety issue ( http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagetype=70&gid=947&faqid=677 http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagety... ). I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant. The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!
- rfrank 11y ago
  1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/06/near-collision-with-drone-forces-chp-helicopter-to-abandon-search-for-stolen-car-over-martinez/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/06/near-collision-w... 2. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-helicopter-drone-20150812-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-helicopt...
- CountSessine 11y ago
  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. close but no harm done Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot of my airplane to be distracted by your asshat-ery no matter how much distance you think you have from the airplane.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Why would a pilot be distracted by a drone?
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      On my next to last landing at my home airport, I was warned of "remote controlled aircraft" on the final approach path, 1.5 miles from the runway. At that point on a 3* approach path, I'm a little over 400' above the touchdown zone and the land rises slightly in this direction, so I'm a little under 400' above ground. Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        How is your average drone different from birds? Non-zero doesn't mean worth mentioning.
        sokoloff 11y ago
        Many birds have eyesight and a dive response to approaching aircraft.
        ryanlol 11y ago
        Most drones have cameras and operators (which also have eyesight).

Qworg 11y ago

> You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park Actually, you do if you'll exceed a certain height or if your rocket engine is larger than H (or perhaps I) class.

jonnycowboy 11y ago
H or I class rocket engines are definitely not "park rockets".
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
Yeah, H class requires level 1 certification from Tripoli or NAR. And for good reason I'd say. I just happened to launch an F-class yesterday - definitely not your kid-friendly little model rocket that you could launch from the baseball field nearby; that things goes far and carries quite a bit of mass. If something goes wrong and it shoots into a person, it could do some damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classificat...

CamperBob2 11y ago

I'm not clear on how these are more dangerous to aircraft than large birds are. The latter probably outnumber drones by a million to one.

bdamm 11y ago
Any pilot will tell you that birds do most of the work when it comes to collision avoidance. Drones, not so much.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Nevertheless, it's not hard to find reports of bird strikes. What are some good case studies of drone strikes that I can review?
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    As you yourself point out, birds outnumber drones a million to one. So obviously the available number of examples is much smaller. That doesn't, however, change the potential danger.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Perhaps not, but some of us would like to see more than "potential danger" to justify panicked, knee-jerk lawmaking. "Think of the airplanes!" is no better a rationale, in itself, than "Think of the children!" or "B...b...but terrorists!" Or, rather, it's a great rationale if you have an agenda that needs more political support than it would otherwise be able to garner. It's not hard to imagine why governments would be utterly terrified of a civilian population with widespread drone ownership and ongoing development.
      - bdamm 11y ago
        Notable this year was the two drones that crashed into the White House, and a whole string of incidents involving drones and airliners landing at JFK: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-airport-shuttle-america/ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-ai... http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arrest/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arr... etc.. these are not hard to find. Now actual compendiums are being done, but I couldn't find the raw data. The FAA says it has gathered "more than 650" reports: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445 As a pilot, I do not see this as being surprising. People are doing dumb things with drones, just like pilots did dumb things with airplanes in the '20s and '30s, leading to the precursor of the FAA and the creation of the airspace system. But the real reason for registration is so that when there is an accident involving a drone and someone on the ground, such as a person shooting down a drone, the owner of the drone can be identified. Finally, if a drone gets involved in my airplane's propeller, it will probably be diced into chunks so small you'll never find all the pieces. However the propeller and engine will need to be rebuilt, at a cost of $20,000+, so you can bet that I'll be on the ground looking for those bits so I can stick that insurance claim.