9 ms·

Explain to me how my flying a 4 pound drone at a height of 100 ft to take a photo of my home is putting someones life in danger to the point where the FAA shoul

by syshum 8y ago

Explain to me how my flying a 4 pound drone at a height of 100 ft to take a photo of my home is putting someones life in danger to the point where the FAA should require me to register my activity and pass a license program? Edit: "my kid are playing in our backyard. Do I have the right of privacy?": No you do not have a Right to privacy, I can put a camera on my roof or pole and record your backyard if I wanted and there is nothing legally you could do about it Drones falling from the sky: General liability laws would apply no different than if I am mowing my lawn and a rock flys out and hits you, or if I am play yard Darts and I toss one over your fence which injures you. I can not prove it is safe: That is not how a free society works, the burden is not on me to prove my actions are safe, the burden is on YOU to prove that my actions have a more likely than not probability of causing physical harm to others or their property Other Air Traffic Hitting a Wing: Why are they below 400ft, or the less than 100 ft I would fly but still be under the FAA Regulations, My entire point is that under 100ft should not be under the FAA at all,

Balgair 8y ago
It's not that the drone is the problem, it's what else is up there. Just yesterday I had 2 f-16s fly over my apartment [0]. Their height, by my estimate, was about 500 ft. Could I be wrong about the height? Sure, but I could see them quite clearly and hear them very well. Since I live near an AFB, I'm used to low bypass jets overhead. But yesterday was different, they were easily 5x as low as they should have been. Heck, they commonly fly low over games and that's as good a place to fly a drone as ever. The risk of an f-16 coming down near a stadium event is very very low, yes, but not a chance worth taking. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/9m8b6s/what_was_with_the_f16_or_f35_flyover_a_few/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/9m8b6s/what_was_wit...
- leetcrew 8y ago
  if 2 f-16s actually flew 500 ft over your house there was almost certainly a temporary flight restriction over the area, which is very easy to look up. it's also already illegal to fly anything anywhere near a large stadium during a game. the thing that frustrates me about this debate is that section 336 already had a pretty strict (and mostly reasonable, imo) set of rules for flying drones with severe penalties attached (up to $250k fine and possible jail time). idk why an informed person would call for stricter rules instead of just having the FAA enforce the ones that were already on the books.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    > it's also already illegal to fly anything anywhere near a large stadium during a game. The so-called stadium TFR can be read here: http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_7_4319.html http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_7_4319.html In particular, it has exceptions for: A) The aircraft operation has been authorized by ATC for operational or safety purposes, including authorization of flights specifically arriving at or departing from an airport designated by ATC using standard ATC procedures and routes; B) the aircraft operation is being conducted for operational, safety, or security purposes supporting the qualifying event, and is authorized by an airspace security waiver approved by the FAA; C) the aircraft operation is enabling broadcast coverage for the broadcast rights holder for the qualifying event, and is authorized by an airspace security waiver approved by the faa; D) the aircraft operation has been authorized by ATC for national security, homeland security, law enforcement, or air ambulance purposes; I use exception A fairly regularly. I can imagine a flight of 2 Vipers would fall under exception B (if an opening ceremony flyover) or D (more likely for a transit operation).
inscionent 8y ago
Anecdote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz3Z-3gAl_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz3Z-3gAl_M
quux 8y ago
That's easy, here's what happens when a drone strikes an airplane wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0
- mvid 8y ago
  As discussed when this was on the front page, a static airplane wing reacts differently to an active airplane wing, which is forcing air out of the way around it. Also airplanes don't generally fly at 100ft, unless you are at an airport. I agree that drones should be heavily regulated, but this doesn't seem like the argument as to why.
  - ominous_prime 8y ago
    um, no it wasn't. Any airflow near the boundary layer at that speed amounts to a rounding error in the test. The range of approach paths that result in significant damage would still be the same. Not only does this damage the wing, but you're also putting a large chunk of damaged lipo battery in close proximity to the fuel tanks. Not something I hope to ever encounter. We nearly got to see the result with a live rotor recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRI0Q1fq7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRI0Q1fq7s), which I'm glad only turned into a near miss. I have a number of multicopters, and I fly small aircraft; I don't want to see either side regulated out of existence.
    - scoggs 8y ago
      First: Going in I understand the impact a drone could have on a given aircraft wing if it were to impact. I also understand how that compares to a bird or at higher speeds as I've watched the linked video. I learned a lot I didn't know from it. Now, honest question from someone outside the hobby who sees good arguments and reasons on both sides and doesn't seem to be swayed to one side or the other yet. How many people flying drones, would you estimate, on a given day are flying their crafts within airspace that would be restricted for them, generally, if they were to be registered and request use of their regular airspace -- on a given day? Is that even possible for anyone to guess? Am I asking a question that's unreasonable and too difficult to ask? That's just something that I think would give me and others on the outside some sort of idea how this would actually impact people wanting to fly drones. I also realize this is being put in place to prevent an accident before it happens. That's obviously unneeded (any accident) and I'm sure no hobbyist or anyone for that matter is trying to get their drones tangled with an anything in the air, let alone an airplane.
AWildC182 8y ago
1000ft or 100ft it doesn't matter. You could kill someone operating at 10ft in the wrong place (near a helipad). The standard glidepath flown by jets is 3deg. From the touchdown zone, 100ft covers a 1900ft arc.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  All sorts of things could kill people in exactly the right circumstances. A handful of people have probably died after losing control of their vehicle swerving around someone's dog that wandered into the street. Just because something can add the final straw to a situation causing a bad thing to happen doesn't mean the likelihood is high enough to be worth regulation. Considering how many drones are in operation ans how many accidents haven't happen I think we should err toward no license required under a certain altitude over private property (the same altitude at which you need to put a red light on a structure in that area sounds like a food starting point).
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Lots of people have died avoiding animals. Slow down, honk your horn, and keep driving under control.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      And yet we don't require licenses in order to have most common pets...
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        Don't most cities and towns require dog licenses? That seems like a fairly common pet and I know we have to get a license.
        dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        I live in one of the most busybody states on the east coast and I've never heard of a city or town that required a license for a pet.
madrox 8y ago
I can't, but here's the kicker...neither can you. In this business, you're not allowed to presume safety. Unless you've been trained to understand the ramifications on airspace, you really don't know. That's not how a safety first culture works. You don't make a change to a business critical production system without going through change control...why is it so absurd to consider registering your activity in airspace before you do it? The only reason I can think of is that it's inconvenient for you, which sucks but that's not good enough.
- myrryr 8y ago
  Stats is on his side. He CAN assume it is safe, since given how many are in the air, and how few problems we have, in his scenario we can assume it is safe unless shown otherwise. I am for the regulation, but, I am also against people not using basic stats. Riding a pair of rollerskates can be dangerous to the people around you, but, you wouldn't force people to licence to do that right? You can hurt someone if they get a paper aircraft in the eye, but you don't licence them either. It has to be on the basis of how likely you are to get problems, and how dangerous those problems are going to be. Saying "I can (or can't in this case) conceive of a situation where this could be a problem" isn't a high enough bar. For larger drones, hell yeah you will need licencing, and flying near aircraft, then again, yes. But this case? In this case, he has stats on his side.
  - madrox 8y ago
    As luck would have it, I have a degree in statistics and I'm a trained statistician! So let's talk about stats. Let's assume he's 99.99%[0] safe to fly his drone in this situation. That means 1 in 10,000 drone flights are not. That's actually not a great safety margin when you consider how often this is done a day. There are 2.5 million drones in operation at the moment. You're overemphasizing the individual case here and not the population at large. There's actually a formal name for this type of statistical fallacy, though I've forgotten it. There's TED talks about it and everything. But you can probably get better than 99.99% assurance of safety here...and you do that by registering your intent with people who assess safety for a living. [0] this is, of course, a ludicrous statistic. It's illustrating the absurdity of thinking that just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. In this case, when it happens people can get seriously or fatally hurt.
frockington 8y ago
If that drone falls, it will hit the ground at ~55 mph (ignoring wind resistance etc.). I would rather not have a 4 pound object smack into my head at 55 mph just because some parent thought their child could handle it
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
onetimemanytime 8y ago
OK, you have your drone and fly it over your home. But me and my kid are playing in our backyard. Do I have the right of privacy? And, what if your drone smashes in my head? Unless you own a 10,000 acre ranch...they are legitimate concerns. What we do about it is the question.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > me and my kid are playing in our backyard. Do I have the right of privacy? you probably have a right not to be filmed for commercial purposes, if at all. however, I don't think you have some fundamental right not to be looked at by people who have line of sight or to ban any equipment that might give them that. even if drones didn't exist, I could fly a plane at a legal height and look at your backyard through a telescope or from a nearby hill.
- brodsky 8y ago
  in addition to the sibling reply, > Unless you own a 10,000 acre ranch.... this is precisely the point. EVEN if you own a 10,000 acre ranch in the middle of nowhere, the regulations technically prohibit you to fly a small hobbyist aircraft around your own property. Does that sound reasonable?
bsder 8y ago
Are you next to a lake? Are there fire control airplanes reloading? (Yeah, this happened). Are you next to high tension power lines? Is there a helicopter coming in to do maintenance? The point is that you don't know, and neither does anybody else unless people are filing and reading flight plans.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted. Like said elsewhere, jerks ruin everything. Regularly, multiple times a week across the West US in fire season, are air ops (sometimes large ones) shutdown because people think it's more important for them to get their next YouTube video with their drone than it is for helicopters and even jets to do water and retardant dumps.
NikolaNovak 8y ago
1. If you don't understand how you flying 4pound drone at 100ft is putting somebody's life in danger, you absolutely under no circumstances should own or use a drone of any kind. Sorry if that sounds personal or insulting, but I'll stand by that statement. 2. I have a Mavic Air plus a few smaller drones. I'm extremely aware that I can push this thing to 65km/h and do some solid damage, either maliciously, but much much more likely carelessly 3. I have lent several drones to several intelligent, typically safe friends, either under my supervision or alone in a field. Universally they pushed them too hard too fast and lost control quickly. [I don't care if you're going to say "but that's not me". a) Every one of my friends said that, and b) how is anybody else to trust that _your_ claim specifically is truthful? Prove it.] 4. The more intelligent the drone, unfortunately the more likely the person is to underestimate its danger because "these things fly themselves" and "it has collision avoidance". My nerd friends have started using them like Tesla's autopilot - perfectly safe and awesome until the very moment it isn't, at which point it's too late if you don't have your hands actively on controls. So as much as it'll HUUUUUGELY inconvenience me, I fully understand that if I need to register and license my car, motorcycle, boat, plane, etc... I need to register and license my other fast-moving piece of dangerous machinery.
- jsight 8y ago
  TBH, I think your comment mischaracterizes the OP and is really unfair to him. He didn't say that he doesn't know how a 4 lb drone at 100 feet could put someone's life in danger. They can do that at 5 feet if your reckless enough. Rather, he said that he doesn't understand how this risk translates to a need to have the FAA be the regulatory body involved with similar rules to the point of requiring licensing. I've flown a few quadcopters and I tend to agree with him. There are real dangers, but they aren't materially greater than lots of other things that we choose not to spend my tax money regulating. I'd rather we not waste my money on regulating 4lb drones at 100 feet either.
  - NikolaNovak 8y ago
    Certainly possible; I'll let the OP address how much I've mischaracterized, but I've read the first statement as "Explain to me how this is SO dangerous that we need to regulate/do something about it", and I've made a point that other things which are in that danger category (for example, cars) are in fact regulated and licensed. I feel it is more likely that the OP and yourself, have a different categorization of the danger of drones than I do. If the claims are there are other activities that dangerous which we don't regulate, please offer an example. A priori, it is likely we may disagree if they're in the same category of risk or not :-/ I think drones are close to the level of dangers of cars. I would be curious which other vehicles of that speed and potential for danger a person can control that are not regulated or licensed. If the question is why FAA specifically, I guess it makes sense to me that agency in charge of flying things would be the one; may not make same intuitive sense to others. (for the record, if you say "electric scooter", I think those should be licensed like regular scooters as well :) Note that I've flown a $40 hand-sized drone, a $100 1-lb foot-sized drone, and a Mavic Air; so my experience is limited - but I really feel Mavic Air can easily kill a person with a moment's slip of attention, and it's ridiculous I'm allowed to just woosh with it around right now :S. I would personally _want_ to take a class, learn, and be licensed and demonstrate that I'm responsible. I think insurance would be a reasonable requirement as well, while we're at it... unpopular opinion I'm sure :)
mrfusion 8y ago
I think your comment makes a lot of sense and makes some good points. Sorry you were downvoted. HN is very pro regulation of drones. I never understood why.
- syshum 8y ago
  HN is very pro Regulation. Pro Liberty content is routinely down voted here
- prawn 8y ago
  People often overreact to new things. They did it with books, televisions, cars, etc. Maybe unease about change? You'll see people react one way to the annoying sound of a nearby drone but not bat an eyelid when it's a helicopter (let's say it's a sightseeing helicopter rather than rescue chopper) or a lone person on jetski terrorising an otherwise quiet harbour. I have a friend who will say "I hate drones, I just don't like them" with no real explanation. Nothing about the sound or risk. No bad history with them. I'm not discounting the risk or annoying sound, but I firmly believe a non-negligible percentage of people dislike them and then later retrofit an argument.
quux 8y ago
From an air traffic perspective this is very similar to asking "Why can't I erect a 100 foot unlit unmarked pole in my back yard without having to register my activity?" There shouldn't be aircraft flying 100 feet above your house but I can think of a ton of scenarios where it could happen, and in most of them running into a drone takes the situation from "dangerous, but not an incident" to "fatal incident."
- mtreis86 8y ago
  You can put up to a 200ft tower in your back yard for radio purposes without registration so long as you're at least 4 miles or greater from an airport (closer requires proportionally smaller towers - around 1mile/50ft). https://hamradioschool.com/g1b01-maximum-antenna-structure-height/ https://hamradioschool.com/g1b01-maximum-antenna-structure-h...
  - sathackr 8y ago
    But not without a building permit and not without setback requirements.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Those are required in many populated areas. Most of USA would not involve such requirements.
poof131 8y ago
You should write the Uniform Law Commission to enact private property rights up to 200’. [1] They are already considering this. You should have the right to fly a drone just over your property the same way you could drive an unregistered, non-street-legal vehicle on your property. You can’t go on public roads (or over public property or other peoples property), but you should have rights over your own property. [1] https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes-law-give-us-property-owners-airspace-rights-200ft/ https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes...
- nybble41 8y ago
  That proposal appears to only create additional restrictions: operating a drone under 200' without the permission of the property owner would be considered "aerial trespass". There was nothing in the article about guaranteeing the right to fly drones up to 200' over your own property. One presumes that under this proposal you would need the permission of both the property owner and the FAA.
  - poof131 8y ago
    By establishing property rights you make a stronger case for the right to fly a drone on your property. Certainly the FAA will have a safety say, but property rights will also be important. In the end, much of this may be decided by the courts.
urda 8y ago
> Explain to me how my flying a 4 pound drone at a height of 100 ft to take a photo of my home is putting someones life in danger If someone has to explain this to you, you shouldn't be the person flying a four pound drone at a height of a hundred feet. Seriously, it's not ok.
bluGill 8y ago
How do you know an airplane won't fly at 100 feet over your backyard? I actually get some nice airshows at my house: their is a field across the street, and so one a year the farmer flys in some fungicide. He flys at ~1 meter over the corn, then at the end he climbs just enough to get over the power lines and my house, turns around in my backyard and returns for the next pass. I have a friend who travels the country taking pictures of houses, and then going door-to-door trying to sell them. I'm not sure how low he flies, but this job is best done from low.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  "How do you know an airplane won't fly at 100 feet over your backyard?" If an airplane is flying that low in a place that's not in close proximity to an airport, then something has already gone horribly horribly wrong and the existence or nonexistence of tiny propeller-powered aircraft no more (or less) dangerous than a bird is hardly going to be a factor. If it is in close proximity to an airport, then there are already rules restricting the use of RC aircraft within certain radii of airports, so further regulation is redundant. Also, given - again - the existence of winged feathered creatures, the risk does not go away (and in fact is probably not even significantly decreased).
- syshum 8y ago
  >>How do you know an airplane won't fly at 100 feet over your backyard? because it should be illegal for them to do so, and be a violation of my property rights as I should have ownership interest and control of this airspace There is already some legal precedent for upto 83 Feet, the FAA insist they control everything from 1 nanometer above my grass, the courts disagree but the FAA generally does not advance any cases below 100 ft because they are scared shitless of getting more court precedents establishing property owners control the airspace around their property
anon7429 8y ago
Seriously. It's like this phony electronics ban on flights. Eliminating all risks in one are is insane and unreasonable because it's so often to the detriment of everything and everyone else. Next, laser pointers will be outlawed because some idiot might shine them towards a plane. Instead of eliminating RC planes and model rockets for an edge-case that can never happen, maybe the FAA should focus on things that matter like human factors.
- hef19898 8y ago
  And what makes you think that the FAA is not looking into those? One reason for the electronics ban was evacuation, people starring at laptops are not that quick to get out of a burning plane. Considering that there always cases of people evacuating planes with their handluggage, that seems to have been some reason to it. That is was lifted was fine, it took a while but in the end it was lifted. Also, every flight incident is thorouighly investigated. there is a reason why investigators are even putting to gather crashed planes in a year-long puzzle. And the decline in flight incidents is proof that this approach is working. The aerospace industry is also one of the most prolific players regarding crew management (as in workload distribution between pilots and increasing situational awareness). Again something entities like the FAA are pushing for. Finally, the statement that RC planes and model rocket are an edge case that can never happen is, without further details, just a wild statement. Move fast and break things might work in consumer electronics and social media apps, in industries like aerospace, automotive, oil and gas, nuclear power it can, and did, get people killed.

by syshum 8y ago

Balgair 8y ago

It's not that the drone is the problem, it's what else is up there. Just yesterday I had 2 f-16s fly over my apartment [0]. Their height, by my estimate, was about 500 ft. Could I be wrong about the height? Sure, but I could see them quite clearly and hear them very well. Since I live near an AFB, I'm used to low bypass jets overhead. But yesterday was different, they were easily 5x as low as they should have been. Heck, they commonly fly low over games and that's as good a place to fly a drone as ever. The risk of an f-16 coming down near a stadium event is very very low, yes, but not a chance worth taking. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/9m8b6s/what_was_with_the_f16_or_f35_flyover_a_few/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/9m8b6s/what_was_wit...

leetcrew 8y ago
if 2 f-16s actually flew 500 ft over your house there was almost certainly a temporary flight restriction over the area, which is very easy to look up. it's also already illegal to fly anything anywhere near a large stadium during a game. the thing that frustrates me about this debate is that section 336 already had a pretty strict (and mostly reasonable, imo) set of rules for flying drones with severe penalties attached (up to $250k fine and possible jail time). idk why an informed person would call for stricter rules instead of just having the FAA enforce the ones that were already on the books.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  > it's also already illegal to fly anything anywhere near a large stadium during a game. The so-called stadium TFR can be read here: http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_7_4319.html http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_7_4319.html In particular, it has exceptions for: A) The aircraft operation has been authorized by ATC for operational or safety purposes, including authorization of flights specifically arriving at or departing from an airport designated by ATC using standard ATC procedures and routes; B) the aircraft operation is being conducted for operational, safety, or security purposes supporting the qualifying event, and is authorized by an airspace security waiver approved by the FAA; C) the aircraft operation is enabling broadcast coverage for the broadcast rights holder for the qualifying event, and is authorized by an airspace security waiver approved by the faa; D) the aircraft operation has been authorized by ATC for national security, homeland security, law enforcement, or air ambulance purposes; I use exception A fairly regularly. I can imagine a flight of 2 Vipers would fall under exception B (if an opening ceremony flyover) or D (more likely for a transit operation).

inscionent 8y ago

Anecdote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz3Z-3gAl_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz3Z-3gAl_M

quux 8y ago

That's easy, here's what happens when a drone strikes an airplane wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0

mvid 8y ago
As discussed when this was on the front page, a static airplane wing reacts differently to an active airplane wing, which is forcing air out of the way around it. Also airplanes don't generally fly at 100ft, unless you are at an airport. I agree that drones should be heavily regulated, but this doesn't seem like the argument as to why.
- ominous_prime 8y ago
  um, no it wasn't. Any airflow near the boundary layer at that speed amounts to a rounding error in the test. The range of approach paths that result in significant damage would still be the same. Not only does this damage the wing, but you're also putting a large chunk of damaged lipo battery in close proximity to the fuel tanks. Not something I hope to ever encounter. We nearly got to see the result with a live rotor recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRI0Q1fq7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRI0Q1fq7s), which I'm glad only turned into a near miss. I have a number of multicopters, and I fly small aircraft; I don't want to see either side regulated out of existence.
  - scoggs 8y ago
    First: Going in I understand the impact a drone could have on a given aircraft wing if it were to impact. I also understand how that compares to a bird or at higher speeds as I've watched the linked video. I learned a lot I didn't know from it. Now, honest question from someone outside the hobby who sees good arguments and reasons on both sides and doesn't seem to be swayed to one side or the other yet. How many people flying drones, would you estimate, on a given day are flying their crafts within airspace that would be restricted for them, generally, if they were to be registered and request use of their regular airspace -- on a given day? Is that even possible for anyone to guess? Am I asking a question that's unreasonable and too difficult to ask? That's just something that I think would give me and others on the outside some sort of idea how this would actually impact people wanting to fly drones. I also realize this is being put in place to prevent an accident before it happens. That's obviously unneeded (any accident) and I'm sure no hobbyist or anyone for that matter is trying to get their drones tangled with an anything in the air, let alone an airplane.

AWildC182 8y ago

1000ft or 100ft it doesn't matter. You could kill someone operating at 10ft in the wrong place (near a helipad). The standard glidepath flown by jets is 3deg. From the touchdown zone, 100ft covers a 1900ft arc.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
All sorts of things could kill people in exactly the right circumstances. A handful of people have probably died after losing control of their vehicle swerving around someone's dog that wandered into the street. Just because something can add the final straw to a situation causing a bad thing to happen doesn't mean the likelihood is high enough to be worth regulation. Considering how many drones are in operation ans how many accidents haven't happen I think we should err toward no license required under a certain altitude over private property (the same altitude at which you need to put a red light on a structure in that area sounds like a food starting point).
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Lots of people have died avoiding animals. Slow down, honk your horn, and keep driving under control.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    And yet we don't require licenses in order to have most common pets...
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Don't most cities and towns require dog licenses? That seems like a fairly common pet and I know we have to get a license.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        I live in one of the most busybody states on the east coast and I've never heard of a city or town that required a license for a pet.

madrox 8y ago

I can't, but here's the kicker...neither can you. In this business, you're not allowed to presume safety. Unless you've been trained to understand the ramifications on airspace, you really don't know. That's not how a safety first culture works. You don't make a change to a business critical production system without going through change control...why is it so absurd to consider registering your activity in airspace before you do it? The only reason I can think of is that it's inconvenient for you, which sucks but that's not good enough.

myrryr 8y ago
Stats is on his side. He CAN assume it is safe, since given how many are in the air, and how few problems we have, in his scenario we can assume it is safe unless shown otherwise. I am for the regulation, but, I am also against people not using basic stats. Riding a pair of rollerskates can be dangerous to the people around you, but, you wouldn't force people to licence to do that right? You can hurt someone if they get a paper aircraft in the eye, but you don't licence them either. It has to be on the basis of how likely you are to get problems, and how dangerous those problems are going to be. Saying "I can (or can't in this case) conceive of a situation where this could be a problem" isn't a high enough bar. For larger drones, hell yeah you will need licencing, and flying near aircraft, then again, yes. But this case? In this case, he has stats on his side.
- madrox 8y ago
  As luck would have it, I have a degree in statistics and I'm a trained statistician! So let's talk about stats. Let's assume he's 99.99%[0] safe to fly his drone in this situation. That means 1 in 10,000 drone flights are not. That's actually not a great safety margin when you consider how often this is done a day. There are 2.5 million drones in operation at the moment. You're overemphasizing the individual case here and not the population at large. There's actually a formal name for this type of statistical fallacy, though I've forgotten it. There's TED talks about it and everything. But you can probably get better than 99.99% assurance of safety here...and you do that by registering your intent with people who assess safety for a living. [0] this is, of course, a ludicrous statistic. It's illustrating the absurdity of thinking that just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. In this case, when it happens people can get seriously or fatally hurt.

frockington 8y ago

If that drone falls, it will hit the ground at ~55 mph (ignoring wind resistance etc.). I would rather not have a 4 pound object smack into my head at 55 mph just because some parent thought their child could handle it

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

onetimemanytime 8y ago

OK, you have your drone and fly it over your home. But me and my kid are playing in our backyard. Do I have the right of privacy? And, what if your drone smashes in my head? Unless you own a 10,000 acre ranch...they are legitimate concerns. What we do about it is the question.

leetcrew 8y ago
> me and my kid are playing in our backyard. Do I have the right of privacy? you probably have a right not to be filmed for commercial purposes, if at all. however, I don't think you have some fundamental right not to be looked at by people who have line of sight or to ban any equipment that might give them that. even if drones didn't exist, I could fly a plane at a legal height and look at your backyard through a telescope or from a nearby hill.
brodsky 8y ago
in addition to the sibling reply, > Unless you own a 10,000 acre ranch.... this is precisely the point. EVEN if you own a 10,000 acre ranch in the middle of nowhere, the regulations technically prohibit you to fly a small hobbyist aircraft around your own property. Does that sound reasonable?

bsder 8y ago

Are you next to a lake? Are there fire control airplanes reloading? (Yeah, this happened). Are you next to high tension power lines? Is there a helicopter coming in to do maintenance? The point is that you don't know, and neither does anybody else unless people are filing and reading flight plans.

FireBeyond 8y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted. Like said elsewhere, jerks ruin everything. Regularly, multiple times a week across the West US in fire season, are air ops (sometimes large ones) shutdown because people think it's more important for them to get their next YouTube video with their drone than it is for helicopters and even jets to do water and retardant dumps.

NikolaNovak 8y ago

1. If you don't understand how you flying 4pound drone at 100ft is putting somebody's life in danger, you absolutely under no circumstances should own or use a drone of any kind. Sorry if that sounds personal or insulting, but I'll stand by that statement. 2. I have a Mavic Air plus a few smaller drones. I'm extremely aware that I can push this thing to 65km/h and do some solid damage, either maliciously, but much much more likely carelessly 3. I have lent several drones to several intelligent, typically safe friends, either under my supervision or alone in a field. Universally they pushed them too hard too fast and lost control quickly. [I don't care if you're going to say "but that's not me". a) Every one of my friends said that, and b) how is anybody else to trust that _your_ claim specifically is truthful? Prove it.] 4. The more intelligent the drone, unfortunately the more likely the person is to underestimate its danger because "these things fly themselves" and "it has collision avoidance". My nerd friends have started using them like Tesla's autopilot - perfectly safe and awesome until the very moment it isn't, at which point it's too late if you don't have your hands actively on controls. So as much as it'll HUUUUUGELY inconvenience me, I fully understand that if I need to register and license my car, motorcycle, boat, plane, etc... I need to register and license my other fast-moving piece of dangerous machinery.

jsight 8y ago
TBH, I think your comment mischaracterizes the OP and is really unfair to him. He didn't say that he doesn't know how a 4 lb drone at 100 feet could put someone's life in danger. They can do that at 5 feet if your reckless enough. Rather, he said that he doesn't understand how this risk translates to a need to have the FAA be the regulatory body involved with similar rules to the point of requiring licensing. I've flown a few quadcopters and I tend to agree with him. There are real dangers, but they aren't materially greater than lots of other things that we choose not to spend my tax money regulating. I'd rather we not waste my money on regulating 4lb drones at 100 feet either.
- NikolaNovak 8y ago
  Certainly possible; I'll let the OP address how much I've mischaracterized, but I've read the first statement as "Explain to me how this is SO dangerous that we need to regulate/do something about it", and I've made a point that other things which are in that danger category (for example, cars) are in fact regulated and licensed. I feel it is more likely that the OP and yourself, have a different categorization of the danger of drones than I do. If the claims are there are other activities that dangerous which we don't regulate, please offer an example. A priori, it is likely we may disagree if they're in the same category of risk or not :-/ I think drones are close to the level of dangers of cars. I would be curious which other vehicles of that speed and potential for danger a person can control that are not regulated or licensed. If the question is why FAA specifically, I guess it makes sense to me that agency in charge of flying things would be the one; may not make same intuitive sense to others. (for the record, if you say "electric scooter", I think those should be licensed like regular scooters as well :) Note that I've flown a $40 hand-sized drone, a $100 1-lb foot-sized drone, and a Mavic Air; so my experience is limited - but I really feel Mavic Air can easily kill a person with a moment's slip of attention, and it's ridiculous I'm allowed to just woosh with it around right now :S. I would personally _want_ to take a class, learn, and be licensed and demonstrate that I'm responsible. I think insurance would be a reasonable requirement as well, while we're at it... unpopular opinion I'm sure :)

mrfusion 8y ago

I think your comment makes a lot of sense and makes some good points. Sorry you were downvoted. HN is very pro regulation of drones. I never understood why.

syshum 8y ago
HN is very pro Regulation. Pro Liberty content is routinely down voted here
prawn 8y ago
People often overreact to new things. They did it with books, televisions, cars, etc. Maybe unease about change? You'll see people react one way to the annoying sound of a nearby drone but not bat an eyelid when it's a helicopter (let's say it's a sightseeing helicopter rather than rescue chopper) or a lone person on jetski terrorising an otherwise quiet harbour. I have a friend who will say "I hate drones, I just don't like them" with no real explanation. Nothing about the sound or risk. No bad history with them. I'm not discounting the risk or annoying sound, but I firmly believe a non-negligible percentage of people dislike them and then later retrofit an argument.

quux 8y ago

From an air traffic perspective this is very similar to asking "Why can't I erect a 100 foot unlit unmarked pole in my back yard without having to register my activity?" There shouldn't be aircraft flying 100 feet above your house but I can think of a ton of scenarios where it could happen, and in most of them running into a drone takes the situation from "dangerous, but not an incident" to "fatal incident."

mtreis86 8y ago
You can put up to a 200ft tower in your back yard for radio purposes without registration so long as you're at least 4 miles or greater from an airport (closer requires proportionally smaller towers - around 1mile/50ft). https://hamradioschool.com/g1b01-maximum-antenna-structure-height/ https://hamradioschool.com/g1b01-maximum-antenna-structure-h...
- sathackr 8y ago
  But not without a building permit and not without setback requirements.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Those are required in many populated areas. Most of USA would not involve such requirements.

poof131 8y ago

You should write the Uniform Law Commission to enact private property rights up to 200’. [1] They are already considering this. You should have the right to fly a drone just over your property the same way you could drive an unregistered, non-street-legal vehicle on your property. You can’t go on public roads (or over public property or other peoples property), but you should have rights over your own property. [1] https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes-law-give-us-property-owners-airspace-rights-200ft/ https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes...

nybble41 8y ago
That proposal appears to only create additional restrictions: operating a drone under 200' without the permission of the property owner would be considered "aerial trespass". There was nothing in the article about guaranteeing the right to fly drones up to 200' over your own property. One presumes that under this proposal you would need the permission of both the property owner and the FAA.
- poof131 8y ago
  By establishing property rights you make a stronger case for the right to fly a drone on your property. Certainly the FAA will have a safety say, but property rights will also be important. In the end, much of this may be decided by the courts.

urda 8y ago

> Explain to me how my flying a 4 pound drone at a height of 100 ft to take a photo of my home is putting someones life in danger If someone has to explain this to you, you shouldn't be the person flying a four pound drone at a height of a hundred feet. Seriously, it's not ok.

bluGill 8y ago

How do you know an airplane won't fly at 100 feet over your backyard? I actually get some nice airshows at my house: their is a field across the street, and so one a year the farmer flys in some fungicide. He flys at ~1 meter over the corn, then at the end he climbs just enough to get over the power lines and my house, turns around in my backyard and returns for the next pass. I have a friend who travels the country taking pictures of houses, and then going door-to-door trying to sell them. I'm not sure how low he flies, but this job is best done from low.

yellowapple 8y ago
"How do you know an airplane won't fly at 100 feet over your backyard?" If an airplane is flying that low in a place that's not in close proximity to an airport, then something has already gone horribly horribly wrong and the existence or nonexistence of tiny propeller-powered aircraft no more (or less) dangerous than a bird is hardly going to be a factor. If it is in close proximity to an airport, then there are already rules restricting the use of RC aircraft within certain radii of airports, so further regulation is redundant. Also, given - again - the existence of winged feathered creatures, the risk does not go away (and in fact is probably not even significantly decreased).
syshum 8y ago
>>How do you know an airplane won't fly at 100 feet over your backyard? because it should be illegal for them to do so, and be a violation of my property rights as I should have ownership interest and control of this airspace There is already some legal precedent for upto 83 Feet, the FAA insist they control everything from 1 nanometer above my grass, the courts disagree but the FAA generally does not advance any cases below 100 ft because they are scared shitless of getting more court precedents establishing property owners control the airspace around their property

anon7429 8y ago

Seriously. It's like this phony electronics ban on flights. Eliminating all risks in one are is insane and unreasonable because it's so often to the detriment of everything and everyone else. Next, laser pointers will be outlawed because some idiot might shine them towards a plane. Instead of eliminating RC planes and model rockets for an edge-case that can never happen, maybe the FAA should focus on things that matter like human factors.

hef19898 8y ago
And what makes you think that the FAA is not looking into those? One reason for the electronics ban was evacuation, people starring at laptops are not that quick to get out of a burning plane. Considering that there always cases of people evacuating planes with their handluggage, that seems to have been some reason to it. That is was lifted was fine, it took a while but in the end it was lifted. Also, every flight incident is thorouighly investigated. there is a reason why investigators are even putting to gather crashed planes in a year-long puzzle. And the decline in flight incidents is proof that this approach is working. The aerospace industry is also one of the most prolific players regarding crew management (as in workload distribution between pilots and increasing situational awareness). Again something entities like the FAA are pushing for. Finally, the statement that RC planes and model rocket are an edge case that can never happen is, without further details, just a wild statement. Move fast and break things might work in consumer electronics and social media apps, in industries like aerospace, automotive, oil and gas, nuclear power it can, and did, get people killed.