Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams. That's well below a weight that could reasonably be considered a danger to aircraft or people.

Just for comparison purposes, a McDonald's Big Mac weighs 215-240 grams without wrapper, so with a wrapper if you turned a Big Mac into a drone, it would likely require registration.

The real question is, what is their endgame here? Just send out notifications? It isn't like drones have transponders yet(?).

I like the FAA but this seems misguided and unworkable. Plus $5 is significant when some drones this impacts only costs $30.

Hopefully the FAA has birds 250+ grams register too, just for consistency. In particular as birds kill an order of magnitude more pilots than drones have (have drones ever taken down a plane?).

View on HN

Here's what the industry task force that came up with the suggested registration requirements said in their report:

The Task Force spent considerable time discussing and deliberating about what the appropriate weight threshold should be. While general agreement was ultimately reached on the 250 gram weight, there were Task Force members who believed it was too conservative, as the weight could negatively impact the credibility of the sUAS registration program and thus lessen compliance levels because it would require registration of somes UAS generally considered to be in the “toy” category. Others took the opposite view that there should be no registration exemption for UAS of any size.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport...

Nobody cares what color of a bunch of bureaucrats want to paint the bike shed, this needs to be an evidence-guided process not a wank.

If you look at the PDF, there is a surprising amount of calculations on how dangerous a 250 g drone could be.

A half pound is enough to damage something when you're going 150 mph. I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield.

I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everything above the surface of the earth". The reason they won't implement rules about flying indoors is not because they are nice guys, but because they cannot have a legislative opinion written that supports this as an area they can control.

>I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield.

Anyone who owns birds or places bird feeders or bird baths must register.

Don't give them any ideas!

And pay $5 per bird.

And yet people are perfectly happy to assume the risk of birdstrike without grounding every aircraft or needing to regulate or sue birds and bird owners.

Why the hysteria about drones? Does anybody _really_ think xmas drones are going to outnumber birds? What's the real marginal increase in risk for aviation here?

Or is this just a case of "Someone seems to be having fun doing something I don't care for, so I'll invent risk scenarios to justify stopping them from doing it... Because reasons..."?

If the FAA could write a FAR that kept birds out of the airspace, it would happen.

Sure, but they can't - and it doesn't matter (obviously, because we still all get in airplanes in spite of an identifiable but uncontrollable risk).

Just because they _can_ write a FAR about drones, should they? Does it matter any more or less than the risk of birdstrike? What _is_ the risk? If there were a real quantifiable and indisputable number there, surely we'd all know about it and be able to look it up and evaluate it in comparison to other risks we accept?

Is allowing my neighbour to fly a drone in the local park more or less dangerous than riding a bicycle? Or climbing a ladder? Or riding a horse?

I don't disagree with you, but alot of important people were asking the question "Who can stop these things from flying over my back yard?".

The FAA had the jurisdiction.

Yes. That's why so many FARs exist in the first place. Most are the result of incidents or accidents.

One of my favorites is 91.119a "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

It's one I do not think drones or their operator should be exempt from.

>What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams

Why does this surprise you?

If the assumption is that the FAA is altruistic organization that seeks nothing but the public benefit, I suppose I can see how this is surprising. But if we take a more realistic assumption of what the FAA is--a governmental bureaucracy full of self-interested individuals who pursue their own interests (greater authority, promotions, increased budgets, increased compensation, etc.)--it's not very surprising that they reach beyond "reasonable" restrictions and seek additional ways to benefit themselves.

Also, governmental regulators have strong incentives to be incredibly risk averse. This is best exemplified by the FDA. If they approve a drug that turns out to have an unknown side effect that harms people, this result is easy to observe and likely carries significant consequences for the FDA employees involved. However, if their delay in approving a drug causes 100,000 unnecessary deaths, this result is difficult to observe and likely carries no consequences. This creates perverse incentives that push regulators towards being excessively cautious.

Serious question: what is the incentive for the FAA to create regulations for the sake of creating them (or to creating overly conservative ones to the point of impacting industry)? I could understand a new or very small regulatory body, but the FAA isn't going anywhere.

New branch, new area of regulation, more personnel & resources needed to administrate & investigate ... typical self-serving bureaucracy growth incentives. Like with firearms, the governing agency is tasked with regulating anything that can, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as risky.

The FAA did not come up with that number. Drone makers and other such organizations did.

I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds don't weigh a lot either, but run into one and you could have a major problem on your hands.

No, that's not true at all. Jet engines can typically handle many birds. The AA flight that landed in the Hudson was unique in that it went through a large flock of Canadian geese, which are very large birds.

I sat next to a naval pilot on a plane once and he wasn't scared of drones at all. The jet engine would tear it right up.

Birds aren't packed full of lithium ion batteries...

It doesn't surprise me that military pilots aren't afraid of drones. They're not even afraid of flying into a 1000 pound airplane. Maybe if his plane didn't have an ejection seat...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-f...

> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true?

Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem."

It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Whereas a couple of Canadian Geese could clog up an engine causing it to stop.

While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. It is more smaller single engine aircraft and helicopters that are at risk from drones flying into them (in particular during take-off/landing).

Larger drones definitely need some kind of moderation. But as I said above 250g is too small, a pigeon weighs over 350g by comparison. How are you going to regulate them?!

PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.

I think most people would exclude air and water from "anything getting sucked into a jet turbine". On the other hand, particulates can be a problem depending on scale, as evidenced by volcanic eruptions spewing ash that grounds planes.

Also, pedantic nitpick, the species is "Canada Goose." A "Canadian goose" is a goose of any species that happened to be born in Canada. A Canada goose could also be a Canadian goose, but if my experience growing up in Ohio is any indication, many of them lay their eggs (and are thus many are born) outside of Canada.

To be extra pedantic, Canada assigns birth nationality by both jus soli and jus sanguinis to the first generation born elsewhere.

So a Canadian goose could also be a goose born to a parent that was hatched in Canada, or naturalized there.

A Canada goose born from one American Canada goose parent and one Canadian Canada goose parent would have dual citizenship, regardless of its hatching location, but it would have to be hatched in Canada in order for its own offspring to be Canadian Canada geese, if its mate is not jus soli or naturalized Canadian.

>While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat.

You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of similar weight.

>PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.

Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson - one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese in New York:

>To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating 1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of air.[118]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-te...

So there's just under 3000 fewer Canadian Geese than there would have been otherwise?

I wonder what that is as a percentage of the total Canadian Goose population, and the population of large birds generally?

We've recently here had hysterical calls to "cull the sharks!!!" after a few shark attacks. It stinks to me of politically and more likely profit motivations - local politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something" (never mind the pointlessness or futility of their chosen "something"), and politicians friends who can be rewarded with fat government contracts to buy themselves new boats and guns and go playing with them on the public purse, while making a completely insignificant change to the total shark population or the risk of swimming in the ocean.

> Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem."

If you suck in enough water, it can cause you major problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242

On the internet, there's an exception to everything just one small click away.

5-year old video, but it shows some of the tests jet engines undergo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

Jet engine manufacturers run tests, one of which is throwing a chicken at high velocity into the engine. You can find videos[1][2] on YouTube; "bird ingestion test" is what these are called, it seems. (Also, my understanding is that they test with whole chickens, which I hope you're not very likely to run into with an aircraft.)

I'm not an expert here, so I'm not sure how bad these really are in practice. Judging from the videos, a chicken looks like anything from not-a-problem (video 1) to something that's not going to crash the plane, but still would appear to be of concern, and perhaps a "okay, time to land then." (video 2).

See also the hilariously named Wikipedia aritle, "Chicken gun"[3].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

> "Chicken gun"[3].

I've also heard it called a "rooster booster" :)

That second video is apparently not of a bird ingestion but of a containment test in case of turbine failure.

I imagine there will be a new interest in the sub-250 gram FPV community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sZ-N8YiTs4

And a new interest in dye cut stickers...

I think you are on to something there. I think there will be a whole market around ~240g FPV quads. I want to try and do it now too.

Force is porportional is the square of velocity. The standard must anticipate FAST drones, not just their weight.

Or fast airplanes. Most FAA speed limits where drones are going to be top out at about 200knots, so that's pretty quick.

Airplanes have far higher top speeds then drones.

Drones are basically birds when it comes down to this.

Guess I need to go weigh my cheap little toy quad. Pretty sure it's lighter than that but I'd rather not deal with any fines if somehow I'm playing around with it in the park and the quad-cops get a complaint.

Either that or I may just stop flying it and wait until I eventually (someday, dammit!) get around to building that little 250 racer I keep price-shopping parts for.

Yep. Also, most of the cheap quadcopters don't list their weight, although the cheapest nano quadcopters will be well below the limit. This one is less than 12 g: http://www.gizmag.com/review-estes-proto-x-nano-quadcopter/2...

A half-pound is not very big.

Edited to note that the FAA FAQ has a PDF about most items in the toy category; they say that most devices under $100 are under the weight limit. https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/media/UAS_Weights_... However, all drones with cameras that it lists do require registration.

Suppose a 250g drone fails mid-air, hypothetically at a height of 100m, and falls freely. At terminal velocity, it's a lethal projectile.

Have no illusions about the damage that can be done by small things falling from a great height, or travelling at a high speed in general. The 250g weight is entirely reasonable -- I would actually claim that it is quite generous.

Heh, they actually do that calculation in the task force report, from the max allowed height.

guess we should start regulating rocks that weigh more than 250g too then ...

Only if you're flying rocks at over 328 feet in the air.

I'm pretty sure that regularly throwing half-pound rocks high in the air is already regulated.

Perhaps in some urban areas, but I seriously doubt there are federal regulations about throwing rock projectiles into the air with no intent to hit or harm a person.

FAA says that pilots may drop objects from airplanes, but puts the onus on the pilot to ensure "no hazard is created". And, once the object touches the ground, it becomes subject to local laws. So dropping a rock onto someone's property could be quite a few violations depending on the outcome and the property.

The question was concerning throwing rocks "up into the air", not throwing projectiles from an airplane.

If it involves airplanes, you can rest assured that the FAA will regulate it, so no surprise there.

Technically we already do, but indirectly.

In order to get a 250g rock up high enough to reach it's terminal velocity before hitting the earth again, you'd need some kind of launcher (e.g. catapult, trebuchet, Slingshot, etc) which are regulated. For example, New York made Slingshot a Class-4 misdemeanor.

I don't imagine there are terribly many rocks getting 100m in the air except by human action.

>At terminal velocity, it's a lethal projectile.

So is a bullet. Guess we should require all bullets to be registered.

Terminal velocity of a 250g aircraft is much slower than terminal velocity of a 250g rock.

A 250g helicopter with stopped rotors isn't that different from a rock.

Depends on whether or not the rotors autorotate.

Even if they don't they might cause the body to rotate.

Even in the worst case of a quadrotor - which can't glide or autorotate or fly with a missing rotor - a 250g one is not going to become a lethal projectile at terminal velocity. Even the heavy batteries from larger multirotors seem to survive a 100m fall uneventfully, they just make a soft thud when they land. A softball weighs something like 200g and getting hit in the head with one of those at 85 mph doesn't kill you.

Suppose a skateboard or bicycle falls freely, hypothetically, from the top of Lombard St...

Do we now require registration and quarter million dollar fines for all bicycles and skateboards that weigh more than 250g?

250g is large enough to do damage

A burger wrapper caught on a real helicopter's rotor can induce scary vibrations & some loss of lift. Keep the burger & wrapper please.

Time to register burger wrappers! </s>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com