Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamdave | Hacker News Reader

I'm mildly incredulous on the actual scope of the bill compared to what's being reported (it's a learned behavior), does anyone have the name of the bill or the full text that I may go read for myself?

Mostly because as as a remote pilot, I have a feeling the proposals may be much less onerous than we're being lead to believe by Bloomberg here and what hobbyist groups are complaining about.

Stated as a Licensed Part 107 operator. I think everyone should be required to undergo some kind of training, with tiers for educational, hobbyist, and commercial. I learned a lot more in those classes than just how to fly a Phantom DJI and found the regulatory knowledge alone to be HIGHLY insightful.

View on HN

The hobby is broad (and changing rapidly). The media and public conflate the different uses. It was mostly stodgy model airplane fliers who regulated themselves through a community group (Academy of Model Aeronautics), somewhat like how gun owners might follow NRA's rules on gun safety at a range (and pass a test first).

The bill would have the newer parts of the hobby (like those aerial photography drones) join in the self-regulation that AMA has been doing satisfactorily for ages. Sensible and not very controversial for most.

But it also puts the hobby directly under the authority of the FAA in a way that it hasn't ever been before. This gives FAA the ability to impose new regulations directly on hobbyists without the input that would happen in either congressional legislation or community group standards.

That is an epic big deal from the point of view of the old hobbyists and the new.

I assume it's language from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 [1] and specifically § 45509.

Among the requirements for recreational use is "(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request."

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...

aha. Thanks for that!

> does anyone have the name of the bill or the full text that I may go read for myself?

Frustratingly the story doesn't specify a bill number, which makes it harder than it should be to track down the actual text.

I found some discussion of it on the AMA's Government Relations blog (see https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/26/faa-reau...) -- but confusingly, they cite the relevant bill as "H.R. 302," which if you look it up on Congress.gov is actually a bill titled the "Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017" (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...) which has nothing at all to do with UAVs.

I then searched Congress.gov for the bill title they gave, the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018", and found H.R. 4, which appears to be the actual bill in question. The UAV-specific part of the bill is Title 2, Subtitle B ("Unmanned Aircraft Systems"), which can be jumped to directly here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...

Why isn't it normal for journalists to cite their sources? Heck, we do here on HN for supporting our arguments.

Because most people don’t verify the sources, so including them seems pointless to some people

I think that is a totally separate concern. Just because I don't research about every single reference in a scientific publication should not be a signal for its omission.

Ugh. Everytime I fly a micro drone ($40) I get some "Licensed Part 107 operator" lecture me on how I need to "undergo some kind of training". I think these guys should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing children at parks.

Interesting take on the matter. Certainly access to firearms is a discussion worth having in society, but gun control isn't the subject of the proposed bill-nor is it the subject of this thread.

You should have to undergo some kind of training. It's wildly routine to see drone pilots flying at the end of a runway because they didn't realize the runway was there and they didn't know aeronautical charts exist and/or how to read them. Buying a flying battery pack doesn't entitle you to circumvent airspace rules and endanger lives and property.

a $40 micro drone is training. It's a completely harmless toy, even less harmful than a soccer ball. This is not a $1000 hobby grade drone (for which you definitely should undergo training). A $40 drone typically has extremely weak brushed motors. You don't need training to operate a frisbee but you definitely need training to operate a discus. This comment is an example of how the general public does not know enough about the subject matter.

Why would a quad require training and not an RC heli?

I think the line between "r/c toy" and "drone" is long range plus camera feed enabling the pilot to fly it out of visual line of sight. Adding any kind of autonomous flight (GPS waypoints or whatnot) definitely puts it over that line. A toy quad isn't a "drone" and shouldn't be treated like one.

So nice of you to decide that is it ok for you to endanger my life because you think that something is harmless. Thanks. Your quad will break my windscreen on short final (since i am doing 80 knots or so), distract me, and possibly make me crash on landing.

A $40 drone is usually an under 2” device that fits in the palm of your hand with an operating range of under 100ft and barely can be used outdoors (due to wind). I’ve had similar size devices fly into me (including in the face) and I didn’t even get scratched, let alone remotely hurt.

If it hits your windscreen, you were more likely driving where you shouldn’t be rather than someone with a literal kids toy doing something wrong.

Windscreen refers to that of an airplane, not a car. The clue is the reference to 80 knots, which is never used to measure vehicle speed.

Thanks. I meant to say flying, not driving. Swap out the two words and you’ll realize what I said makes sense as written otherwise.

A $40 quad won't fly that high or far. We're talking about something that fits in the palm of your hand, here. These things weigh like 30 grams.

This is hardly a good way to argue on HN. Please refrain from calling people and instead focus on the issue at hand.

If you think a palm sized 50 gram toy that can fly 100 ft from the RC is as dangerous as you state then your license should be re-evaluated because you'll be facing worse obstacles while flying.

Also nobody flies those toys in airfields. They're barely suited for backyards as they are.

a $40 "drone" is really a small RC quadcopter with a 5-8 minute battery and probably no more than 150ft range. such a device is unlikely to make it any farther than the neighbor's roof/tree. fixed wing air-hogs that kids have been flying (unregistered) for decades pose a greater threat to public safety.

Do you routinely ignore advice from those more experienced in other aspects of your life as well? Based on just what you wrote alone, and having never operated a drone in my life, I side with lecturers. Because they're licensed operators with (I assume) experience, whereas your counter-argument is...nothing, and you're the one telling the story.

Do you routinely ignore advice from those more experienced in other aspects of your life as well?

Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life?

>Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life?

Yes, regardless of what I'm working on, be it construction/maintenance on my house, basic electrical or plumbing work, driving my car, handling/transporting a firearm, and any other number of cases I have to stop and listen to "random people" i.e. cops, regulators, politicians, FAA, and whoever else regardless of how I feel about them because they are, unfortunately or not, the authority

We're not debating whether we have to do as they say or not; we're discussing whether they're right ot not, which is a completely different matter.

Just attach a gun to it ... your good.

I am intrigued by this, so long you are not flying your drone for commercial reasons you do not need a 107. However if you are flying a drone over 250 grams there are certain rules you should be following.

Im not super into drones but 250 grams seems incredibly and excessively light. Sure, you can buy drones that aren't that much heavier than which could in unusual circumstance be a little dangerous, but if someone was to build some cheap DIY drone at home from parts im not sure how successful they would be making such a tiny model and lightweight model. 250 grams is almost half the weight of a baseball which could easily be going faster than such a tiny drone.

> should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing children at parks

Completely agree! Children should be allowed to play with toy guns in public areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com