Hacker News Reader

Comment by theflyingelvis | Hacker News Reader

It’s the very inability of the hot air balloons to maneuver that makes them unsafe. There are countless balloon accidents where the craft are dragged along the ground, blown into power lines and other obstructions because the pilots have no real control of the flight path (other than limited control of altitude).

So, again, it’s my opinion that balloons are the real danger, not UAV’s.

View on HN

No fixed wing pilot I know would ever state and claim that hot air balloons are a risk.

Claiming that “balloons are a risk, not UAVs” is almost so bizarre that I mentally flag your posts as trolling.

Giving UAVs the right of way is bogus and will cost many human lives in General Aviation. There are already countless accidents reported with UAVs nearly taking down planes. They are impossible to see.

Edit: Your comment almost sounds like out of some bad communication workbook for lobbyists from the 70s - “pedestrians are the real danger on the street, cars are safe. Jay walking needs to be punished severely” ; “Public transportation is a communist idea threatening the very ideals of our society - every person should instead buy his OWN car”. Man, Balloons are the neatest and most harmless most easy to avoid objects in the sky. Don’t try to make them look bad. Everyone loves em.

I never stated that UAV’s are not a ‘risk’.

Edited: “It was never…” to “I never…” Didn’t realize that @looping__lui was referring to a different comment. And, I’m not trolling e_e.

I directly quoted his statement. Are you like his trolling friend? He literally wrote: “balloons are a risk, not UAVs”

Your comment is very confusing and in fact you do seem to be replying to the person you are claiming you are not responding to even now. Maybe you can go back through the thread and verify the names on all the posts?

Cut me some slack, it was 6 am in the morning for not keeping track of user names.

Who goes after balloons with “balloons are a risk, not UAVs”!?

In General Aviation thats like kicking puppies. And this direct quote to me very much sounded like “UAVs are not a risk”.

Whatever form of aviation brings society the most value is the optimal one and should be given preference.

If I had to place my bets, I think that drone-operated aviation, delivery, etc. will become a trillion dollar market.

If that's the case, then obviously it takes precedence.

Playgrounds and sidewalks also add little economic value to society.

Parks, playgrounds, and sidewalks are a public resource for everyone with intangible benefits.

Hot air balloons or even small personal aircraft are a niche that serve a mostly wealthy subset of the population. Drone delivery and transportation will likely grow to serve all of us and kick off a multitude of further technological and business innovations. Because of this, drones should get regulatory approval and preference due to the huge potential benefits for society.

I take this as your personal opinion that is probably mainly motivated as a person benefiting from it.

Not sure I met many “wealthy” balloon pilots, but glad you make “the trillion dollar industry of drones” a “fight for the common man”

Yeah, the problem with drone deliveries is that they do not solve the main problem: last mole delivery. Whether it is a drone or driver, someone has to be there to pick up / accept the parcel. Since you cannot operate large drones in densly built areas, the number of parcels a single drone can deliver is limited. Compare that to the number of parcels a delivery truck from UPS or DHL can carry. Plus, such a truck does not have to return to base just because one parcel couldn't be delivered.

For remote areas, military resupply and such, sure, drone will works just fine. But that is hardly a trillion dollar market, regardless how hard all those pitch decks try to make it one.

> someone has to be there to pick up / accept the parcel

It's been years since fedex/ups/usps has done anything but quickly drop packages at my front door and get back in their truck asap

Reply on news.ycombinator.com