Comment by steven777400 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by steven777400 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have mixed views on this. On the one hand, I completely support model aircraft hobbyists and I also support private drone operations (like real estate photography or search and rescue, or just recreational use).

However, there has to be a line where a remote control operation could interact with the national airspace system and the regulated operators therein. Not more than 500 feet and away from airports sounds like a good limit to me, adding on that the drone operator must maintain clearance from any aircraft that may exist in that area, such as helicopters.

I think the key change that is spooking the FAA is that drones may be operated (from a technical perspective) outside of direct view of the operator. "Traditional" model aircraft weren't generally taken far from the field they launched from; but a drone with a camera and transmitter can go much further.

Probably everyone has seen the video of the drone that was flown through a fireworks display. A very cool video indeed, but, also a good example of the FAA's concerns: if the drone is outside of view of the operator, and running at altitude, and not carrying a transponder, lights, or other equipment mandated to certified aircraft, then how is clearance from other aircraft ensured?

There are two separable domains here.

Firstly, the traditional model aeroplane realm: below 400 feet altitude ("angels 0.4"?), and presumably not at all in the approaches to runways.

Secondly, the new realm of beyond-visual-range high-altitude model aeroplane flight, as explored in the firework video.

The first has long been legal. The second probably needs some new rules for safe use. But the problem is that the FAA has reacted to the emergence of the second by trying to annexe the first.

Similarly, the line between "model aircraft" and "aircraft" is increasingly blurred. It's a spectrum between balsa-wood-and-rubber-band-kits and $4M-predator-drone (with a 48-foot wingspan and a 675-mile range). Somewhere in the middle are advanced RC helicopters and quadrocopters. On the upper end of the range are Amazon package drones.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the FAA to have jurisdiction over the advanced end of that spectrum. The question is how do you draw the line? Height from ground and/or range from operator seem like reasonable metrics to me.

FAA is looking at the wrong group, the current rules say don't fly over 400 feet with a model aircraft. If a pilot of a real plane is flying under 400ft outside of the landing or takeoff pattern in Class B airspace there's an issue with that pilot or the plane. Model planes and real planes just don't operate in the same airspace very often so it has not been an issue over the last 50+ years.

Now the big issue that's spooking the FAA is that if you go to YouTube and search for FPV you'l find people flying their FPV planes at 2000, 3000 or even 5000ft where they become a risk to full size aircraft - even if they are only 2 or 3lbs of foam I could see them causing some damage to a jet engine. (Alt: but so do birds)

The small subset of idiots who bust the 400ft rule is making the FAA try to ban all FPV or outside line of sight operation which is a terrible idea as there are a lot of practical applications for model aircraft under 400ft (surveying, agriculture, logistics, Search and rescue etc) The FAA should only have jurisdiction over 500ft and in class B airspace as it has been for the past 80 years. They need to get a framework in place for licensed commercial operation under 400ft rather then just trying to ban it outright - people will do it regardless it's better if they are certified and follow some safety rules rather then the under the table hope you don't get caught stuff that's going on now.

> If a pilot of a real plane is flying under 400ft outside of the landing or takeoff pattern in Class B airspace there's an issue with that pilot or the plane.

Well... not really. First, rotary wing aircraft don't have the same altitude and horizontal separation limits as fixed wing aircraft. And, second, in Class B specifically, most aircraft are relying on ATC to provide separation from conflicting traffic.

> The FAA should only have jurisdiction over 500ft and in class B airspace as it has been for the past 80 years. They need to get a framework in place for licensed commercial operation under 400ft rather then just trying to ban it outright

This doesn't make any sense. I suspect that you aren't aware of all the different types of airspace because you're essentially saying that drone operators should have free range to operate in the controlled airspace of smaller airports. Chicago's Midway Airport and the Bay Area's San Jose are just two examples of such "small airport" with scheduled commercial flights out of class C. Class C and D, which extends to the ground within a 4 mile radius of the airports, is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the FAA.

But even aside from that, there is plenty of VFR traffic in class G. You're essentially saying that aircraft carrying humans bear the entire responsibility for avoiding drones, as well as the (human) cost in the event of such a collision.

"You're essentially saying that aircraft carrying humans bear the entire responsibility for avoiding drones, as well as the (human) cost in the event of such a collision."

Nope that could not be further from the case, I was under the (wrong) impression that class B was five miles out from any normal airport thanks for correcting me on that. You should not be operating in controlled airspace unless you have contacted ATC at the airport, the FAAs rules state exactly that which is very reasonable.

See: https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/#5/40.044/-98.130

However claiming regulatory ownership of ALL airspace down to ground level when there is longstanding precedent that under 83ft belongs to the property owner and between 83ft and 500ft (not around airports) is unregulated is a bridge too far.

The FAA advises pilots not to fly under 500ft as it's not safe, 200ft may be dangerous for a full size aircraft but it's perfectly reasonable for a model aircraft (UAVs, MAVs, Drones, whatever you want to call them).

See: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim07...

a. General. Many structures exist that could significantly affect the safety of your flight when operating below 500 feet AGL, and particularly below 200 feet AGL. While 14 CFR Part 91.119 allows flight below 500 AGL when over sparsely populated areas or open water, such operations are very dangerous. At and below 200 feet AGL there are numerous power lines, antenna towers, etc., that are not marked and lighted as obstructions and; therefore, may not be seen in time to avoid a collision. Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) are issued on those lighted structures experiencing temporary light outages. However, some time may pass before the FAA is notified of these outages, and the NOTAM issued, thus pilot vigilance is imperative.

I have a moderately informed opinion that might change as I learn more.

It seems that a few bad drone pilots are causing problems for all of the good actors in the system. Since there is so much potential for injury, and since it only takes one terrible incident to bring down stiff regulation on everyone, perhaps drone piloting should become a licensed activity or sport.

Establishing drone pilot licensing would theoretically ensure that legal, licensed pilots are aware of the risks and are willing to assume greater personal liability in the event of operator negligence. The hobby would gain legitimate legal grounding and become less "cowboy" more or less overnight. I can't imagine it would be remain crowded with careless risk takers.

If this is done early, before any major incident or bad press, the FAA won't have to step in and put more rules and regulations in place. If there are to be new rules, I imagine that they wouldn't be nearly as overbearing for a well-behaved professional hobby that doesn't needlessly put health and lives at risk.

I think professional hobbyist (not an oxymoron?) drone pilots should lobby lawmakers for something like this to take place as soon as possible, before the FAA starts making mandates. I can certainly see the FAA's concerns--there is legitimate risk and danger. Something will eventually happen that brings the entire house of cards down. If the drone pilots don't ask for this self-regulation themselves, I wouldn't necessarily be against the FAA moving ahead on its own.

On a personally related note, I'm involved in hobbyist high-wattage laser projection for making video games and interactive displays. (I think there are videos linked from my HN profile). The entire lasing community cringes when there is news of some idiot shining a laser pointer at a plane or when someone is caught using a high-wattage laser for destructive purposes. It's a seemingly regular occurrence, and I'm pretty certain there will be regulation coming down the pipeline eventually. It seems there is no shortage of careless ignorance when it comes to dangerous hobbies.

I wholly agree with you, and yet, I don't see many people proposing a licensing framework. It would even benefit the hobbyists very much. A similar problem was encountered in the early days of radio amateurism. They had problems with assholes hogging some parts of the spectrum with noisy equipment. Licensing worked very well in their case.

Just so you know, in my country, they made illegal any drone with a video camera on it. That sounds insane to me, hindering progress in what could be a very innovative field.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com