I didn't say we should just barge in and make things unsafe. I am saying that we should have a discussion about whether it is needed or not to have <400ft AGL 4.5 miles outside an airport controlled as it is probably unnecessary. The corollary to Silicon Valley startups isn't valid. I wasn't advocating flying craft there anyway and if there's a crash well we'll pivot to a new model.

An example is the FAA has sections of uncontrolled space up to 1000 ft over the Hudson river in NYC, which is in the busiest airspace in the USA in the most densely populated area, dead center in the space of 3 of the largest airports in the world. They decided that in the interest of sightseeing aircraft that they would give an area for this despite midair collisions (one recently), and an actual plane landing in the Hudson once through this space. The area 400ft AGL around airports several miles out is much less treacherous than this and perhaps a discussion should be had to see if it can be given in the interest of drone pilots.

> I am saying that we should have a discussion

Just a tip, but discussions don't usually start with calling the existing, time-proven system "draconian and unnecessary." Air traffic rules exist mostly to keep people alive. If that interferes with your hobby, that's unfortunate, but the priority should be maintaining the safety levels while accommodating the hobby as much as reasonably possible, not establishing some kind of equality between manned flight and hobbyists.

It's also worth noting that R/C pilots had a high enough barrier to entry that they generally policed themselves pretty well. Now that anyone can buy and operate something that can be hazardous to manned aircraft, things have changed significantly. The system needs to account for that level of inexperience and disregard.

> If people die well we'll pivot to a new model.

I reworded that to better reflect reality.

Current airspace requirements–politically-motivated and misguided tho they may be at times–are mostly written in blood. You'll find most aviators have a healthy appetite for the risk of aviation, but at the same time generally won't be interested in taking a "let's tinker with it and pivot after people die" approach.

You misinterpreted parent in the second section, quotations around sentence subject for clarity:

>I wasn't advocating "flying craft there anyway and if there's a crash well we'll pivot to a new model".

1) The 400 AGL rule comes from the idea that the FAA administers everything above that line. Below 400 feet isn't considered navigable airspace. The FAA doesn't specify a global minimum altitude for aircraft to fly at (in 14 CFR 91). Instead, they specify building and person/surface vehicle distances and end with the catch-all that you have to be flying high enough to be safe in the event of an engine failure. So, they're creating rules in a manner consistent with their preexisting regulations.

2) The airspace over the Hudson appears to be class E, which is controlled. By definition, only class G airspace is uncontrolled.

3) The actual plane landing on the Hudson was an airliner in the middle of an emergency. Landing on the river was certainly not part of their planned activities for the day. The pilot-in-command is allowed to deviated from the rules to the extent needed by the emergency.

I'm sure the FAA is still hotly debating how drones will be treated, but it's a government organization used to old technology and moves slowly. Silicon valley will run laps around the regulations until the VCs get bored and fund something else.

Having flown the Hudson River Corridor a couple times, calling it uncontrolled is technically correct, but really misleading. There’s a whole mandatory procedure and strict guidelines: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/79/775...

Yes agreed. I am just saying this is an example of the FAA yielding a bit to make things a bit less complicated for those wishing to fly up there. My general argument is giving FAA control of all airspace from the ground up in such a large area is infringing on some valid uses of it without really safety justification. I have yet to see anyone point out why operating a drone below 400ft over a mile from an airport is clearly unsafe to air traffic, and actually air traffic operating in this zone is unsafe to people on the ground.

So far the comments from very knowledgeable people seem to say well a plane could fly in there in some exceptional circumstances and then could happen to encounter a drone that is operating in visual range under 400 feet and something could possibly happen. This is also considering that the sky is filled with birds many larger than drones.

Personally I struggle everytime in discussions covering a broad, general subject and there specific counter examples popping up all around you without any deep understanding of that particular example. In that regard, the Hudson river.

SO, the Hudson area is not as heavily regulated as it should be following standard procedure. There is however some sort of regulation to it and it is, I assume, monitored. Everything else would just be plain suicide. One can safely assume that the FAA came up with that perticular piece of regulation after putting some thought into it. Pretty much the same approach they are taking with drones.

I am not a software engineer, therefor I am not commenting on software posts. Honest questions are always fine and welcome, but argueing against the FAA without any deeper knowledge of how air travel works is getting us nowhere.

FInally, the plane that landed on the Hudson had an issue with birds, didn't it? Only that you cannto do anything against birds, dornes are a different thing.