DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Re:DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft... by tomkinstinch on Sunday February 15, 2015 @01:06PM (#9053380)

The proposed rules seem prudent and well-considered. I'm an amateur radio operator, and there are similar licensure, testing, and regulatory requirements in order to ensure the best use of a shared and finite resource. Where radios have restrictions on frequency, aircraft have restrictions on location, where transmitters are prohibited from causing interference, aircraft are controled for safety. Where radio power is limited (to the the minimum necessary for communication), aircraft use is limited to line-of-sight. Most of the populace is unlikely to be an operator (of radio, or aircraft) so it is important that those who are are respectful of everyone else such that their use does not endanger or interfere with ordinary activity.

Just as no one wants an unlicensed transmitter blocking the ability for a cell phone to call 911, no one wants a quad copter falling on his or her head.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft... by ghaff on Sunday February 15, 2015 @01:34PM (#9053502)

I thought a while ago that ham radio regulations might be a useful conceptual template and, as you say, that's what seems to be happening.

I imagine we'll see some pushback on the requirements for getting certified (e.g. background check) but that's quibbling at the margins.

I also imagine that some won't like the prohibition on autonomous operation outside line of sight. But that seems a reasonable restriction to me if we're heading toward a spot where there are potentially lots of drones flying around.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft... by god_bless_texas on Sunday February 15, 2015 @01:53PM (#9053570)

I heard some of the information that came out of the rule making committee about this time last year. The FAA has the idea that they need to control this as fast as possible, while doing what they can to slow the explosion so that it remains under constant control.

Part of me wonders if the background check (TSA Screen) is just something to weed out people who are on the fence about getting the certificate.

I do applaud some of what they're doing except for the weight classes they have assigned. The 55 lb and under is a huge range. They are making safety rules based on a contraption between the weight of a desktop computer or a toaster. I'm not sure a toaster falling on your head from 500 feet would kill you, but a computer falling from that height surely would.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft... by justinv on Sunday February 15, 2015 @06:36PM (#9054651)

Well, a tape measure that dropped 500feet killed a man[1], so I wouldn't be too confident about something the size of a toaster not killing someone when being dropped 500ft.

Granted a tape measure does weigh less than 2lb (~toaster), but anything dropping from 500feet is still cause for concern.

[1]http://www.krmg.com/news/news/national/tape-measure-dropped-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft... by wtallis on Sunday February 15, 2015 @11:22PM (#9055285)

I wonder what the terminal velocity is for a drone that's lost power. It seems like anything that's able to climb to and hover at 500 feet probably won't drop quite like a brick unless things go wrong in a very particular way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft... by god_bless_texas on Sunday February 15, 2015 @07:05PM (#9054702)

I wasn't confident and said I wasn't sure.

Maybe the rules according to those weights aren't wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]