SSgt Duramax
Junior Member
I am going to preface this by saying that I thing a 250g limit is arbitrary, stupid, and probably being overly safe.
It also doesn't take into account the shape of the vehicle, density, composition etc. Look, I have about 2/3 of an engineering degree and I dont talk about it a ton because well, you dont need one to understand stuff like this and frankly, Ive forgotten more than I learned. So don't look to me for complex answers, I can barely use CAD programs these days.
Do then I found this article in my search.
https://www.vox.com/2017/3/6/146419...nfluences-todays-drone-weight-regulations-250
As we all know 1960s science does little to help with modern day problems. Look at our diabetes epidemic. Fueled by flawed 1960s nutrition research that the government and medical establishment refuse to back down from to this day.
However, wouldn't it seem logical that we factor in not only weight, but things like composition, density, speed capability, and other things if safety were our true pursuit. (we know it isn't, but lets pretend for a sec that it is). At the very surface, shouldn't fixed wings have a different set of requirements then multirotors, which I feel that most of these requirements are geared toward.
For instance, my daughters trainer.
This thing weighs over 250g..... barely. It poses little to no risk to anyone or anything it hits especially since there would be very little chance that the prop would be engaged if it did hit something. It would probably hurt more getting popped by a nerf dart. Meanwhile a 2oz rock dropped from 300 feet can cause serious damage.
Im not trying to get to some multi rotor vs fixed wing debate going here either, but merely illustrating a point.
If theyre insisted in making remote ID a rule "for safety" shouldn't we apply the rules in such a way to minimize infringement on rights if there is no danger?
So, where is the science. I dont think it exists.
It also doesn't take into account the shape of the vehicle, density, composition etc. Look, I have about 2/3 of an engineering degree and I dont talk about it a ton because well, you dont need one to understand stuff like this and frankly, Ive forgotten more than I learned. So don't look to me for complex answers, I can barely use CAD programs these days.
Do then I found this article in my search.
https://www.vox.com/2017/3/6/146419...nfluences-todays-drone-weight-regulations-250
As we all know 1960s science does little to help with modern day problems. Look at our diabetes epidemic. Fueled by flawed 1960s nutrition research that the government and medical establishment refuse to back down from to this day.
However, wouldn't it seem logical that we factor in not only weight, but things like composition, density, speed capability, and other things if safety were our true pursuit. (we know it isn't, but lets pretend for a sec that it is). At the very surface, shouldn't fixed wings have a different set of requirements then multirotors, which I feel that most of these requirements are geared toward.
For instance, my daughters trainer.

This thing weighs over 250g..... barely. It poses little to no risk to anyone or anything it hits especially since there would be very little chance that the prop would be engaged if it did hit something. It would probably hurt more getting popped by a nerf dart. Meanwhile a 2oz rock dropped from 300 feet can cause serious damage.
Im not trying to get to some multi rotor vs fixed wing debate going here either, but merely illustrating a point.
If theyre insisted in making remote ID a rule "for safety" shouldn't we apply the rules in such a way to minimize infringement on rights if there is no danger?
So, where is the science. I dont think it exists.