NHacker Next on Rails
  • top
  • new
  • best
  • ask
  • show
  • jobs
login
GuidelinesFAQListsAPISecurityLegalApply to YCContact

Hacker News on Rails, powered by React on Rails Pro. Open the source on GitHub by ShakaCode.

Commit 06fc0df

Rendered at 09:12:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Rails + React on Rails RSC.

Show HN: Dovepass – can I legally fly a drone along this exact path in SF? (dovepass.com)

18 points by nimitmehra 1d ago | 4 comments

Bluestrike2 4h ago
A couple thoughts:

> Your landing point is 7 ft (2 m) from a 164 ft (50 m)-tall building — taller than drones may fly, so we keep at least 80 ft (25 m) from it.

The numbers are from just clicking a random spot, but I'm kind of confused about how you're interpreting the regulations. In the US, the maximum allowable altitude is 400 feet AGL per § 107.51(b), albeit with a structure exemption for Part 107 pilots. Within a 400 foot radius around a structure, you can fly 400 feet above said structure's maximum height. That drops down to 400 feet AGL the moment you go beyond that radius, however.

Setting aside both the math error with the building height and the structure exemption, what's the basis for the exclusion zone that's being referenced? Granted, you absolutely want horizontal separation near buildings to account for winds that can easily slam a drone into a window, but the error message could imply that your 80 foot clearance is a nonexistent regulatory rule. I'm guessing that's just a conservative safety margin to make flight planning easier, but you should explicitly identify it as such so as to avoid ambiguity or the implication that it's a prescriptive FAA regulation. There's a reason why clarity and precision are so critical in pretty much any aviation document.

Anyhow, it's an interesting concept, one that I could see it being useful in planning but I'd double check some of the altitude logic. I'd also add references to error messages that point to the relevant regulations that trigger the warnings.

0. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

1. https://pilotinstitute.com/drone-altitute/

unwind 2h ago
What math error with the building's height? Assuming it's what you quoted, 164 ft converts to 49.9872 m so "50 m" seems excellent as the value to present?
solyin 8h ago
Oh you have to hit edit flight to get access to the button. Cool project. Bad UI.
arionhardison 8h ago
I would like to work with you if possible, I made https://san-francisco.ca.us.codify.city

I would like to integrate this w/ the agentic state, my email is on profile, please LMK if we can chat.

- TY Arion