A half pound is enough to damage something when you're going 150 mph. I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield.
I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everything above the surface of the earth". The reason they won't implement rules about flying indoors is not because they are nice guys, but because they cannot have a legislative opinion written that supports this as an area they can control.
And yet people are perfectly happy to assume the risk of birdstrike without grounding every aircraft or needing to regulate or sue birds and bird owners.
Why the hysteria about drones? Does anybody _really_ think xmas drones are going to outnumber birds? What's the real marginal increase in risk for aviation here?
Or is this just a case of "Someone seems to be having fun doing something I don't care for, so I'll invent risk scenarios to justify stopping them from doing it... Because reasons..."?
Sure, but they can't - and it doesn't matter (obviously, because we still all get in airplanes in spite of an identifiable but uncontrollable risk).
Just because they _can_ write a FAR about drones, should they? Does it matter any more or less than the risk of birdstrike? What _is_ the risk? If there were a real quantifiable and indisputable number there, surely we'd all know about it and be able to look it up and evaluate it in comparison to other risks we accept?
Is allowing my neighbour to fly a drone in the local park more or less dangerous than riding a bicycle? Or climbing a ladder? Or riding a horse?
Yes. That's why so many FARs exist in the first place. Most are the result of incidents or accidents.
One of my favorites is 91.119a
"Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
It's one I do not think drones or their operator should be exempt from.
I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everything above the surface of the earth". The reason they won't implement rules about flying indoors is not because they are nice guys, but because they cannot have a legislative opinion written that supports this as an area they can control.