On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:59:49 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:18:14 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:45:56 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:34:36 -0400, wrote:

They are going to exempt "toys" but I am not sure how that will be
defined.
It does sound like another one of those cases where the government is
"doing something" without actually accomplishing much. It sounds like
there will be a tax but I doubt it will be enough to actually pay for
the program.
Until these things have transponders, there is no real way of knowing
who's drone was the offender.

===

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Basically the only tool the government has is to pass laws. That's
the easy part, then they have to figure out if and when to enforce it.
All it's really going to do is give them another brick to throw at
someone after they are caught.

If they were really concerned about protecting commercial airspace, it
wouldn't be all that difficult to monitor and/or jam the most common
control frequencies.

The first time I ever saw a quadcopter it was flying low over the
audience at an outdoor concert. Although I can see the attraction,
flying over crowds of people seems just plain irresponsible to me.

Agreed. Even at the RC fields, flying over spectators is a no-no and can get one
kicked off the field very quickly.

I like the jammer idea. Every airport/airplane should have one. These guys could
probably come up with a jammer that would work.
http://www.jammerfromchina.com/

They get sort of funny about any "jamming" where aviation in involved.
To much of the flying is done using beacons, GPS and computers.

Shouldn't be that hard to jam a particular frequency. Most of us use 2.4Ghz.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!