On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 22:41:43 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:53:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2014 9:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/5/2014 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
I am just amazed at how far, and how fast, this technology has come in
such a short period of time. I try to keep up with technology but
this one has caught me totally flat footed. Absolutely astounding.

I think the general public is still way behind the curve on this but
will probably start becoming aware very soon. That is not a good
thing for hobbyists in my opinion. Much like when the general
population discovered the internet back in the late 90's, there will
be a lot of anguished cries about how awful this all is, and why
aren't there any laws, regulations, etc. My advice is to buy what you
want as soon as possible because within a year or two we will see
groups called "Mothers Against Remote Video Cameras", "Mothers Against
Quadcopters", etc., plus a lot of calls for legislative action.
Meanwhile law enforcement agencies will start using them in droves and
people will start getting arrested for taking a whizz against a tree
in a wilderness area. These things will probably end up as highly
regulated as handguns.



Or target practice.

No problem with the hobbyist who go to locations authorized and used for
flying them or even using them in their own yards. But to fly them over
other people's property taking pictures or videos is going to cause
problems. I think the current FAA regulations that apply to aircraft
is a minimum of 500 feet altitude and I think that applies to
helicopters. Fixed wing is higher, IIRC.

I wouldn't be surprised to see laws passed that are even more
restrictive for the growing RC type aircraft.




Knowing nothing about the RC craze, I was just reading that there are
currently no regulations in the US covering their use other than
frequency and transmitter power allocations. There's an association
known as the Academy of Model Aeronautics' (AMA) that governs rules
that apply to their sponsored or affiliated flight areas, one of which
states that the ground based "pilot" must always have the RC aircraft
within visual view. Apparently that's a problem for many because one
of the features that people like is the ability to view areas out of
sight of where they stand, using the camera in the aircraft. As a
result an increasing number of people are flying them outside of areas
affiliated with the Academy of Model Aeronautics that are subject to
the visual view rule.

I see some black market half watt broadband and "dirty" transmitters
used as jammers becoming popular. :-)



===

There will be counter measures, encryption, counter-counter measures,
ad infinitum.

The "Mothers Against Everything" crowd will be beating the drums
pretty loudly the first time they or one of their daughters gets
photographed skinny dipping the family hot tub and we all get to see
it on Facebook. :-)

If guys start flying these things over clothing optional beaches (and
they will), there will be a huge cover up and subsequent uproar.

From my experience with clothing optional beaches, those folks won't give a ****. Now, some of the
nudist campgrounds may get upset!

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

On 3/6/2014 8:16 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:53:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/5/2014 9:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/5/2014 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
I am just amazed at how far, and how fast, this technology has come in
such a short period of time. I try to keep up with technology but
this one has caught me totally flat footed. Absolutely astounding.

I think the general public is still way behind the curve on this but
will probably start becoming aware very soon. That is not a good
thing for hobbyists in my opinion. Much like when the general
population discovered the internet back in the late 90's, there will
be a lot of anguished cries about how awful this all is, and why
aren't there any laws, regulations, etc. My advice is to buy what you
want as soon as possible because within a year or two we will see
groups called "Mothers Against Remote Video Cameras", "Mothers Against
Quadcopters", etc., plus a lot of calls for legislative action.
Meanwhile law enforcement agencies will start using them in droves and
people will start getting arrested for taking a whizz against a tree
in a wilderness area. These things will probably end up as highly
regulated as handguns.



Or target practice.

No problem with the hobbyist who go to locations authorized and used for
flying them or even using them in their own yards. But to fly them over
other people's property taking pictures or videos is going to cause
problems. I think the current FAA regulations that apply to aircraft
is a minimum of 500 feet altitude and I think that applies to
helicopters. Fixed wing is higher, IIRC.

I wouldn't be surprised to see laws passed that are even more
restrictive for the growing RC type aircraft.




Knowing nothing about the RC craze, I was just reading that there are
currently no regulations in the US covering their use other than
frequency and transmitter power allocations. There's an association
known as the Academy of Model Aeronautics' (AMA) that governs rules
that apply to their sponsored or affiliated flight areas, one of which
states that the ground based "pilot" must always have the RC aircraft
within visual view. Apparently that's a problem for many because one
of the features that people like is the ability to view areas out of
sight of where they stand, using the camera in the aircraft. As a
result an increasing number of people are flying them outside of areas
affiliated with the Academy of Model Aeronautics that are subject to
the visual view rule.

I see some black market half watt broadband and "dirty" transmitters
used as jammers becoming popular. :-)

There is no requirement to join the AMA. And from what I've read, the 'license' requirements apply
to things like TV transmitters which use different frequencies than the aircraft. As I'm not
interested in a camera, I've not spent any time researching the matter.


My point was that many hobbyist are avoiding AMA sanctioned flying
fields *because* of their rules to maintain visual sight.

I was looking at many on-line advertisements for helicopters,
quadcopters, etc., last night. Virtually all of them advertise, "Spy on
your neighbors" or similar types of sales lures. If people start using
them for that purpose there are going to be some major neighborhood
confrontations. Here are a couple of examples:

"Spying on your friends and neighbors was never so easy or fun as with
the advent of Remote Control Drones with Real Working Spy Cameras."

"Spy Hawk RC Let You Spy On Your Neighborhood From Eagle View"

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:07:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:55:43 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

I am just amazed at how far, and how fast, this technology has come in
such a short period of time. I try to keep up with technology but
this one has caught me totally flat footed. Absolutely astounding.

I think the general public is still way behind the curve on this but
will probably start becoming aware very soon. That is not a good
thing for hobbyists in my opinion. Much like when the general
population discovered the internet back in the late 90's, there will
be a lot of anguished cries about how awful this all is, and why
aren't there any laws, regulations, etc. My advice is to buy what you
want as soon as possible because within a year or two we will see
groups called "Mothers Against Remote Video Cameras", "Mothers Against
Quadcopters", etc., plus a lot of calls for legislative action.
Meanwhile law enforcement agencies will start using them in droves and
people will start getting arrested for taking a whizz against a tree
in a wilderness area. These things will probably end up as highly
regulated as handguns.

That's what I've been saying since Christmas! It's unreal, and it's cheap. I got a baby (3" rotor")
helicopter two or three years ago that cost about $30 at Radio Shack. It flew into a wall on the
second flight, and it flew no more.

This Christmas my daughter got me this one: http://tinyurl.com/kok4op7
When I opened the box, I thought she'd paid way too much (over $100) for a toy for me. She told me
it had good reviews, so the next day I went to look. I was surprised as hell to see the price was
$29 on Amazon. And, if you looked at the link, you'll see the price has been cut almost in half
since then. I'm ordering a couple for the kids to play with at Solomon's Island this year.

===

That's an amazing price.

They must be stamping them out like jelly beans.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:50:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 8:16 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:53:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/5/2014 9:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/5/2014 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
I am just amazed at how far, and how fast, this technology has come in
such a short period of time. I try to keep up with technology but
this one has caught me totally flat footed. Absolutely astounding.

I think the general public is still way behind the curve on this but
will probably start becoming aware very soon. That is not a good
thing for hobbyists in my opinion. Much like when the general
population discovered the internet back in the late 90's, there will
be a lot of anguished cries about how awful this all is, and why
aren't there any laws, regulations, etc. My advice is to buy what you
want as soon as possible because within a year or two we will see
groups called "Mothers Against Remote Video Cameras", "Mothers Against
Quadcopters", etc., plus a lot of calls for legislative action.
Meanwhile law enforcement agencies will start using them in droves and
people will start getting arrested for taking a whizz against a tree
in a wilderness area. These things will probably end up as highly
regulated as handguns.



Or target practice.

No problem with the hobbyist who go to locations authorized and used for
flying them or even using them in their own yards. But to fly them over
other people's property taking pictures or videos is going to cause
problems. I think the current FAA regulations that apply to aircraft
is a minimum of 500 feet altitude and I think that applies to
helicopters. Fixed wing is higher, IIRC.

I wouldn't be surprised to see laws passed that are even more
restrictive for the growing RC type aircraft.




Knowing nothing about the RC craze, I was just reading that there are
currently no regulations in the US covering their use other than
frequency and transmitter power allocations. There's an association
known as the Academy of Model Aeronautics' (AMA) that governs rules
that apply to their sponsored or affiliated flight areas, one of which
states that the ground based "pilot" must always have the RC aircraft
within visual view. Apparently that's a problem for many because one
of the features that people like is the ability to view areas out of
sight of where they stand, using the camera in the aircraft. As a
result an increasing number of people are flying them outside of areas
affiliated with the Academy of Model Aeronautics that are subject to
the visual view rule.

I see some black market half watt broadband and "dirty" transmitters
used as jammers becoming popular. :-)

There is no requirement to join the AMA. And from what I've read, the 'license' requirements apply
to things like TV transmitters which use different frequencies than the aircraft. As I'm not
interested in a camera, I've not spent any time researching the matter.


My point was that many hobbyist are avoiding AMA sanctioned flying
fields *because* of their rules to maintain visual sight.

I was looking at many on-line advertisements for helicopters,
quadcopters, etc., last night. Virtually all of them advertise, "Spy on
your neighbors" or similar types of sales lures. If people start using
them for that purpose there are going to be some major neighborhood
confrontations. Here are a couple of examples:

"Spying on your friends and neighbors was never so easy or fun as with
the advent of Remote Control Drones with Real Working Spy Cameras."

"Spy Hawk RC Let You Spy On Your Neighborhood From Eagle View"

The AMA (airplanes) is much like the AMA (motorcycles). Both provide insurance at sponsored events,
both have lots of rules for their events, both have membership fees, etc. Here is the AMA (airplane)
event safety code.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF

Note '9.b.' The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall: (b) Fly using the assistance of a camera or
First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550.

Thinking this might alleviate the visual line of sight, I went to Document #550, and found, among
other things, this line:

4. RANGE – ALTITUDE – WEIGHT – SPEED:
a) One of the requirements in Federal Law (Public Law 112-95 Sec 336 (c) (2) February
14, 2012) for model aircraft to be excluded from FAA regulations is that model aircraft
must be flown within VLOS of the operator.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

So it would appear that the VLOS rules are more than just AMA rules, unless the operator abides by
FAA regulations for other than model airplanes.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:44:59 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:07:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:55:43 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

I am just amazed at how far, and how fast, this technology has come in
such a short period of time. I try to keep up with technology but
this one has caught me totally flat footed. Absolutely astounding.

I think the general public is still way behind the curve on this but
will probably start becoming aware very soon. That is not a good
thing for hobbyists in my opinion. Much like when the general
population discovered the internet back in the late 90's, there will
be a lot of anguished cries about how awful this all is, and why
aren't there any laws, regulations, etc. My advice is to buy what you
want as soon as possible because within a year or two we will see
groups called "Mothers Against Remote Video Cameras", "Mothers Against
Quadcopters", etc., plus a lot of calls for legislative action.
Meanwhile law enforcement agencies will start using them in droves and
people will start getting arrested for taking a whizz against a tree
in a wilderness area. These things will probably end up as highly
regulated as handguns.

That's what I've been saying since Christmas! It's unreal, and it's cheap. I got a baby (3" rotor")
helicopter two or three years ago that cost about $30 at Radio Shack. It flew into a wall on the
second flight, and it flew no more.

This Christmas my daughter got me this one: http://tinyurl.com/kok4op7
When I opened the box, I thought she'd paid way too much (over $100) for a toy for me. She told me
it had good reviews, so the next day I went to look. I was surprised as hell to see the price was
$29 on Amazon. And, if you looked at the link, you'll see the price has been cut almost in half
since then. I'm ordering a couple for the kids to play with at Solomon's Island this year.

===

That's an amazing price.

They must be stamping them out like jelly beans.

You'd think so, until you look carefully at the little bugger and see the amount of Phillips head
screws holding it together.
This'll give you an idea of just how complex this thing is. It's sure not stamped out!

http://tinyurl.com/l7nrkus

Here's a spare parts list:

http://www.symahelicopters.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=48

I know you didn't mean 'stamped out' literally, but the detail and work involved in assembling one
of these is unreal.

The other day my daughter and kids were here. I flew and crashed it half a dozen times, and then let
the dad and granddaughter fly it. I'll bet it crashed 20 times that night, into walls, ceilings,
lights, furniture...but not the dogs 'cause they run.

But it keeps on flying.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

....which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.

On 3/6/2014 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.


Written in 1946. Time for a revision, I think.

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:20:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2014 11:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:07:20 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:20:08 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:31:26 -0500, wrote:



Florida already passed a law saying the cops need a warrant to use a
drone. I assume that really just means if they want the pictures in
court. If they just use the drone to "get lucky"" on something like a
traffic stop and they lose the drone images, I doubt anyone would even
know.
It is still the wild west as far as privately owned drones tho,

BTW it is illegal (federal law) to actually shoot one down, it is an
aircraft but I am not sure that law has really been tested on a drone.

Say what??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

18 US code 32

(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce;
... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years or both.

So the question hinges on the definition of 'special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States' as
the 'air commerce' phrase wouldn't apply. A quick search found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap465-sec46501.pdf

...which is where I got bogged down, until I came across this:

(2) ‘‘special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States’’ includes any of the following
aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.

Earlier, somewhere, I read the definition of a 'public aircraft' which included the government -
Fed, state, county, etc. A 'civil aircraft' was any aircraft 'not a public aircraft'.
(http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat.../part_1-1.html)

Therefore, I conclude that you are correct - except for those cases such as in the link I provided
earlier. You have to watch it for about 1 1/2 minutes before the aircraft get involved.



The existing FAA regulations regarding damage or destruction were
written in 1946, long before private drones and helicopters with cameras
were ever envisioned. There is pending legislation on new rules
governing the use of remotely controlled aircraft, including those used
by hobbyists.


Until then, you'd best not shoot 'em down or hijack 'em.

Amen.