| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. :-) |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
|
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:55:43 PM UTC-6, 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. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when you read stuff like this, it kinda makes you wonder what's really going on. techtimes.com/articles/4036/20140304/facebook-drone-a-potential-doer-of-good-not-evil.htm |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
|
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
|
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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! |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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" |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
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. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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. I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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. Isn't there a town in Colorado that just opened a hunting season on govt drones or similar?? Thought I heard that, I will leave it to you all, got another site to work and we know you all aren't interested in that:) |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal hopping' capability. Good article on the transmitters in use: http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across this: "What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency hopping system. It’s wideband agile. DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum. By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment. http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6 Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS', with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'. Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal hopping' capability. Good article on the transmitters in use: http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across this: "What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency hopping system. It’s wideband agile. DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum. By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment. http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6 Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS', with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'. Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try. Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications to virtually any radio controlled device. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:49:41 -0500, wrote:
I guess the next thing might be flying your bait way the hell off the beach without kites, balloons or just a hefty throw. === Interesting thought. You could do the same thing when anchored out or drifting. Fishing live bait, it is easy to imagine the whole rig getting hit by an osprey or seagull. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 1:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:49:41 -0500, wrote: I guess the next thing might be flying your bait way the hell off the beach without kites, balloons or just a hefty throw. === Interesting thought. You could do the same thing when anchored out or drifting. Fishing live bait, it is easy to imagine the whole rig getting hit by an osprey or seagull. Harpooners in this area often hired spotter aircraft to direct them to pods of tuna. I don't know if this is still legal or done anymore. Seems like a a Quadcopter operating from the boat could do the job. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/wicked-tuna/videos/harpooning-christina/ |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:46:46 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:49:41 -0500, wrote: I guess the next thing might be flying your bait way the hell off the beach without kites, balloons or just a hefty throw. === Interesting thought. You could do the same thing when anchored out or drifting. Fishing live bait, it is easy to imagine the whole rig getting hit by an osprey or seagull. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBd-Wlsic9E Note comment..."****ed off or just horny?" |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:36:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal hopping' capability. Good article on the transmitters in use: http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across this: "What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency hopping system. It’s wideband agile. DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum. By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment. http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6 Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS', with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'. Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try. Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications to virtually any radio controlled device. Came across this: http://www.instructables.com/communi...plane-problem/ "Looks like a great Instructable project to build your own! - http://radiohax.wikispaces.com/Spark+gap+transmitter Wonder what the range is. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 3:09 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:36:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2014 12:22 PM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. I wonder if the jammers will interfere with the new batch of transmitters which have a 'signal hopping' capability. Good article on the transmitters in use: http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/fhss_vs_dsss.shtml Now I've got to figure out what the one I want is. In the specs for the Spectrum DX6i, I came across this: "What DSMX™ adds to the tried and true wideband technology of DSM2™ is the extra interference protection and faster reconnection times of frequency agility. But DSMX isn't just another frequency hopping system. It’s wideband agile. DSMX frequency shifts are coordinated using the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application. Unlike other FHSS transmitters that all hop in the same fixed patterns, every DSMX transmitter has its own unique frequency shift pattern calculated using its GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). And each pattern uses just 23 channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum. By adding the agility of unique frequency shifts to the superior interference resistance of a wideband signal, and limiting those shifts to a smaller portion of the 2.4 band, DSMX transmitters provide on-channel interference protection that is simply second to none. The result is quicker reconnection times and superb response in the noisiest 2.4GHz environment. http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...-2-SPMR6610#t6 Spectrum uses ' the superior on-channel interference resistance and coding gain of wideband DSSS', with 'the most advanced FHSS algorithm ever seen in an RC application'. Best of both worlds? For $139? I'll give it a try. Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications to virtually any radio controlled device. Came across this: http://www.instructables.com/communi...plane-problem/ "Looks like a great Instructable project to build your own! - http://radiohax.wikispaces.com/Spark+gap+transmitter Wonder what the range is. Marconi used one to transmit successfully over 2000 miles. :-) |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:23:00 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2014 3:09 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:36:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2014 1:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote: Wonder what the range is. Marconi used one to transmit successfully over 2000 miles. :-) Oh. ****. Oh, they'll leave us alone. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
|
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
|
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed. That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea. I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake" violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it. I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away. (PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a solenoid valve.) Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:09:10 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: Came across this: http://www.instructables.com/communi...plane-problem/ "Looks like a great Instructable project to build your own! - http://radiohax.wikispaces.com/Spark+gap+transmitter Wonder what the range is. === With sufficient power and a good antenna spark gap transmitters have communicated transatlantic. That's what the early radio pioneers used. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/14, 5:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed. That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea. I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake" violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it. I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away. (PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a solenoid valve.) Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it. Can't wait to read about the next hobby...stamp collecting? |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 6:43 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/6/14, 5:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed. That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea. I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake" violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it. I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away. (PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a solenoid valve.) Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it. Can't wait to read about the next hobby...stamp collecting? Tax stamps? |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:43:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/6/14, 5:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:35:39 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:26:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:23:25 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:38:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I wouldn't shoot them down because that could get you in real trouble. However, there are many jammers being offered for sale on the 'net that could cause some problems for a nosy neighbor. I don't anticipate ever having an issue but it's sorta fun to think about having one hovering around in our backyard and hitting the "on" button on a jammer. WA smart one would just go home if the uplink was jammed. That silenced pellet gun might be a decent idea. I am not really interested in killing Henks drone but I was thinking a fairly simple air cannon like they use for the water feature at the Bellagio might work without violating any firearm laws I had a prototype I made for my neighbor to shoot at "no wake" violators but it worked to well. He didn't want to try it. I could put a gallon of water into a target about 60 feet away. (PVC pipe, a pump type bladder tank for an air reservoir and a solenoid valve.) Sounds like an idea. Although a good shot of water would probably do a whole lot more damage than a pellet. But, it wouldn't be 'shooting' it. Can't wait to read about the next hobby...stamp collecting? Go read your poem. Then come back and be nice while telling us about your Mac. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:07:20 AM UTC-6, 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. I'm not sure of how the laws read in the case of a toy-like drone, bit I don't think any kid who has one will be interested in having it registered, titled (as home built or experimental) and having number decals on the side. (not counting insurance too!) to make it a legitimate 'aircraft' |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/6/2014 10:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications to virtually any radio controlled device. And some things you really don't want to interfere with that will draw attention. Controlled bandwidth jammers are pretty easy to make and way less obnoxious. |
Quadcopters, Video Cameras, etc.
On 3/7/14, 1:23 AM, thumper wrote:
On 3/6/2014 10:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Believe it or not one of the most effective types of jammers is also the oldest and first type of RF transmitter used. It's called a spark-gap transmitter and it generates RF interference across a very broad range of frequencies simultaneously. The operation of a spark-gap transmitter is illegal now-a-days for exactly that reason but are simple to make and can be of more than enough power to temporarily wipe out communications to virtually any radio controlled device. And some things you really don't want to interfere with that will draw attention. Controlled bandwidth jammers are pretty easy to make and way less obnoxious. More fun would be a hardened backyard toy chopper of your own, armed with sharp steel rotor blades that could be used to slice and dice the toy choppers of nosy neighbors whose devices violate your air space. Chopper wars! It's the 'Merican way. One can envision the escalation, all the way up to MINI NUKES, available soon from the NRA. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com