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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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 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 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'

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.