If you operate a drone, Uncle Sam wants to know your name. The
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration
announced a speedy new plan to require all drones to be registered by
their operators, whether they're used for commercial, media, research,
aid or recreational purposes.

Monday's news from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA
Administrator Michael Huerta follows an increase in reports of
near-misses involving drones around airports and of interference with
public safety workers.

It also sets an aggressive schedule: The plan is to have the registry in
place by the holidays, when the FCC expects over 1 million drones to be
sold.

http://tinyurl.com/oynud59


The real questions, of course:

Will the NRA object to drone registration?

Will cops check drones for registrations?

Will Romney declare that drones are people?

Will drones have the right to marry pencil sharpeners?


But, if you are a Libertarian, you don't have to register your
drone...if it crashed into an airliner, well, hell, that's just the
unregulated free market at play.

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 5:30:23 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
If you operate a drone, Uncle Sam wants to know your name. The
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration
announced a speedy new plan to require all drones to be registered by
their operators, whether they're used for commercial, media, research,
aid or recreational purposes.

Monday's news from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA
Administrator Michael Huerta follows an increase in reports of
near-misses involving drones around airports and of interference with
public safety workers.

It also sets an aggressive schedule: The plan is to have the registry in
place by the holidays, when the FCC expects over 1 million drones to be
sold.

http://tinyurl.com/oynud59


The real questions, of course:

Will the NRA object to drone registration?

Will cops check drones for registrations?

Will Romney declare that drones are people?

Will drones have the right to marry pencil sharpeners?


But, if you are a Libertarian, you don't have to register your
drone...if it crashed into an airliner, well, hell, that's just the
unregulated free market at play.

Trying to give Andy Borowitz a run for his job, eh Krause? At satire, you both suck.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:30:21 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

If you operate a drone, Uncle Sam wants to know your name. The
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration
announced a speedy new plan to require all drones to be registered by
their operators, whether they're used for commercial, media, research,
aid or recreational purposes.

Monday's news from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA
Administrator Michael Huerta follows an increase in reports of
near-misses involving drones around airports and of interference with
public safety workers.

It also sets an aggressive schedule: The plan is to have the registry in
place by the holidays, when the FCC expects over 1 million drones to be
sold.

http://tinyurl.com/oynud59


The real questions, of course:

Will the NRA object to drone registration?

Will cops check drones for registrations?

Will Romney declare that drones are people?

Will drones have the right to marry pencil sharpeners?


But, if you are a Libertarian, you don't have to register your
drone...if it crashed into an airliner, well, hell, that's just the
unregulated free market at play.

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

Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 5:30:23 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
If you operate a drone, Uncle Sam wants to know your name. The
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration
announced a speedy new plan to require all drones to be registered by
their operators, whether they're used for commercial, media, research,
aid or recreational purposes.

Monday's news from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA
Administrator Michael Huerta follows an increase in reports of
near-misses involving drones around airports and of interference with
public safety workers.

It also sets an aggressive schedule: The plan is to have the registry in
place by the holidays, when the FCC expects over 1 million drones to be
sold.

http://tinyurl.com/oynud59


The real questions, of course:

Will the NRA object to drone registration?

Will cops check drones for registrations?

Will Romney declare that drones are people?

Will drones have the right to marry pencil sharpeners?


But, if you are a Libertarian, you don't have to register your
drone...if it crashed into an airliner, well, hell, that's just the
unregulated free market at play.

Trying to give Andy Borowitz a run for his job, eh Krause? At satire, you both suck.


Borowitz actually writes his stuff, unlike certain plagiarizer. Wonder how
f that is a holdover from university?

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

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

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

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

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

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

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

Ban idiots, not guns!

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

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

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

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

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban idiots, not guns!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first time I ever saw a quadcopter it was flying low over the
audience at an outdoor concert. Although I can see the attraction,
flying over crowds of people seems just plain irresponsible to me.
Agreed. Even at the RC fields, flying over spectators is a no-no and can get one
kicked off the field very quickly.

I like the jammer idea. Every airport/airplane should have one. These guys could
probably come up with a jammer that would work.
http://www.jammerfromchina.com/
They get sort of funny about any "jamming" where aviation in involved.
To much of the flying is done using beacons, GPS and computers.
Shouldn't be that hard to jam a particular frequency. Most of us use 2.4Ghz.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


So do cordless phones and wifi. It might not be that simple.