|
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. |
What could be nicer...
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. What he said. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. |
What could be nicer...
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. Is that on the latest SAT? -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
wrote:
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. Drones are not military killing machines, been lots of drones over the years. Lots were used as targets by military gunners and pilots. |
What could be nicer...
On 11/9/2015 4:51 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. Don't you agree that in the case of cheap quadcopters technology has outpaced reasonable laws or regulations? Much of the FAA rules that govern hobbyist RC aircraft were written decades ago, well before battery and the control technology for cheap quadcopters existed and certainly well before the days that any Yahoo with a credit card could order one on Amazon. They are actually pretty boring to fly, IMO. What has made them so popular are the lightweight digital cameras that can be attached to them, introducing a host of *new* issues involving rights to privacy. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) new regulations and/or laws are going to have to be written and applied to their use. |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:31:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/9/2015 4:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. Don't you agree that in the case of cheap quadcopters technology has outpaced reasonable laws or regulations? Much of the FAA rules that govern hobbyist RC aircraft were written decades ago, well before battery and the control technology for cheap quadcopters existed and certainly well before the days that any Yahoo with a credit card could order one on Amazon. They are actually pretty boring to fly, IMO. What has made them so popular are the lightweight digital cameras that can be attached to them, introducing a host of *new* issues involving rights to privacy. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) new regulations and/or laws are going to have to be written and applied to their use. Much like gun control. The laws are there but not enforced. All the gun laws in the world don't make El Salvador, or Chicago for that matter, a safe place to be. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On 11/9/2015 5:58 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:31:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2015 4:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. Don't you agree that in the case of cheap quadcopters technology has outpaced reasonable laws or regulations? Much of the FAA rules that govern hobbyist RC aircraft were written decades ago, well before battery and the control technology for cheap quadcopters existed and certainly well before the days that any Yahoo with a credit card could order one on Amazon. They are actually pretty boring to fly, IMO. What has made them so popular are the lightweight digital cameras that can be attached to them, introducing a host of *new* issues involving rights to privacy. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) new regulations and/or laws are going to have to be written and applied to their use. Much like gun control. The laws are there but not enforced. All the gun laws in the world don't make El Salvador, or Chicago for that matter, a safe place to be. Not really, based on what I've read. There are new FAA regulations (not laws) governing quadcopters or "drones" but there is much left to interpretation. BTW ... you guys were discussing dangers of bodily harm as a result of flying quadcopters (or multi-rotor copters). I think Greg cited a "Myth Busters" episode that debunked the notion that they can be dangerous. I wonder if the Myth Buster guys have seen this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3Hii_LZOc |
What could be nicer...
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. Drones are not military killing machines, been lots of drones over the years. Lots were used as targets by military gunners and pilots. I realize that. But the general population relates the word "drone" to the unmanned airplanes equipped with a missile that takes out a house or vehicle with a "pilot" sitting at a control panel maybe 100's of miles away. It's in the general vocabulary now as a noun for a quadcopter. Few really knew or cared about about the pilot-less and towed drones you are talking about. |
What could be nicer...
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:12:27 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/9/2015 5:58 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:31:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2015 4:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. Don't you agree that in the case of cheap quadcopters technology has outpaced reasonable laws or regulations? Much of the FAA rules that govern hobbyist RC aircraft were written decades ago, well before battery and the control technology for cheap quadcopters existed and certainly well before the days that any Yahoo with a credit card could order one on Amazon. They are actually pretty boring to fly, IMO. What has made them so popular are the lightweight digital cameras that can be attached to them, introducing a host of *new* issues involving rights to privacy. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) new regulations and/or laws are going to have to be written and applied to their use. Much like gun control. The laws are there but not enforced. All the gun laws in the world don't make El Salvador, or Chicago for that matter, a safe place to be. Not really, based on what I've read. There are new FAA regulations (not laws) governing quadcopters or "drones" but there is much left to interpretation. BTW ... you guys were discussing dangers of bodily harm as a result of flying quadcopters (or multi-rotor copters). I think Greg cited a "Myth Busters" episode that debunked the notion that they can be dangerous. I wonder if the Myth Buster guys have seen this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3Hii_LZOc I didn't get into that argument with Greg, but I already knew that even the smaller quads can hurt you, and a serious, high performance quad can seriously mess you up! |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:51:43 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. You said it yourself most RC fliers are serious hobbyists. Quad rotors are sold into the mass market and being flown by all sorts of folks. It is going to be the hot Christmas toy for teens and preteens this year. That is a rabble. I know Henk is a serious hobbyist and he builds his own drones from parts (He also built a giant RC helicopter) but I also know the guy down the street is just a kid with a toy. I imagine one of my neighbors will shoot down his drone because it is hovering over their pool watching the girls sunbathing on the deck. (the suggestion has already been made) If you also got the suggestion going that this thing might actually be dangerous, they might claim self defense. ;-) |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:58:44 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:31:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2015 4:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. Don't you agree that in the case of cheap quadcopters technology has outpaced reasonable laws or regulations? Much of the FAA rules that govern hobbyist RC aircraft were written decades ago, well before battery and the control technology for cheap quadcopters existed and certainly well before the days that any Yahoo with a credit card could order one on Amazon. They are actually pretty boring to fly, IMO. What has made them so popular are the lightweight digital cameras that can be attached to them, introducing a host of *new* issues involving rights to privacy. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) new regulations and/or laws are going to have to be written and applied to their use. Much like gun control. The laws are there but not enforced. All the gun laws in the world don't make El Salvador, or Chicago for that matter, a safe place to be. No this is different than gun control, where there are hundreds if not thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The small quad rotors are really only restricted above 500 feet and within 5 miles of an airport. The privacy issues are basically still in their infancy. "Air rights" above your property is tenuous at best, Typically you own the first 500 feet, also where the drones can legally fly but it is unclear how you can enforce that. Florida had s a drone law but it only applies to warrantless use by the cops. The FAA is talking about new registration and regulation but they are also talking about exempting "toy" drones. You can buy a "toy" drone so you have something that is unregulated. It can still be pretty sophisticated, GPS enabled, carrying a 10 megapixel or better camera with a live feed. From a practical sense, this is nothing like an RC plane that you are actually flying by sight. You only have to tell this thing where to go and when it should come back. These things have many times more raw computer power than the machines at Goddard or Houston when they were landing people on the moon. (360/m91) |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:12:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Not really, based on what I've read. There are new FAA regulations (not laws) governing quadcopters or "drones" but there is much left to interpretation. This is the notice of proposed regulations http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015...2015-26874.htm BTW ... you guys were discussing dangers of bodily harm as a result of flying quadcopters (or multi-rotor copters). I think Greg cited a "Myth Busters" episode that debunked the notion that they can be dangerous. I wonder if the Myth Buster guys have seen this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3Hii_LZOc I don't seem to be old enough to see that ;-) The MB guys did say a big commercial drone with carbon fiber blades was basically a food processor but the original "myth" was the toys FCC wants to exempt. They have flexible plastic blades that tolerate crashes better. Henk was carrying one around unprotected in a small tote bag. |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:39:15 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:51:43 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. You said it yourself most RC fliers are serious hobbyists. Quad rotors are sold into the mass market and being flown by all sorts of folks. It is going to be the hot Christmas toy for teens and preteens this year. That is a rabble. Agreed. I know Henk is a serious hobbyist and he builds his own drones from parts (He also built a giant RC helicopter) but I also know the guy down the street is just a kid with a toy. I imagine one of my neighbors will shoot down his drone because it is hovering over their pool watching the girls sunbathing on the deck. (the suggestion has already been made) To check how serious and responsible he is, ask him to show you the identification he's put on the aircraft - name, phone number, etc., in case the aircraft gets away from him. If you also got the suggestion going that this thing might actually be dangerous, they might claim self defense. ;-) Show them some of the videos with the injuries. That'll bolster their 'self-defense' case. Besides, it seems like buckshot would be pretty hard to trace. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On 11/10/15 8:33 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:39:15 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:51:43 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. You said it yourself most RC fliers are serious hobbyists. Quad rotors are sold into the mass market and being flown by all sorts of folks. It is going to be the hot Christmas toy for teens and preteens this year. That is a rabble. Agreed. I know Henk is a serious hobbyist and he builds his own drones from parts (He also built a giant RC helicopter) but I also know the guy down the street is just a kid with a toy. I imagine one of my neighbors will shoot down his drone because it is hovering over their pool watching the girls sunbathing on the deck. (the suggestion has already been made) To check how serious and responsible he is, ask him to show you the identification he's put on the aircraft - name, phone number, etc., in case the aircraft gets away from him. If you also got the suggestion going that this thing might actually be dangerous, they might claim self defense. ;-) Show them some of the videos with the injuries. That'll bolster their 'self-defense' case. Besides, it seems like buckshot would be pretty hard to trace. -- In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable. |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:25:25 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:58:44 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:31:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2015 4:51 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. Don't you agree that in the case of cheap quadcopters technology has outpaced reasonable laws or regulations? Much of the FAA rules that govern hobbyist RC aircraft were written decades ago, well before battery and the control technology for cheap quadcopters existed and certainly well before the days that any Yahoo with a credit card could order one on Amazon. They are actually pretty boring to fly, IMO. What has made them so popular are the lightweight digital cameras that can be attached to them, introducing a host of *new* issues involving rights to privacy. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) new regulations and/or laws are going to have to be written and applied to their use. Much like gun control. The laws are there but not enforced. All the gun laws in the world don't make El Salvador, or Chicago for that matter, a safe place to be. No this is different than gun control, where there are hundreds if not thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The small quad rotors are really only restricted above 500 feet and within 5 miles of an airport. I posted the law in response to Luddite. That law is not being enforced. People are flying close to airplanes and far from their own observation. Like gun control, the laws are almost unenforceable. I compared it to gun control because adding laws regarding 'registration' is currently being considered. To me, that would be simply a way to increase the size of government to manage the extensive paperwork. The privacy issues are basically still in their infancy. "Air rights" above your property is tenuous at best, Typically you own the first 500 feet, also where the drones can legally fly but it is unclear how you can enforce that. Florida had s a drone law but it only applies to warrantless use by the cops. The FAA is talking about new registration and regulation but they are also talking about exempting "toy" drones. You can buy a "toy" drone so you have something that is unregulated. It can still be pretty sophisticated, GPS enabled, carrying a 10 megapixel or better camera with a live feed. The way I read this, the FAA is talking about 'all' drones, especially those flying close to airplanes, firefighters, etc, which are basically 'toy' drones. http://tinyurl.com/qgd5e7o From a practical sense, this is nothing like an RC plane that you are actually flying by sight. You only have to tell this thing where to go and when it should come back. These things have many times more raw computer power than the machines at Goddard or Houston when they were landing people on the moon. (360/m91) They can definitely be sophisticated. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:31:49 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:12:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Not really, based on what I've read. There are new FAA regulations (not laws) governing quadcopters or "drones" but there is much left to interpretation. This is the notice of proposed regulations http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015...2015-26874.htm BTW ... you guys were discussing dangers of bodily harm as a result of flying quadcopters (or multi-rotor copters). I think Greg cited a "Myth Busters" episode that debunked the notion that they can be dangerous. I wonder if the Myth Buster guys have seen this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3Hii_LZOc I don't seem to be old enough to see that ;-) The MB guys did say a big commercial drone with carbon fiber blades was basically a food processor but the original "myth" was the toys FCC wants to exempt. They have flexible plastic blades that tolerate crashes better. Henk was carrying one around unprotected in a small tote bag. Many are made to be flown indoors. They have very soft blades and will not even scratch the paint on the wall. The bigger they get, the bigger and stronger the blades. The one in Luddite's video was about the same size as the one in the MB video, and therefore a 'toy'. 'Indoors' versus 'outdoors' may be a first step at classifying the damn things. I have a helicopter that's made for indoor flying. It will not fly outdoors if there is even a slight breeze. The blades flex and the helicopter goes out of control. It's not registered either. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On 11/10/2015 8:43 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/10/15 8:33 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:39:15 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:51:43 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:29:09 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:15:01 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:52:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:49:59 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:22:41 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:25:23 -0500, wrote: OK you win, they are flying death machines but I think I would keep it to myself if you like flying them ;-) We're flying machines that could hurt a bird (or a human for that matter)! If you say that out loud about the ones the FAA considers hobby machines, get ready for much more regulation. There have been plenty of people hurt, and a couple that I know of killed, by RC airplanes over the years. That has not driven any regulation. The whole problem with the new "drones" (more properly quadcopters, drones are sophisticated military killing machines) is that they can be flown nearly anywhere by anyone with the cash to buy one and with minimal skills. The RC hobby was, and still is, almost entirely self-regulated since the skills to fly an airplane or heli are slowly learned, require assistance, and require a sizable area in which to learn and fly. That almost always means there is a club with its rules and regs, and the requisite membership in a RC organization that provides landowner and member insurance coverage. Unfortunately the proliferation of inexpensive gyro stabilized quadcopters with cameras, coupled with a few ignorant assholes that have bought them and use them improperly, has driven proposed regulation that may affect large groups of very safety conscious, responsible RC hobbyists. I understand that but RC planes are to drones as ham radio is to CB Say what? One is a well disciplined group and the other is a rabble. No, there are well-disciplined fliers of both airplanes and multi-rotors in the RC groups around here. And, there are those as described above around here. To fly a first person view multirotor in the clubs here, there must be an observer whose eyes are on the aircraft. However, as no runway is required for a multirotor, any asshole can launch the thing from his palm and see where he's flying even though a couple miles away. You said it yourself most RC fliers are serious hobbyists. Quad rotors are sold into the mass market and being flown by all sorts of folks. It is going to be the hot Christmas toy for teens and preteens this year. That is a rabble. Agreed. I know Henk is a serious hobbyist and he builds his own drones from parts (He also built a giant RC helicopter) but I also know the guy down the street is just a kid with a toy. I imagine one of my neighbors will shoot down his drone because it is hovering over their pool watching the girls sunbathing on the deck. (the suggestion has already been made) To check how serious and responsible he is, ask him to show you the identification he's put on the aircraft - name, phone number, etc., in case the aircraft gets away from him. If you also got the suggestion going that this thing might actually be dangerous, they might claim self defense. ;-) Show them some of the videos with the injuries. That'll bolster their 'self-defense' case. Besides, it seems like buckshot would be pretty hard to trace. -- In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable. Many devices use the same frequency band. It might be better if you followed the drone home and gave the owner a piece of your mind. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:43:07 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/10/15 8:33 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:39:15 -0500, wrote: snippage I know Henk is a serious hobbyist and he builds his own drones from parts (He also built a giant RC helicopter) but I also know the guy down the street is just a kid with a toy. I imagine one of my neighbors will shoot down his drone because it is hovering over their pool watching the girls sunbathing on the deck. (the suggestion has already been made) To check how serious and responsible he is, ask him to show you the identification he's put on the aircraft - name, phone number, etc., in case the aircraft gets away from him. If you also got the suggestion going that this thing might actually be dangerous, they might claim self defense. ;-) Show them some of the videos with the injuries. That'll bolster their 'self-defense' case. Besides, it seems like buckshot would be pretty hard to trace. -- In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. Of course. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. The idea of a 'jammer' was discussed. As Greg mentioned, jammers are potentially big problems around airfields. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable. Flying on privately owned property is a good way to go. Somewhere up in MD is an RC field which is on land owned by a lady who rents the field to the RC club. It's when the government gets involved that the responsible flyers get hurt. Those kids aren't the assholes causing problems, and therefore don't need a lot of unnecessary 'regulations'. Much like gun-control...the ones who suffer are the law-abiding citizens. The assholes flying their multirotors in the path of aircraft are causing the demands for more laws - which will probably be unenforceable or unenforced. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
Keyser Söze
- show quoted text - "In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable." I was thinking of a strong laser that could destroy the camera sensor. That would take the fun out of the peepers efforts. |
What could be nicer...
On 11/10/15 9:46 AM, True North wrote:
Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable." I was thinking of a strong laser that could destroy the camera sensor. That would take the fun out of the peepers efforts. Ooooooo, baby! :) |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:46:22 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:
Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable." I was thinking of a strong laser that could destroy the camera sensor. That would take the fun out of the peepers efforts. Illegal to point lasers pointed at aircraft. That itself is already a big problem. Another law that is pretty unenforceable. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On 11/10/2015 9:56 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/10/15 9:46 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable." I was thinking of a strong laser that could destroy the camera sensor. That would take the fun out of the peepers efforts. Ooooooo, baby! :) Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass "go" and do not collect $200. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:43:07 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 11/10/15 8:33 AM, John H. wrote: Show them some of the videos with the injuries. That'll bolster their 'self-defense' case. Besides, it seems like buckshot would be pretty hard to trace. -- In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. I had some interest here in my water cannon idea, originally proposed to shoot at "no wake" violators. Think Bellagio fountains. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. That could bring you FCC troubles. There are simply too many things running on 2.4gz We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable. Since most of the interest surrounding drones is the camera capability I suspect aerials of an empty lot would get boring pretty quickly. This is not like the joy of watching your model of a vintage plane flying around. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:43:51 -0500, John H.
wrote: Are there laws preventing one from climbing on their roof to video the folks at their pool next door? Would it be illegal for me to climb up a step ladder and look over the fence? I really don't think that's a matter for the federal government. Perhaps that's where the cities should step in. -- Actually no This is a topic that comes up in my (inspector) legal courses. We had a pitch about this from a Florida muni court judge. Basically it pertained to unpermitted activity and the ability of an inspector to look for it but it is the same law that would control any snooping activity. Essentially it says that you can look at anything you can see from outside the person's property lines, particularly if you are on public property but also if you are on another person's private property with their permission. That includes climbing on the roof for a better look. That gets a little more ambagious when you are talking about air rights. As a general rule, you own the air, 500 feet above the ground on your lot but over that is open for aircraft to fly over. (Illegal to operate a hobby drone tho since it is over 500 feet) The case can easily be made that it is illegal to fly a drone over private property without permission but, like you say. I am not sure how you enforce that. If the person with the drone is careful to stay out over the public street and shoot pictures from there, I doubt there is anything you can do about it. If the operator then publishes the pictures, that opens up a whole other can of worms. It really looks like drones may have been designed by lawyers to drum up business. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:46:22 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "In many parts of the country, you cannot discharge a firearm in your backyard, even if you are trying to shoot down an annoying, intrusive, privately owned drone that is hovering. What's needed is some sort of "disruptor" electronic device that would simply cause the nasty little devices to crash in your yard, so you could pick them up and stuff them in the trash can. We have a couple of kids in the neighborhood who fly their planes and drones over an empty lot that has become a sort of ad hoc playground. Perfectly acceptable." I was thinking of a strong laser that could destroy the camera sensor. That would take the fun out of the peepers efforts. Pointing lasers at aircraft will get you free room and board at the graybar hotel about as fast as anything these days. Remember the operator has you on video doing it. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:07:15 -0500, John H.
wrote: Illegal to point lasers pointed at aircraft. That itself is already a big problem. Another law that is pretty unenforceable. They seem to catch a lot of these guys |
What could be nicer...
|
What could be nicer...
|
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:
I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi |
What could be nicer...
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private place, but i bet most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or public toilets. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:22:38 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private place, but i bet most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or public toilets. California's voyeurism laws on page 11: The filming/viewing must be..." the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy" or "...under or through clothing." http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf In this document the term 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is used very frequently. A clear definition of same is hard to find, but it seems to be 'the interior' of various types of rooms. I could not find 'back yard' mentioned anywhere. Does a person in their own backyard have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? I think not, but then again, it depends. If my next door neighbor has a window facing my back yard and can see over my fence, then I can't reasonably expect that I won't be observed in my back yard. Likewise, as I have an upstairs window looking over his deck (and hot tub) they shouldn't 'reasonably expect the privacy' to be bathing nude. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 3:41:05 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:22:38 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private place, but i bet most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or public toilets. California's voyeurism laws on page 11: The filming/viewing must be..." the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy" or "...under or through clothing." http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf In this document the term 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is used very frequently. A clear definition of same is hard to find, but it seems to be 'the interior' of various types of rooms. I could not find 'back yard' mentioned anywhere. Does a person in their own backyard have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? I think not, but then again, it depends. If my next door neighbor has a window facing my back yard and can see over my fence, then I can't reasonably expect that I won't be observed in my back yard. Likewise, as I have an upstairs window looking over his deck (and hot tub) they shouldn't 'reasonably expect the privacy' to be bathing nude. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There's a somewhat understandable feeling that some people have that quads shouldn't be flying over their yards with cameras. And then some folks just have an unreasonable hatred for them, even if they just see one in the air in proximity to them or their property, and want to "shoot them down". I'm thinking it's a new, cool fad and like most, the fascination will largely fade in time. People buy them and fly them, and most will get bored and leave them in the closet after a while. A few will do some dumb stuff with them, and then get bored. However, those few will probably get a whole new government agency created that will not go away even after the quads do. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:57:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 3:41:05 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:22:38 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private place, but i bet most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or public toilets. California's voyeurism laws on page 11: The filming/viewing must be..." the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy" or "...under or through clothing." http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf In this document the term 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is used very frequently. A clear definition of same is hard to find, but it seems to be 'the interior' of various types of rooms. I could not find 'back yard' mentioned anywhere. Does a person in their own backyard have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? I think not, but then again, it depends. If my next door neighbor has a window facing my back yard and can see over my fence, then I can't reasonably expect that I won't be observed in my back yard. Likewise, as I have an upstairs window looking over his deck (and hot tub) they shouldn't 'reasonably expect the privacy' to be bathing nude. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There's a somewhat understandable feeling that some people have that quads shouldn't be flying over their yards with cameras. And then some folks just have an unreasonable hatred for them, even if they just see one in the air in proximity to them or their property, and want to "shoot them down". I'm thinking it's a new, cool fad and like most, the fascination will largely fade in time. People buy them and fly them, and most will get bored and leave them in the closet after a while. A few will do some dumb stuff with them, and then get bored. However, those few will probably get a whole new government agency created that will not go away even after the quads do. Agreed. I'm expecting to see the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Model Aircraft any day now. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On 11/10/2015 3:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:22:38 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private place, but i bet most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or public toilets. California's voyeurism laws on page 11: The filming/viewing must be..." the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy" or "...under or through clothing." http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf In this document the term 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is used very frequently. A clear definition of same is hard to find, but it seems to be 'the interior' of various types of rooms. I could not find 'back yard' mentioned anywhere. Does a person in their own backyard have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? I think not, but then again, it depends. If my next door neighbor has a window facing my back yard and can see over my fence, then I can't reasonably expect that I won't be observed in my back yard. Likewise, as I have an upstairs window looking over his deck (and hot tub) they shouldn't 'reasonably expect the privacy' to be bathing nude. Common sense dictates that being able to see your neighbor's backyard from your house or property is *not* a violation of his"reasonable expectation of privacy". Flying a remotely controlled, camera equipped drone *over* your neighbor's property and video recording whatever is happening certainly is, IMO. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/10/2015 3:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:22:38 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote: I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to neighbors private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not film the neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc. That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private place, but i bet most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or public toilets. California's voyeurism laws on page 11: The filming/viewing must be..." the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy" or "...under or through clothing." http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf In this document the term 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is used very frequently. A clear definition of same is hard to find, but it seems to be 'the interior' of various types of rooms. I could not find 'back yard' mentioned anywhere. Does a person in their own backyard have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? I think not, but then again, it depends. If my next door neighbor has a window facing my back yard and can see over my fence, then I can't reasonably expect that I won't be observed in my back yard. Likewise, as I have an upstairs window looking over his deck (and hot tub) they shouldn't 'reasonably expect the privacy' to be bathing nude. Common sense dictates that being able to see your neighbor's backyard from your house or property is *not* a violation of his"reasonable expectation of privacy". Flying a remotely controlled, camera equipped drone *over* your neighbor's property and video recording whatever is happening certainly is, IMO. Why? Because of the angle? I could be filming out my bedroom window if I so desired. I can understand that in your case, where your back yard is not visible by anyone standing in or on their property, that your 'expectation of privacy' is different than mine. But, if I had a drone not over your property, there is some altitude where I could probably see in your back yard. Would that be a violation of your 'reasonable expectation of privacy' or voyeurism? Wonder what the MA laws state. Go to page 39: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf "Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person's knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 year s or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment." If I'm using a drone, I'm not secretly conducting or hiding the activity, and there is still the question of where is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Does a back yard fall into that category? Yours might, if surrounded by a few hundred acres of woods, but mine sure doesn't. [Please note, I'm not espousing the use of drones in the conduct of such activities. I've been in the house all day, except when my wife came home at lunchtime, I'm bored, can't work outside, can't go for a nice bike ride, so I'm playing on the computer.] -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com