|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com