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.

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!

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

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!

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.

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!

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)

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!