On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:06:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 11/24/15 11:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--
That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register
"operators".
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea
to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone
with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally
realized the futility of it.

The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator,
not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is
going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would
be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives.

Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

Go to page 2 and read para 1:

1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.

-Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator. "

That seems pretty clear to me.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



This thread is only worthwhile if it is going to create problems for
you. Please advise.

Since it is essentially an unfunded program (the fee is 0.1 cents) it
affects you too as long as you pay taxes.

On 11/24/15 12:42 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:06:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 11/24/15 11:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--
That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register
"operators".
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea
to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone
with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally
realized the futility of it.

The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator,
not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is
going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would
be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives.

Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

Go to page 2 and read para 1:

1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.

-Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator. "

That seems pretty clear to me.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



This thread is only worthwhile if it is going to create problems for
you. Please advise.

Since it is essentially an unfunded program (the fee is 0.1 cents) it
affects you too as long as you pay taxes.



You did notice the word "worthwhile" in connection with Herring, right?

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be.

===

You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's
property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone
need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about
anything from a legally operayed plane or helo.

On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be.

===

You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's
property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone
need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about
anything from a legally operayed plane or helo.



Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft
and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of
privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be
purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying
something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless
of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra
$100 can do it.

Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC
enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw
around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on
the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when
there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to
take the ambiguity out of the equation.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



None of this matters to me since I have zero interest in quads, drones
model RC helicopters or airplanes. I respect the right for those who
enjoy the hobby to own and operate them.

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be. Fireworks are illegal in many states, including
mine. The police don't go out of their way to enforce the law unless
people are causing a nuisance, endangering others or as a result of
a complaint but the fact that the law is on the books allows some degree
of control.



This legislation does not address that at all. I suspect it will end
up being a local ordinance. That does make the most sense. What sounds
logical in Massachusetts might sound silly out in Wyoming somewhere.
HOAs are already moving on this.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Yeah, I mentioned the kit problem before. There is nothing on a drone that can't be
replaced, number or no number.

Therein lies the problem with any kind of serialization. They would
need to determine which part would be serialized.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:40:47 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be.

===

You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's
property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone
need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about
anything from a legally operayed plane or helo.

The floor for FAA approved flyovers is 500 feet. That is more than a
drone is allowed to fly.
See the problem?

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:29:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be.

===

You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's
property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone
need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about
anything from a legally operayed plane or helo.



Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft
and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of
privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be
purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying
something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless
of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra
$100 can do it.

Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC
enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw
around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on
the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when
there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to
take the ambiguity out of the equation.

I know some "RC" guys and I would not even try to compare them to the
typical drone operator. I said, it would be like comparing "veteran
hams" to "Smokey and the Bandit" CB users.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:29:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be.

===

You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's
property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone
need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about
anything from a legally operayed plane or helo.



Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft
and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of
privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be
purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying
something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless
of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra
$100 can do it.

Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC
enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw
around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on
the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when
there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to
take the ambiguity out of the equation.

True, but the FAA has no business in establishing local nuisance laws. As I said
before, I think that should be handled at the city level.

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:35:56 AM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:29:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other
people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to
the powers to be.

===

You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's
property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone
need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about
anything from a legally operayed plane or helo.



Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft
and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of
privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be
purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying
something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless
of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra
$100 can do it.

Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC
enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw
around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on
the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when
there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to
take the ambiguity out of the equation.

True, but the FAA has no business in establishing local nuisance laws. As I said
before, I think that should be handled at the city level.

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Or the state...

www.wltx.com/story/news/2015/11/23/bill-would-ban-low-level-drone-flights-over-private-property-sc/76287598/