|
Drone rule draft
On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote:
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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. |
Drone rule draft
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:50:16 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote: 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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. I don't disagree. However, there are already laws in place for the safety aspect in regards to commercial and general aviation. A tweaking of privacy laws would cover the "hovering over your back yard" issue. The effectiveness of either would be like other laws... people have to want to comply. The registration proposal is BS, and won't accomplish a thing, IMO. A bigger issue is laser pointers when it comes to aviation safety. "Laser pointers that can be easily picked up from a drug store are responsible for more than 1,750 hits on planes nationwide in just three months -- nearly half of what they saw in all of last year, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave.." Let's register laser pointers and their owners. :) |
Drone rule draft
On 11/25/2015 10:17 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:50:16 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote: 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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. I don't disagree. However, there are already laws in place for the safety aspect in regards to commercial and general aviation. A tweaking of privacy laws would cover the "hovering over your back yard" issue. The effectiveness of either would be like other laws... people have to want to comply. The registration proposal is BS, and won't accomplish a thing, IMO. A bigger issue is laser pointers when it comes to aviation safety. "Laser pointers that can be easily picked up from a drug store are responsible for more than 1,750 hits on planes nationwide in just three months -- nearly half of what they saw in all of last year, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave." Let's register laser pointers and their owners. :) No question the jerks with lasers are a problem, but there *are* laws against it and, despite the difficulties in enforcing them, many are caught. I agree that registering drones and/or the operators is a waste of time. A simple law ... from wherever ... like the one being proposed in SC is sufficient. Those people who feel their privacy has been violated by a low flying quad hovering around in their backyard will at least have something to file a complaint about. Right now they don't in most places. |
Drone rule draft
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 10:26:18 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2015 10:17 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:50:16 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote: 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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. I don't disagree. However, there are already laws in place for the safety aspect in regards to commercial and general aviation. A tweaking of privacy laws would cover the "hovering over your back yard" issue. The effectiveness of either would be like other laws... people have to want to comply. The registration proposal is BS, and won't accomplish a thing, IMO. A bigger issue is laser pointers when it comes to aviation safety. "Laser pointers that can be easily picked up from a drug store are responsible for more than 1,750 hits on planes nationwide in just three months -- nearly half of what they saw in all of last year, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave." Let's register laser pointers and their owners. :) No question the jerks with lasers are a problem, but there *are* laws against it and, despite the difficulties in enforcing them, many are caught. You'd have to have just crawled out from under a rock in eastern MD to not know the dangers of pointing a laser into a cockpit at night. Yet, we're on track to have 7,000 incidents this year of doing just that! Unbelievable.. This behavior goes beyond being a "jerk", it is total disregard for human life bordering on pure evil. And yet the liberals want the general, law-abiding population to give up our firearms? What would many of those same people do once they know Joe Average is disarmed? No thanks. |
Drone rule draft
On 11/25/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 10:26:18 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 10:17 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:50:16 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote: 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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. I don't disagree. However, there are already laws in place for the safety aspect in regards to commercial and general aviation. A tweaking of privacy laws would cover the "hovering over your back yard" issue. The effectiveness of either would be like other laws... people have to want to comply. The registration proposal is BS, and won't accomplish a thing, IMO. A bigger issue is laser pointers when it comes to aviation safety. "Laser pointers that can be easily picked up from a drug store are responsible for more than 1,750 hits on planes nationwide in just three months -- nearly half of what they saw in all of last year, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave." Let's register laser pointers and their owners. :) No question the jerks with lasers are a problem, but there *are* laws against it and, despite the difficulties in enforcing them, many are caught. You'd have to have just crawled out from under a rock in eastern MD to not know the dangers of pointing a laser into a cockpit at night. Yet, we're on track to have 7,000 incidents this year of doing just that! Unbelievable.. This behavior goes beyond being a "jerk", it is total disregard for human life bordering on pure evil. And yet the liberals want the general, law-abiding population to give up our firearms? What would many of those same people do once they know Joe Average is disarmed? No thanks. New personal defense tool. A mace pencil with attached laser pointer. Can you put together a few for your friends to test out? |
Drone rule draft
On 11/25/15 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2015 10:17 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:50:16 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote: 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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. I don't disagree. However, there are already laws in place for the safety aspect in regards to commercial and general aviation. A tweaking of privacy laws would cover the "hovering over your back yard" issue. The effectiveness of either would be like other laws... people have to want to comply. The registration proposal is BS, and won't accomplish a thing, IMO. A bigger issue is laser pointers when it comes to aviation safety. "Laser pointers that can be easily picked up from a drug store are responsible for more than 1,750 hits on planes nationwide in just three months -- nearly half of what they saw in all of last year, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave." Let's register laser pointers and their owners. :) No question the jerks with lasers are a problem, but there *are* laws against it and, despite the difficulties in enforcing them, many are caught. I agree that registering drones and/or the operators is a waste of time. A simple law ... from wherever ... like the one being proposed in SC is sufficient. Those people who feel their privacy has been violated by a low flying quad hovering around in their backyard will at least have something to file a complaint about. Right now they don't in most places. I figure that any civilian drone dumb enough to land or be forced to land in our backyard is our possession and since I have no interest in flying toys, I guess I'll be able to sell it on eBay. Is there a market for used drones? :) |
Drone rule draft
On 11/25/2015 11:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/25/15 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 10:17 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:50:16 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/25/2015 7:40 AM, wrote: 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/ I don't care where the law or regulation comes from. As you and John have pointed out previously the FAA traditionally only deals with matters of safety. The video in your link accurately points out that laws often are needed to keep up with technology. I don't disagree. However, there are already laws in place for the safety aspect in regards to commercial and general aviation. A tweaking of privacy laws would cover the "hovering over your back yard" issue. The effectiveness of either would be like other laws... people have to want to comply. The registration proposal is BS, and won't accomplish a thing, IMO. A bigger issue is laser pointers when it comes to aviation safety. "Laser pointers that can be easily picked up from a drug store are responsible for more than 1,750 hits on planes nationwide in just three months -- nearly half of what they saw in all of last year, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave." Let's register laser pointers and their owners. :) No question the jerks with lasers are a problem, but there *are* laws against it and, despite the difficulties in enforcing them, many are caught. I agree that registering drones and/or the operators is a waste of time. A simple law ... from wherever ... like the one being proposed in SC is sufficient. Those people who feel their privacy has been violated by a low flying quad hovering around in their backyard will at least have something to file a complaint about. Right now they don't in most places. I figure that any civilian drone dumb enough to land or be forced to land in our backyard is our possession and since I have no interest in flying toys, I guess I'll be able to sell it on eBay. Is there a market for used drones? :) You'd do anything to make a buck. I didn't realize that you are that hard up. |
Drone rule draft
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:30:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: I figure that any civilian drone dumb enough to land or be forced to land in our backyard is our possession and since I have no interest in flying toys, I guess I'll be able to sell it on eBay. Is there a market for used drones? :) That would be an interesting case to defend. Typically any other parts from a plane crash still belong to the owner and if it is the government, they can really get aggressive about getting them back. People trying to sell shuttle parts from the reentry crash were visited by FBI agents. |
Drone rule draft
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:30:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I figure that any civilian drone dumb enough to land or be forced to land in our backyard is our possession and since I have no interest in flying toys, I guess I'll be able to sell it on eBay. Is there a market for used drones? :) That would be an interesting case to defend. Typically any other parts from a plane crash still belong to the owner and if it is the government, they can really get aggressive about getting them back. People trying to sell shuttle parts from the reentry crash were visited by FBI agents. I'm sorry...my cats thought your drone was a bird and they ate it. 😄 -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com