Overreacting government
 

On 12/15/2015 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote:

Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their
kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their
kids, might do so.

But again, we're not talking responsible adults here.

The FAA agrees with you.



The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs.
They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones.
I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to
really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB
pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable.
I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty
might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked.

Oh the horror!



The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists
are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA
for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The
regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement.

I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at
a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident.
Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots
flying drones near an airport.


I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger
problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of
lasers.

A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a
plane down.

Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with
the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing
buddy.



If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I
certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even
the most minor mechanical problem.

The problem isn't just distraction it's temporary night blindness and, in the case of a hit from close in while landing, the laser diffracting when it hits the cockpit glass can totally wash-out the runway and it's lights. Lightning doesn't do that as its light isn't a focused beam directed into the windshield. Apples and oranges.

There are some youtube videos and a series of still photos showing the affect from different distances. Google them up.



The beam of a laser has expanded greatly by the time it reaches the
cockpit. It's no longer a "pin point" of light.

Overreacting government
 

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:10:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 1:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
"Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a
government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't
your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting
the hands that fed you, eh?"


The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else.

What did John get that you didn't?


John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he
had for his service.

Sorta like a union.



John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get
benefits.

I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of
the government.


So, how many jobs is the registration of drones going to create?
Do you know?

I would guess it's more than one. Therefore it's too many.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Overreacting government
 

Califbill billnews wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
"Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a
government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't
your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting
the hands that fed you, eh?"


The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else.

What did John get that you didn't?


John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he
had for his service.

Sorta like a union.



John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get
benefits.


I have a problem with a lot of government employees pensions also. Spend
20 years in the military, transferred around the world, maybe shot at, and
you get 50% of your last years salary. Spend 4 years in Congress, and high
pay and get retirement of 100% for life. Be a public employee in at least
California and you get 3% per year of your last years gross. Includes
vacation pay that is accrued, overtime, etc.



You think non elected federal workers should not get a decent pension?

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Overreacting government
 

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:30:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:05:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:23:58 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists
are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA
for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The
regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement.

I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at
a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident.
Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots
flying drones near an airport.


I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger
problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of
lasers.

I think that may be a bit overblown too.

A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a
plane down.

I have not even heard of a drone caused accident. It is just people
offended that someone else is in their "space".
Fully registered planes with licensed pilots have caused far more
close calls than drones and more than a few fatalities. Maybe they
were "aware" enough. Charge them another $5 to tune them up.


Amazing. "... people offended that someone else is in their "space".

A pilot on final shouldn't be concerned with a nitwit flying a drone or
RC aircraft. He has enough to be focused on, especially when his
aircraft is in a vulnerable place and flying setup. It's not an issue
of intruding on their "space".

There are really two concerns that have pushed this registration
requirement. One is the expressed concerns of pilots who put pressure on
the FAA. The other is the realization that on December 26 the number of
these are likely to increase by 50 percent overnight.

The idea is to discourage irresponsible operation *before* an accident
occurs. Registration allows the possibility of tracing a captured drone
back to it's irresponsible owner. Those who are responsible for the
safe operation of their RC's have nothing to be concerned about.

All of that assumes they recover the drone, it is actually marked and
that they can read the marks. Then they have to prove you actually own
the drone and that someone didn't just pick your number out of thin
air.

If I am flying in a restricted area, I doubt I would mark my drone.

They have written a regulation that depends on everyone doing the
right thing but if everyone did the right thing we wouldn't need the
regulation in the first place.

I may have to make that into a sig line.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Overreacting government
 

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:36:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote:

Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their
kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their
kids, might do so.

But again, we're not talking responsible adults here.

The FAA agrees with you.



The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs.
They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones.
I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to
really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB
pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable.
I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty
might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked.

Oh the horror!



The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists
are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA
for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The
regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement.

I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at
a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident.
Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots
flying drones near an airport.


I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger
problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of
lasers.

A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a
plane down.

Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with
the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing
buddy.



If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I
certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even
the most minor mechanical problem.


Lasers are a problem but they don't affect the most critical part of
a flight. The aircraft is still at an altitude that, although
distracted by the flash of the laser on the cockpit windows, it's not
likely to cause an immediate crash. Certainly annoying though,
especially if flying under VFR conditions and looking for ground references.

The danger is in take offs and landings with landings being of the most
concern. Altitude is a pilot's friend. During landings, you are close
to the ground to begin with and getting closer. Power is reduced, speed
is reduced and the aircraft is "dirty" meaning flaps are extended and
landing gear is down. In this condition, the aircraft is nowhere near
as agile or responsive, but you are still clipping along at
about 150 kts (in a commercial airplane) with diminishing space between
you and the ground. Not the time for surprises.

"...they don't affect the most critical part of a flight."

Oh yes they do!

At National Airport there is a park about 1000' from the north end of the main
runway. Folks lay there and watch the planes take off and land only a few hundred
feet over their heads. Do you not thing that's plenty close for a laser?

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Overreacting government
 

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:40:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:32:08 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


You are the one who insulted government employees who might be covered
by an AFGE contract. They're no different than you were...in terms of
their employer(s).

In this case you should be fighting the new rule because this will not
be administered by USCS. It will be farmed out to contractors in an
evil corporation.
The actual enforcement plan is still "up in the air" so to speak.
I also have not actually seen any money appropriated to hire the
contractor so it is just on the cuff for a


I'm not overly concerned about toy airplanes.

Then stay out of real ones.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Overreacting government
 

On 12/15/2015 4:27 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:45:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I don't think it's up to the average lay person to determine what laws
are enforceable and what are not. It's obvious that those who feel most
restricted or affected by a law or regulation designed for the benefit
of the whole will be bitching the most.

It is not hard to decide whether a law is enforceable by looking at
what kind of staff they will appropriate to enforce it. That is the
second shoe that will drop. Currently there is no money allocated for
enforcement.
This is "rock soup" government at it's best.
They start with a simple regulation, that is ineffective and they will
keep throwing new resources at it until it is a huge bureaucracy or
hopefully just abandon the idea.

I will not be restricted at all but I will be taxed.


Just think of how many people that extra buck a year will benefit. :-)

Overreacting government
 

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:40:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote:

Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their
kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their
kids, might do so.

But again, we're not talking responsible adults here.

The FAA agrees with you.



The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs.
They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones.
I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to
really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB
pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable.
I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty
might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked.

Oh the horror!



The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists
are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA
for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The
regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement.

I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at
a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident.
Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots
flying drones near an airport.


I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger
problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of
lasers.

A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a
plane down.

Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with
the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing
buddy.



If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I
certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even
the most minor mechanical problem.

The problem isn't just distraction it's temporary night blindness and, in the case of a hit from close in while landing, the laser diffracting when it hits the cockpit glass can totally wash-out the runway and it's lights. Lightning doesn't do that as its light isn't a focused beam directed into the windshield. Apples and oranges.

There are some youtube videos and a series of still photos showing the affect from different distances. Google them up.



The beam of a laser has expanded greatly by the time it reaches the
cockpit. It's no longer a "pin point" of light.

Which is what is shown on the youtube. The fact that it has spread makes the
diffusion on the cockpit window even worse.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Overreacting government
 

On 12/15/2015 4:51 PM, True North wrote:
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
"Like I said, this was from a by-gone era when cops walked a beat
twirling a nightstick and wore uniforms like you see in the famous
Norman Rockwell paintings. The bicycle plate looked like this, except
it said "Quincy" instead of Concord:

http://platevault.com/uploads/86/ee/thumbs/6155832592bee86.jpg"


WOW, that's exactly the shape of bicycle license plate we had in the old city of Halifax. Some kids attached them to the front wheel spokes and others mounted the plate to the rear fender...either above or below the rear reflector. Seems to me the vast majority of bikes had fenders then...before the 10 speeds became so popular.


One of my earliest memories is learning to ride a bicycle. I was five
years old. My father removed the training wheels it had and would run
beside me holding the seat post while I pedaled then let go once I got
going. After a few crashes I got the idea and the big "reward" was a
visit to the police station to get a license plate. I still remember
the station too. It was a huge, turn of the century building that also
had a court house in it. Tons of cops walking around. Very
impressionable experience for a five year old.

Overreacting government
 

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 5:40:19 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/15/2015 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote:

Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their
kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their
kids, might do so.

But again, we're not talking responsible adults here.

The FAA agrees with you.



The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs.
They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones.
I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to
really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB
pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable.
I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty
might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked.

Oh the horror!



The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists
are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA
for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The
regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement.