In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given
as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential
problems with people using them who are not familiar with their
operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency
who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to
several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar
regulations are in the works there.

Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning,
saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at
least the past 20 years?
This is good example of that.
The government reacts to the threat of commercial
aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths.
"Republicans" and libertarians whine about it.
And so it goes.

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given
as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential
problems with people using them who are not familiar with their
operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency
who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to
several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar
regulations are in the works there.

Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning,
saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at
least the past 20 years?
This is good example of that.
The government reacts to the threat of commercial
aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths.
"Republicans" and libertarians whine about it.
And so it goes.

How very stupid.

Stick to ISIS, where you're a renowned expert.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given
as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential
problems with people using them who are not familiar with their
operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency
who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to
several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar
regulations are in the works there.

Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning,
saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at
least the past 20 years?
This is good example of that.
The government reacts to the threat of commercial
aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths.
"Republicans" and libertarians whine about it.
And so it goes.

The complaint is about ineffective bureaucracy. How does sending the
government $5 and getting a registration number prevent someone from
flying a drone near the airport? Even if the person did put the number
somewhere on the drone and it survived the crash in a condition that
it could still be read (the method of numbering is up to the owner),
the fine is $5000 and the plane still crashed.

That is a huge bureaucracy that did absolutely nothing to advance
safety.

On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given
as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential
problems with people using them who are not familiar with their
operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency
who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to
several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar
regulations are in the works there.

Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning,
saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at
least the past 20 years?
This is good example of that.
The government reacts to the threat of commercial
aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths.
"Republicans" and libertarians whine about it.
And so it goes.

The complaint is about ineffective bureaucracy. How does sending the
government $5 and getting a registration number prevent someone from
flying a drone near the airport? Even if the person did put the number
somewhere on the drone and it survived the crash in a condition that
it could still be read (the method of numbering is up to the owner),
the fine is $5000 and the plane still crashed.

That is a huge bureaucracy that did absolutely nothing to advance
safety.



I don't think you are correct about the "$5,000" fine.
The penalties can be much higher than that, including criminal prosecution.

Here's the link to the FAQ's again regarding this new regulation:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:15:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given
as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential
problems with people using them who are not familiar with their
operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency
who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to
several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar
regulations are in the works there.

Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning,
saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at
least the past 20 years?
This is good example of that.
The government reacts to the threat of commercial
aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths.
"Republicans" and libertarians whine about it.
And so it goes.

The complaint is about ineffective bureaucracy. How does sending the
government $5 and getting a registration number prevent someone from
flying a drone near the airport? Even if the person did put the number
somewhere on the drone and it survived the crash in a condition that
it could still be read (the method of numbering is up to the owner),
the fine is $5000 and the plane still crashed.

That is a huge bureaucracy that did absolutely nothing to advance
safety.



I don't think you are correct about the "$5,000" fine.
The penalties can be much higher than that, including criminal prosecution.

Here's the link to the FAQ's again regarding this new regulation:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/



That was what I heard the FAA guy say on TV.
I suppose that is the normal amount they sue for. (It is really a
civil case unless there is an accompanying crime).

Boating All Out wrote:
In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given
as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential
problems with people using them who are not familiar with their
operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency
who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to
several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar
regulations are in the works there.
Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning,
saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at
least the past 20 years?
This is good example of that.
The government reacts to the threat of commercial
aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths.
"Republicans" and libertarians whine about it.
And so it goes.


Sure, Kevin. The government fails to react to threats that are far more
credible than little toys.