Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that. I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of > them being over private property without consent, you should be able to > destroy them > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > >> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I >> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty >> >> >> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and >> it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful >> with these things from day one >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> wrote: >> >>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil >>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator >>> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a >>> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. >>> The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International of >>> Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan >>> conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most congested >>> airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City and >>> Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,” the >>> FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft were >>> “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting >>> equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a certificate of >>> waiver or authorization for the operations, the release said. SkyPan has 30 >>> days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t >>> have an immediate comment. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
