Also charge folks to be the drone pilot so it pits human against human. I would pay...
Hmmm, what do cheap drones cost? From: Chuck McCown Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty Perhaps if you posted “no drone zone” like no trespassing signs.... I think it would be fun to shoot at them. I am wondering if it would be possible to create a line of drones with titanium armor over the expensive bits (motors, batteries, electronics) and have lots of spare parts. Make a shooting range where folks can pay to blast a drone out of the sky. Costs more if they have a camera... From: Mathew Howard Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission, and everyone is happy. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: Airport exclusion zone would be important. I would like to limit them to 250 feet. If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500 feet could ruin their day. From: Sean Heskett Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace. There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a bird strike. We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary equipment to keep the national airspace safe. (Yes I said nasa...national AERONAUTICAL and space administration. They help invent the technology that the faa uses ;) On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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" <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.