I see the hawk-vs-drone and kangaroo-vs-drone videos on Youtube, and think you
just need a trained hawk. Or kangaroo. I don’t know what happened to that
guy’s drone, officer, I think it had a run-in with some wildlife.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
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.
