That is not a bad idea... I would pay to do that. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
> 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 <ch...@wbmfg.com> > *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 <mhoward...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM > *To:* af <af@afmug.com> > *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 <af...@zirkel.us> >> *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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
