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 <mailto:af...@zirkel.us>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto: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.
