Model airplanes are rarely flown beyond line of sight from the operator. With a modern GPS fed flight controller you can program a set of waypoints into a medium/large quad, hex or Octo that will take it way beyond where you can see it. On Oct 7, 2015 7:14 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess they could define some rules, like in a collision the drone must > do less damage than a duck. Make the rotors out of polystyrene. > > I've been wondering, are they really worse than model airplanes? Those > are made of wood, carry nitro methane for fuel, and fly faster than a > drone. To my untrained eye, it would seem like model airplanes would be > more dangerous to a real plane than a quadrotor drone. > > Is it just that quadrotors are easier to fly which opens the airspace to > more idiots? > > > On 10/7/2015 6:37 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. >>> >> >> > >
