people are incompetent to operate vehicles in 2D space that's paved with clearly defined lines and signs telling you exactly what you can and cannot do. Put these assholes in 3D airspace from their patio, that will be a clusterfcuk.
They also need to apply the same rules of intoxication, you should absolutely get a DUI if youre drunk and operating one of these things from your couch. A clearly defined liability for acts of god too. If youre out tooling your jackfuckery over a populated area just because you can and some retarded duck flies into it and it drops out of the sky cracking some babies skull open, youre on the hook criminally and civil. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: > Well you can get this Octo-copter with 15" titanium blades :-/ it's able > to carry a full size studio cinema camera. > > http://m.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s1000-plus > > That's a huge flying blender. > > Also RC airplanes need the operator within visual range to fly them > because they don't have an on-board computer with GPS. Modern drones > (airplane or copter) can be miles from the operator because of the on-board > flight computers. > > The faa wrote the RC hobby rules in the 1980's when computers were the > size of a suitcase. > > -Sean > > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, 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 >> *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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- 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.
