New regulations have been written since 1946 :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why dont you familiarize yourself with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91. I had to learn the whole thing when I was an air traffic controller, plus much more.

And then take a look at what the FAA says about model aircraft flight, and their altitudes.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

Pay attention to the very first rule:
:thumbsup

Well, you're a dumb fuck then, aren't you? If you require a sniper rifle to hit a target 200 FEET away, there's something wrong with you. A M-16 can take down a target at 300 METERS without an issue, and that is far from being a sniper rifle. Moron.

SB 142 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

Other states are doing the same

FAA regs are only administrative rules not law. I don't think that the states can control airspace -- the airspace is federal. This whole subject is going to the courts and that old 1942 SCOTUS case will be cited it's something you didn't learn in air controller school -- it is called precedent and it wins in court cases all the time.

I shouldn't even waste my time ....

:1orglaugh

Oh yeah we didnt learn about that case in air traffic control school. Or in Airport Management. Yeah, it was never mentioned or used as examples as to why several things are the way they are now. I guess you know this because you're a graduate yourself, huh?

You're right, you shouldnt waste your time. :)

While you cannot shoot a trespasser the radio-jamming technology the private landholders may resort to using may be dangerous to general navigation as well as the intended target -- overflight by private drones in trespass.

So, yeah, it is a problem that goes beyond random shots fired ... Drones could become pests like flies. Drones need to be regulated because of the abuse potential.

There is a drone control office in your future.

Did you get the job?

First of all - moving target.

Secondly - I never touched a gun in my life, so I am a dilettante here. A "little bit" difference between that and being a moron.

Thirdly - people who know guns were surprised as well:

I had the job before I even went to school. And then 18 years ago I quit, got into this adult bullshit and made much, much more money.

I have a drone myself and so do a few others here. When we fly around, it's not to spy on anyone or look into anyones house. It's to have fun. The cameras on the drones provide a great view, and thats exactly what drone flyers like.


Good luck with that.


Take it easy on making this a personal thing there, skippy. You've been good for a while now.

If a Drone flyer gets too close to a fire and loses it do to heat or water, its his problem.




Get real. If you ever tried flying a drone yourself, you would know that this is not the way it is.

If you fly a drone up to someones window to peep inside their house, then sure I would call that an invasion of privacy, but flying for flying's sake is and should be totally legal, and people have nothing to worry about. Your mobile carrier has a lot more information on you.


:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup


You don't need a drone for that. Use Google Earth to see my house, and send me $10 and I'll turn on my double-headed dong cam for you.

Done!


That would be an invasion of privacy. Drone flyers, like me anyway, aren't interested in breaking the law, and aren't remotely interested in whats going on inside anyones house. The birds-eye view of the landscape is a lot more interesting.

So if you happen to drive by a park and happen to see kids playing, does that make you a pedo?





Not at all. First, I'm not a hothead that would go nuts just because a drone happened to show up while my wife or daughter were sunbathing, nude or not. When you are outside, you're outside. You can expect a little less privacy. If drones KEPT hovering over all the time and became a nuisance, then I would find the pilots and ask them to kindly fly away. I wouldn't take a gun out and shoot drones. That is typical over reacting.



Both actually, but ok I take it back.


Ok. I'll take it back, but you shouldn't call everyone Libitards and insult Canadians anymore because because of what I or others might say. Otherwise, people might call you a bigot.



There is none. The fear for this is unwarranted.


No not unless he's an idiot. If someone is scoping your place out to invade or rob there much better ways to get info. They can see your wifi traffic. If you have a smart home they might be able to know when you're home and when you're out. If you're dumb enough to post Vacation pictures on Facebook or Twitter while you're actually on vacation, then you've pretty much rolled out the welcome mat to them.


Geeezuz Christ do you live in constant fear of everything?

IF there's a drone lurking around your house and IF it seems to be there when kids are playing and IF you discover that the person is a pedo then OF COURSE you call the cops. But until then, why not marvel at the technology, make friends with the pilot who is just down the street from you anyway, and share a beer with him as he lets you fly a drone for yourself? Come on man...


In that case, every body who has ever taken any picture of any person with other people, homes, buildings or businesses in the background of any picture ever should be arrested.

It sure takes ********** a whole bunch of words to try and justify denying the reality.

And also to point at rednecks, hee haw, and hillbillies. Maybe if his new house burned down in a fire because firefighters couldn't put water on it because a drone was hovering, he'd see the light.

wait, you're the guy who began this off with the redneck hee haw hillbilly bullshit.

just don't start with it and i won't finish it. simple. and the only canadians i've insulted are the ones that have tried to insult me. and i treat people like they deserve to be treated. and i also don't call everyone libtards, i just call the libtards libtards.

What a crock of shit from guess who? the US Congress and parroted by the FAA.

These drones are self piloted skeet targets.

Regardless of what you may think, this is heading to the courts. Overflight may not be a tort but a drone with a camera is no different than a peeping tom trespasser. Last time I checked that was criminal trespass of privacy and that is a high level misdemeanor crime in every state.

This Lawyer seems to agree with my citation ...
He's just a licensed attorney so he's probably full of shit, he didn't go to to continuing ed courses ... The fact is: I find that same 1942 SCOTUS ruling repeatedly cited in connection with drone and airspace regulations. So, everybody is full of shit I guess.

Well, what the FAA has done is said UAS that are operated as 'private hobbyist model aircraft' can be exempted from safety regulation. Really, the FAA is washing their hands (or trying to) of regulating private hobbyist model aircraft, then differing the commercial UAS regulatory schema to a case by case basis limiting the regulation to the FAA's aircraft safety mandate.

So, stay lower than 400 feet and out of the way of the private and commercial licensed aircraft that the FAA regulates. The FAA doesn't want to have jack-shit to do with private hobbyist model aircraft -- keep the fuck out of our airspace is what the FAA is saying here.

Yes the 400ft rule for model aircraft is there for safety reasons. It provides a 100ft safety barrier between the models and the lowest legal operating altitude for full scale aircraft operating in rural areas.

It's the same reason that airplanes have assigned altitudes even when not talking to air traffic control, based on their heading when flying at 3000ft or above. They must maintain 1000ft of vertical seperation. And above FL180 (18,000 feet) it increases to 2000 feet of vertical seperation. Above FL290, it increases again to 3000 feet of vertical seperation, plus 5 nautical miles horizontal seperation.

Aircraft flying between 500ft - 3000ft have the responsibily to "see and be seen" in order to avoid problems.

Keeping the model aircraft 100ft below the legal operating altitude of airplanes, keeps them out of the mess above them. And now you know exactly why the 400ft rule exists.

The FAA does not want to regulate model aircraft, because up until recently, RC pilots have had a stellar safety record by simply policing themselves. And they have a large, well financed organization called the Academy of Model Aeronautics that acts as a liason between the model pilots and the FAA, and also lobbies congress when needed on model pilot's behalf. Kind of like the NRA but not so crazy. The FAA knows that it cant just step in and start wildy throwing a bunch of new rules around without a lot of serious opposition. Many real pilots started off as model pilots and are still AMA members as well, as are many employees of the FAA.

relax fool :1orglaugh

So the real question is, and it looks like a grey area, who owns the airspace rights below 500ft? There is a lot of state legislation pending protecting property owner's rights.

So how would you stop an intruding drone? A rifle with a sound suppressor is a federal felony -- but it seems the logical choice -- RF jamming or laser weapons would endanger aircraft.

1. A new hi-power pellet gun or rifle with a laser sight?
2. A mini non-explosive rocket launcher designed to down a drone.
3. An anti drone weapons array on your rooftop?

These drones are going to become commonplace in 5 or 10 years. Looks like an easy venture capital project the demand will be guaranteed by the targets of surveillance both government and private.

Electric force field that zaps anything that enters below that level, might need a cat to eat all the birds that drop as well. Could also use high powered water to blast it outta da air and reduce bird fatalities as maybe only 50% would drown or get their wings knocked off. :2 cents:

Raise your pricing if looking to replace the Volt with a Tesla sooner than later. :winkwink:

Maybe the frequency could be altered to sonic and to a beam that would only target non-organic intruders.

That sounds good to me we will call the device "Drone Patrol" alpha production testing 2018 ...

That there are people not agreeing with your statement is beyond me.

Proper reply to Mr. Ebonic should be:
relax foo :1orglaugh

Caucasoid English (copyright blackmonsters) is no good in the hood.

You don't want others to call people names, but you want, sorry, expect, free license to do just that. Almighty then.

again, **********, this thread is a textbook example of your starting off the name calling with your redneck hee haw hillbilly insult. and i'll tell you something else, **********- i am a hee haw watching redneck with hillbilly relatives. i grew up that way, my entire family did. my friends did. so right off the bat right here in this thread you insulted me, my family, my friends and my upbringing.

so let's be real clear, **********, when you knock off the disrespectful, over-generalizing, uneducated, broad-sweeping, finger-pointing insults, then you will see that others like myself will stop trying to let you know how wrong that is by treating you the same.

you don't see me treating everyone like i treat you, and that's because they don't talk to me like you do. robbie, barry, l-pink, baddog, many others here i disagree with on quite a few topics but guys like that can debate their views without denigrating and insulting me, that's refreshing and how it should be and that's why i get along with those guys and others like them, you are welcome to join that group, and quite frankly, i'd rather you would.

read online it was taking pics of his teen daughter? is that true?

In here, in the country of freedom you can use sound suppressors in rifles, but I would still choose a drone with good air-to-air capabilities. Maybe with the possibility to make pre-emptive strike, so air-to-ground capability wouldn't hurt either.

So how many shots were fired to the drone?

Somebody is going to start making these and get rich:2 cents:

http://i60.tinypic.com/rhkawi.png

Or die tryin' :winkwink:

How do you save a facebook video? I cant post it here because it's private.

A local Vegas celebrity was having a problem with his neighbor harassing him with an Inspire 1 drone, so I said whatever you do, dont shoot it... but model aircraft fly into each other quite often on accident.

So he bought a cheap used drone, and flew it into the expensive Inspire 1... and crashed it.

http://www.mrpheer.com/dronekill.mp4

Looks like the crash video was removed.

Insurance companies do it all the time now, and have been doing so for over 2 years.

Now I like that idea, interceptor suicide drones -- that is fair game!

I have never heard of that happening in the United States or within the EU. However, an insurance company would have an insured interest to protect and when you insure property you give that insurance company the right to inspect your property.

If you shot down or interfere with the insurance company's drone they would definitely cancel your insurance policy.

'Cyborg Unplug' Is a Personal Jammer Against Drones, Glassholes Read more at 'Cyborg Unplug' Is a Personal Jammer Against Drones, Glassholes | | Observer Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at: 'Cyborg Unplug' Is a Personal Jammer Against Drones, Glassholes | | Observer

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...ng?w=635&h=364

Drone Jammers

Awesome!

"Incoming drones, scramble defensive drones, scramble defensive drones ... THIS IS NOT A DRILL! ... Incoming drones"

Perfect.


.

also, the latest update is he used a shotgun/bird shot to shoot it, which makes a lot more sense. he answered the door, when the drone crew arrived, with his glock .40, i would have stuck with the shottie.

use this here and the cops are coming ten minutes later
especially with this one:
CT-6081QD Quadcopters Drones portable Jammer 6 bands 250W. Jamming up to 1km

that is btw dangerous for your health

I saw a dude at a park a few days ago, flying a drone with some sort of google glasses set up. Is that a normal thing?

It actually took me a few minutes to figure out he was the one controlling it, because he wasn't watching the drone in the air, but rather some sort of glasses.

Autonomous delivery will come
 

It may be creepy, but the business case is just too damn good. If you had autonomous parcel delivery you can be quick and cost effective (no delivery trucks or personnel). Amazon is testing it and in Germany DHL has a parcel-copter that services a pharmacy on an island in the North Sea from the mainland. This thing can even fly, when bad weather prevents other means of delivery.

would it be legal? i thought the legal grounds for all this is interfering with an aircraft