This drone thing is getting out of hand...

[voyager9 3,443]

You should look at what the FFA actually calls a UAS:

 

 

 

There is no conversation of line of sight, range, flight ceilings, etc.

 

Also ..

 

 

Technically some idiot could get you arrested for flying a kite without a permit, as it includes all attached bits, has control mechanisms, and it is tethered.

Doesn't "national airspace" managed by FAA start at a certain altitude?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AS350Driver 56]

You should look at what the FFA actually calls a UAS:

 

 

 

There is no conversation of line of sight, range, flight ceilings, etc.

 

Also ..

 

 

 

Technically some idiot could get you arrested for flying a kite without a permit, as it includes all attached bits, has control mechanisms, and it is tethered.

 

Line of sight is in this, https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/

among other things. How many of us live within 5 miles of an airport? Quite a few in my area.

[brucin 923]

I have a question for the pilots out there. Is there a penalty for willfully flying an aircraft into air space without getting tower clearance first?

 

If there is then that is what the operator should be charged with. We don't need more laws to make something more illegal than it already is.

 

I do realize it is much harder to identify these things due to their small size.

[NJGF 375]

Very cool video of drones gone wild: https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CW29c6XWoAEfsgx.mp4

 

[maintenanceguy 510]

This drone thing is getting out of hand...

nothing is getting out of hand.  Nothing ever is getting out of hand.  Once something is getting out of hand, somebody has to do something about it and that always means the people who aren't doing anything wrong can't do it any more.

 

Repeat after me:  Nothing is getting out of hand.

[njpilot 671]

I have a question for the pilots out there. Is there a penalty for willfully flying an aircraft into air space without getting tower clearance first?

 

If there is then that is what the operator should be charged with. We don't need more laws to make something more illegal than it already is.

 

I do realize it is much harder to identify these things due to their small size.

Yes, there is a penalty. Pilots are also licensed and the aircraft they fly are registered, so what's your point?

[Vlad G 345]

Doesn't "national airspace" managed by FAA start at a certain altitude?

 

 

In this case, no. You can fly this 5ft off the ground in your backyard and you need to license yourself.

[PK90 3,573]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/

[PK90 3,573]

I like this idea >

[checko 180]

This drone thing is getting out of hand...

nothing is getting out of hand.  Nothing ever is getting out of hand.  Once something is getting out of hand, somebody has to do something about it and that always means the people who aren't doing anything wrong can't do it any more.

 

Repeat after me:  Nothing is getting out of hand.

 

 

 

So you think that its perfectly acceptable for someone to fly these things over your property and photograph you, your wife, your daughter, your guns, etc...?

 

There is most certainly an issue that needs to be addressed here.  Where do my rights end and your rights begin?

 

I didn't create this thread about the need for regulation on remote controlled aircraft, but on the fact that it was over another persons property, and him being arrested after he brought it down. 

[leahcim 681]

Line of sight is in this, https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/

among other things. How many of us live within 5 miles of an airport? Quite a few in my area.

This pretty much means I cannot fly a drone from my own land!

So how long until the FAA establishes licensing requirements to own/fly one of these <sarcasm>dangerous</sarcasm> vehicles? 

 

And how does this effect Section 103 Ultralights?

My understanding is: NO registration or certification requirements for ultralights and NO licensing requirement for ultralight pilots.  Does anyone reckon those rules are going to change to be consistent with the "drone" rules?

[leahcim 681]

So you think that its perfectly acceptable for someone to fly these things over your property and photograph you, your wife, your daughter, your guns, etc...?

 

There is most certainly an issue that needs to be addressed here.  Where do my rights end and your rights begin?

 

I didn't create this thread about the need for regulation on remote controlled aircraft, but on the fact that it was over another persons property, and him being arrested after he brought it down. 

I am pretty sure you could not legally shoot down a helo hovering at 300 meters above your land--under most circumstances.  A drone at 10 meters?  I would feel threatened by that.  But in PRNJ I would likely be required to retreat into my dwelling.  So shooting it down may not be the best option here, but what if you are playing ball and accidentally had a wild throw?

[jackandjill 683]

No one here is supporting the idiot who flew that uav. He (and his uav) got what he deserved.

 

The home owner already has rights to take care of the problem and he did, jusfiably so.

 

However the FAA move to "register" UAVs and other "laws" will only further erode homeowner rights.

[Vlad G 345]

So you think that its perfectly acceptable for someone to fly these things over your property and photograph you, your wife, your daughter, your guns, etc...?

 

 

What if they are flying it over their own property looking at your whatever? What if they are sitting on their roof with binoculars?

[checko 180]

What if they are flying it over their own property looking at your whatever? What if they are sitting on their roof with binoculars?

Apples to oranges. In this case they weren't over their own property. What annoys me about this is that the man was arrested (though ultimately released apparently) for an object controlled by another person over his land. When was this man's rights infringed upon and when does he have the right to take action against it? Is there an altitude limit?

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[maintenanceguy 510]

So you think that its perfectly acceptable for someone to fly these things over your property and photograph you, your wife, your daughter, your guns, etc...?

 

There is most certainly an issue that needs to be addressed here.  Where do my rights end and your rights begin?

 

I didn't create this thread about the need for regulation on remote controlled aircraft, but on the fact that it was over another persons property, and him being arrested after he brought it down. 

 

 

<sarcasm> I now support registration.  When one person does something bad with any sort of tool, everyone who did nothing wrong should have to register their tool.  We'll call the agency that oversees the registration list something like the the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Drones. </sarcasm>

 

What right to you have? Apparently in Kentucky, you have the right to shoot the drone down if it's spying on your daughter.  That's a policy I can support.  But I don't support registration of the million drones that will never be used for spying on little girls.

 

I believe that drones are a problem like mass shootings in schools are a problem.  I did the math after Newtown, by my numbers, your child's school should expect an "active shooter event" once every 12,000 years.  Elsewhere, I've seen "once every 16,000 years" reported. We should not spend millions (maybe billions) of dollars, millions of man hours, and scare school kids for something so unlikely to happen. As tragic as they are, active shooter events are simply so rare that they aren't even a tiny blip on the radar of things that can hurt kids.  Want to save kids lives?  Teach them to swim. 

 

One guy spying on some girl in Kentucky is not an epidemic.  I don't need a national law that affects a million innocent people because of one event, or ten, or 100.  And even if it was and epidemic, make spying illegal and prosecute the law breakers.  Don't inconvenience the rest of us who never did and never will spy on little girls...or shoot up schools.

[Vlad G 345]

The thing is, we already have laws covering all this. Why don't we apply them? Trespassing, peeping tom laws, interfering with aircraft, all this shit is already on the books.  Instead of regulating a whole new thing from scratch and creating a web of incongruent laws and regulations mostly affected people who aren't bothering anyone, figure out how to apply existing laws.

 

And back to the earlier point, it is no different if they are peeking from their yard or flying over yours, the act is the same. If they fly their drone on their side of the fence the thing you are concerned about is the same. If they are filming your daughter bathing with a drone or a high zoom camera the result is the same.  Punish the behaviour not the tool, just like gun control.

 

Look it, there are a million small drone owners out there, some of the not gun owners at all. Should gun owners be running around screaming "ban it!" or should they make friends with anyone else who is at the mercy of random government rule making?  Think of the consequences.

[checko 180]

 

 

I now support registration. When one person does something bad with any sort of tool, everyone who did nothing wrong should have to register their tool. We'll call the agency that oversees the registration list something like the the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Drones.

 

What right to you have? Apparently in Kentucky, you have the right to shoot the drone down if it's spying on your daughter. That's a policy I can support. But I don't support registration of the million drones that will never be used for spying on little girls.

 

I believe that drones are a problem like mass shootings in schools are a problem. I did the math after Newtown, by my numbers, your child's school should expect an "active shooter event" once every 12,000 years. Elsewhere, I've seen "once every 16,000 years" reported. We should not spend millions (maybe billions) of dollars, millions of man hours, and scare school kids for something so unlikely to happen. As tragic as they are, active shooter events are simply so rare that they aren't even a tiny blip on the radar of things that can hurt kids. Want to save kids lives? Teach them to swim.

 

One guy spying on some girl in Kentucky is not an epidemic. I don't need a national law that affects a million innocent people because of one event, or ten, or 100. And even if it was and epidemic, make spying illegal and prosecute the law breakers. Don't inconvenience the rest of us who never did and never will spy on little girls...or shoot up schools.

Did I once even mention registration?

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[checko 180]

The thing is, we already have laws covering all this. Why don't we apply them? Trespassing, peeping tom laws, interfering with aircraft, all this shit is already on the books. Instead of regulating a whole new thing from scratch and creating a web of incongruent laws and regulations mostly affected people who aren't bothering anyone, figure out how to apply existing laws.

 

And back to the earlier point, it is no different if they are peeking from their yard or flying over yours, the act is the same. If they fly their drone on their side of the fence the thing you are concerned about is the same. If they are filming your daughter bathing with a drone or a high zoom camera the result is the same. Punish the behaviour not the tool, just like gun control.

 

Look it, there are a million small drone owners out there, some of the not gun owners at all. Should gun owners be running around screaming "ban it!" or should they make friends with anyone else who is at the mercy of random government rule making? Think of the consequences.

I don't know why you guys are thinking I want to ban or regulate anything. I was pissed they arrested this dude for shooting it.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

I don't know why you guys are thinking I want to ban or regulate anything. I was pissed they arrested this dude for shooting it.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Then I misunderstood you and I apologize.

 

However firing a weapon in the air in a residential area is generally a bad idea. Using lethal force in a non lethal thread situation is generally frowned upon. Not that I don't understand the sentiment, but it seems like a poor approach.

[checko 180]

Then I misunderstood you and I apologize.

 

However firing a weapon in the air in a residential area is generally a bad idea. Using lethal force in a non lethal thread situation is generally frowned upon. Not that I don't understand the sentiment, but it seems like a poor approach.

I agree depending on the area. If he was on a 2 acre lot facing away from and hit it with a target load I'm not too worried about it

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[maintenanceguy 510]

 

Did I once even mention registration?

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Registration was the point of the OP's post!

[checko 180]

Registration was the point of the OP's post!

I'm the op, and I think I know what the point of the post was

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[brucin 923]

Yes, there is a penalty. Pilots are also licensed and the aircraft they fly are registered, so what's your point?

My point is that any knuckle head that flies a drone near an airport should be prosecuted under existing laws. If it's already illegal there is no need to make it more illegal.

 

That is how we wound up with a many of the wonderful firearms laws in this state. Trying to make something more illegal.

[leahcim 681]

My point is that any knuckle head that flies a drone near an airport should be prosecuted under existing laws. If it's already illegal there is no need to make it more illegal.

 

That is how we wound up with a many of the wonderful firearms laws in this state. Trying to make something more illegal.

So if I fly a drone over my yard-about 4.5 miles from xyz airport-I should be prosecuted?

[leahcim 681]

And what about section 103 ultralights? My understanding is no registration and no license requirements. Isn't that some kind of disparate impact?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

So if I fly a drone over my yard-about 4.5 miles from xyz airport-I should be prosecuted?

 If you fly a drone in your yard under a 100 feet no one would give a damn, you just have to alert them. If your flying any model aircraft near a home your... well just don't. . You should be flying it somewhere it can safely fall out of the sky. You wouldn't particularly enjoy looking at people hit by these things, or the fact the battery they carry is a mini incendiary device.

[Vlad G 345]

 If you fly a drone in your yard under a 100 feet no one would give a damn, you just have to alert them. If your flying any model aircraft near a home your... well just don't. . You should be flying it somewhere it can safely fall out of the sky. You wouldn't particularly enjoy looking at people hit by these things, or the fact the battery they carry is a mini incendiary device.

 

To late. if you fly a drone outside at all, even on your property you now have to register. Even if it is 5" off the ground in the middle of Wyoming on your 1000 acre ranch. Even if it is tethered to the ground.

 

Welcome to government regulation.

[67gtonut 847]

This is purely a case of the few ruining it for the many.....

 

The people who flew these things at altitudes where they actually interacted with aircraft forced the hand.....   So now.... they need to be registered...... 

 

So yeah......  much the same as firearms.....  

[MartyZ 697]

Are these drones water proof? If it's flying low enough then a super soaker should work.  Then on second thought, the first time anyone uses one in NJ to bring down a drone it will be classified an assault weapon.