Drone Ban Extends 30 Miles Around DC, Per FAA (wusa9.com)

DewDude writes: If you thought done registration was bad enough; it just got worse for anyone living in the nation's capital. On Christmas Day (of all days); the FAA put into effect a rule that bans the flying of drones/quadcopters within a 30-mile radius around DC. This more than doubles the initial 15 mile radius no-fly-zone. The ban includes the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, and the independent cities in the vicinity on the Virginia side. On the Maryland side; it includes Montgomery, Prince Georges, Howard, Anne Arundel; and parts of Calvert, Baltimore, and the extreme north-western end of St. Marys Counties in Maryland.

Comments

Time to buy land!!

[CajunArson]

Man, if they ban drones from that large of an area, the price of real estate is going to crash and I'll get a great deal.

To think, a completely depopulated 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! I'll convert it to a strip club to improve the property values and run a more moral operation than the previous occupants.

Re:Time to buy land!!

[FatdogHaiku]

Man, I'll convert it to a strip club.

bill clinton already did that

And he provided complimentary cigars!

Re: Time to buy land!!

[Bing Tsher E]

Every congresscritter is a drone. How are they supposed to enact a bunch more laws if they're banned from DC?

Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

Seems likely the only thing this is going to do is make a lot of people law breakers.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

And that is how a state becomes a tyranny. Forsaking liberty for security.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[sycodon]

How soon before some 14 year old kid flying his $40 drone in the back yard, at the local park, etc. is shot by SWAT?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Foxhoundz]

Yes. That's how it works. First they ban our drones, next they're asking as for papers. Get over yourself.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[CaptainDork]

Certainly, we have a positive correlation between the absence of drones and the Holocaust.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Joe_Dragon]

as soon as a Drone crashes in a jumbo jet and people die.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[sycodon]

So if I owned property within 30 miles, I can't fly my little RC plane or Quadcopter in my backyard?

Because....why? And how does doing that affect you or anyone else?

From TFA

"So, anyone who flies drones or RC airplanes or anything within 30 miles of DC is now officially grounded," said hobbyist Cyrus Phillips.. "That came out on Christmas Day."

He said the notice effectively closes the Capital Area Soaring Association and all other hobbyist parks within 30-miles.

 

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[sycodon]

If there is a jumbo jet in my backyard, then they (and I) have more problems than a $40 drone.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[requerdanos]

First they ban our drones, next they're asking as for papers.

Yes, that's correct... Drone ban, and asking for our papers.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Anonymous Coward]

So the fact that I'm angry that my son can't fly his little toy drone inside our own backyard makes me a spoiled child?

I wonder what it's going to be like with another 10 or 20 years of you stupid fucks ruining everything.

"Your freedom of speech doesn't extend to saying anything other people can hear."

"Your freedom of the press doesn't extend to printing anything that the public can get their hands on."

"Freedom to assemble is invalid because they might not be behaving peacably."

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Foxhoundz]

You know what I find amusing? For a country that enjoys a lot of freedom, American citizens complain a lot of about tyranny and oppression, as if they've lived through it. The TSA is an agency that has been mismanaged due to a lack of oversight. That is not a definition of tyranny. That's just the american public being suckered into voting for people who aren't interested in representing them. All of the problems that plague the political system in the U.S. -- all of it -- can be resolved if the masses can agree not to be swayed by thirty-second ads. Whatever form of oppression Americans think they are in, believe you me, is a self-inflicted one, as the power to vote and bring about political change still rests with the voters. I have lived in a totalitarian country. One of their ways of getting their kicks is killing your relative and billing you for the bullet and time. Perhaps I'll join the melodrama when I start seeing similar occurrences happen in the U.S.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Anonymous Coward]

RC operators were a microscopic minority.

I've seen drones for sale in fucking supermarkets. No, your average asshole American dumbass cannot be trusted to obey sane regulation. Congrats; your neighbors have ruined your hobby.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

Birds are not a microscopic minority, though, and civil aviation has managed to live with bird strikes for decades.

I fear people like you accepting the government's word as they slowly pick away at freedoms more than I fear a half-pound drone hitting my plane on approach.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

A supermarket drone is less than a pound (half a kilo) and has a ceiling far below cruise for an aircraft. An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly. A Canada goose is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 lbs. and will stop a jet-engine, but still won't destroy a jumbo jet.

You might as well worry about flocks of songbirds, which as you may know far outnumber and predate drones.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Anonymous Coward]

A reasonable person would look at the number of incidents involving drones being flown into planes and do one of the following:

1. Discount them because it's such a small number of incidents that it's dwarfed by things like 'deaths due to choking on salad'.
2. Require drones to be manufactured with altimeters so they will not fly above 100 or so feet, which puts them well out of harm's way when it comes to aircraft.

An unreasonable piece of hist like you looks at the situation and:

1. Gets mad some people are enjoying a hobby. HOW FUCKING DARE THEY! I mean there are rules, THEY HAVE TO OBEY THE RULES IT'S 2015 I MEAN COME ON!
2. Supports blanket bans on harmless things because you're a damaged, petulant child.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[AndyKron]

How many drones have been flown into planes?

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Foxhoundz]

All our communication is logged with the juicier bits handed to law enforcement. Sorry, kid, but that's the very definition of tyrrany.

Just because Americans are daft enough to fall for smoke and circuses - eg, pointlessly carrying on about drones, the TSA - does not mean they have not and are not living with tyrrany.

If America was supposedly becoming a tyrannical state, it would be because America is marching towards becoming a tyrannical state by choice, not by the cunning action of a shadowy dictator. A choice made by voters unwilling to educate themselves on the issues and candidates, voting for candidates that bring the most bacon home to their district. That's why people like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump continue to lead several public opinion polls. Everyone has iPhones and iPads, but I'd wager the vast majority of the voting bloc do a great disservice to themselves by not vetting out their chosen candidates, despite access to near limitless information they could sift through. Tyranny by choice is not tyranny.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[nehumanuscrede]

Pssssst

We don't have to live through it. We've seen first hand how well it worked out for all the other countries who went through it over the years. Even had to send troops over to help deal with them. ( See: WWII )

Learning from your own mistakes is expected. Learning from the mistakes of others is what sets folks apart from the average ones.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

Your liberty doesn't extend to flying quadrocopters wherever the fuck you feel like it.

My liberty has nothing to do with flying or not flying quadcopters at all. That is the problem you're not realizing in your haste to critique Libertarians. You're logic is simple binary and thus incapable of judgement. Or as the good saying goes, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

No, the idea of liberty is fraught with messy dangerous things. If you want to live in a nice peaceful totalitarian state, where everything is mandated, regulated and bubble wraped for your protection, then fine, move to North Korea, where the state protects its people from the evils of Liberty. Because that is what you have advocated.

But lets take a look at what is REALLY happening. It is now, against the law to fly a drone within 30 Miles of DC. That means that I cannot fly my drone, over my backyard (acreage) because you're too fucking scared. Now, I am a criminal for not doing anything other than minding my own business, harming, threatening, or otherwise anyone else.

The real spoiled children are the ones crying for big government to protect them from scary imaginary boogiemen.

So yeah, be riduculously afraid of my quadcopter on my property, and make me a criminal simply because you're too fucking stupid to have any judgements and thus deal in the absolute binary world you're comfortable in.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[YrWrstNtmr]

If I can't fly it in my own backyard, we have a problem.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

Special snowflakes are the people demanding government protect them from all the imaginary boogiemen they can dream up. I am asking nobody to protect me from anything other than governments making things illegal, simply because people like you can only make binary choices.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[requerdanos]

American citizens complain a lot of about tyranny and oppression, as if they've lived through it.

I agree that the TSA mostly (not always) falls under the category of "annoying" and not "tyranny". But the trend in the USA is towards less of the guaranteed freedoms and more (and more direct) government control.

Yes, I agree that it would still be possible to reverse that trend if enough voters wanted to, but the farther it goes the more likely it is to be past that point.

I think that would be a bad thing, and I think that each thing that directly contributes to it is a bad thing.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently none, according to the same ban-happy FAA.

"Since 1990, the FAA recorded 198 airplane-and-turtle collisions, and exactly zero drone-and-airplane collisions."

http://www.popsci.com/airplanes-hit-more-turtles-than-drones

CAPTCHA: tyranny

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mysidia]

And that is how a state becomes a tyranny. Forsaking liberty for security.

And now, there will be more violations (Of the new anti-Drone rule), thus justifying more new stricter and broader laws to hit the offenders with ---- AKA a positive feedback loop.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[dywolf]

"statist" !
DRINK!

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[NewtonsLaw]

I guess the secret to ensuring that your favorite pastime won't be annexed by a bunch of rogue law-makers is to take up a pastime that *they* enjoy.

For example... many, many times more people are injured or die as a result of playing golf than as a result of playing with drones -- yet you *KNOW* that golf will never be banned or restricted in the way that drones are being -- simply because so many lawmakers are also keen golfers.

Remember... politicians and bureaucrats are primarily looking after their own interests ahead of ensuring the public's safety.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

It is to counter the lame "Somalia/Libertarian" crap logic that is often tossed about. Binary strawman logic is fun, until it gets reversed on those that use it.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mysidia]

which puts them well out of harm's way when it comes to aircraft.

Unless the drone is carrying a malicious payload; hence the no-fly zone. What they really need to put on them is tamper-resistant measurement instrumentation and logic that will throw an error, and refuse to fully launch, if a "stowaway" is detected, such as an extra device strapped to the drone.

I am imaging some kind of "self test" occurring during launch, and after in the air, before responding to commands, where all instruments are checked for reasonable measurement, and some type of physics test is done near the ground and the air, to confirm the drone is not carrying anything (Such as drugs, weapons, hazardous devices, or other stowaways, such as extra electronics mounted to it), And failure of a test forces limited movement and gradual automatic descent.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Foxhoundz]

We don't have to live through it. We've seen first hand

No, you haven't. You read it on a history book.
The process that led to the rise of the Third Reich could be, in part, attributed to a tired and fearful populace. At the time, they needed someone to tell them where to direct their frustration for the economic downturn following World War I. Hitler was that someone. He gave them a singular entity to fear. And you know what? People bought into the narrative.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[WaffleMonster]

So if I owned property within 30 miles, I can't fly my little RC plane or Quadcopter in my backyard?

The FAA apparently feels it is entitled to make any law it wants by decree even though FAA modernization act specifically bans FAA from imposing regulations specifically targeting model aircraft. They obviously don't care they'll do it anyway as much as *WE* allow them to get away with it.

See also:
https://www.aclu.org/constitut...

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mysidia]

If I can't fly it in my own backyard, we have a problem.

If this prevents you from flying in your own backyard, then please do start a lawsuit. Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.

Unfortunately, the way the legal system in the US works, nobody else can challenge the action of abuse that infringes a different person's fundamental liberties ---- in a perverse twist, the courts protect the government against challenges by refusing to recognize it as an infringement of my rights: If I can't prove the law actually causes me damage today (And "chilling" my activities is not sufficient, the harm has to already happened and be tangible and provable), then the courts use the concept of "lack of standing", in order to help regulators avoid any possibility of scrutiny over their abuses.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[argumentsockpuppet]

America is marching towards becoming a tyrannical state by choice

Yeah. That's the problem. We talk about it and complain about it and vote based on it, but those of us who care are a tiny minority. At this point, I fear there is no hope of reversing the process.

Any suggestions on a better country to move to?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mysidia]

An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly.

If they restrict all high-flying drones to licensed drone pilots and low-flying within 5 miles of an airport, within 5 miles of low-flying firefighters or rescue copter/operations, and enforce it vigorously, that basically takes care of all current unreasonable dangers to aircraft from civillians' light drones. I'm more concerned about ISIS being able to modify drones for malicious use.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

You won't be happy until the government protects you from all the imaginary boogiemen in your life. You are why I am a FIERCE Libertarian. You embrace tyranny simply because it offers "safety".

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[schwit1]

It's not security, it's security theater. The bad guys do not obey laws and they won't obey this one if it interferes with their goals.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Thaelon]

This entire argument is a just a red herring. Whether it's worse or not somewhere else is wholly without relevance.

Laws don't make us free. Few restrictions do. Being able to do anything we want that doesn't adversely impact someone else does.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ChrisMaple]

They may obey it because police will assume, with good reason, that anybody violating the ban has a drone full of explosives headed for the Oval Office. The police will respond accordingly, and the violator will be incapable of trying a second time.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[barbariccow]

I live within 30 miles of DC. It's mostly farms. I'm sure they're going to dedicate billions for roving patrols and low-altitude radar to track down people having fun with toy aircraft (btw, I had a remote control aircraft 15 years ago before they were cool and called "Drones"). I can't wait to see little SAM sites show up at parks known for repeat offenders of fun.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ChrisMaple]

The potential for human death caused by turtle-plane collisions is low, much lower than the potential for human death caused by human-drone collisions. Unless perhaps there are airplanes in those regions where turtles fly.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ChrisMaple]

Of course not. They've spent all their money on $400 sneakers.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[HornWumpus]

You don't know any cops do you?

They won't do anything that interferes with their on duty naps and donut eating.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Coren22]

So, you think that it is less likely that a turtle will down an aircraft (after being kicked up by the wheels), than a drone which has the same characteristics (to a jet engine) as a goose?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Nethemas the Great]

To my understanding there really is all that much in the way of boogie men people are demanding protection from. The biggest demand right now regard protection from--very real--thug law enforcement officers.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ChrisMaple]

...they needed someone to tell them where to direct their frustration...

Because that always solves problems. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "need"?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[dywolf]

for your next statistic, how about the number of airplane/satellite collisions compared to airplane/buggy collisions since 1865.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Coren22]

30 miles from washington national airport covers the southern portion of Baltimore, including the inner harbor, as well as a significant portion of the state of Maryland.

Look at Google maps, the mile key is on the bottom right corner. I used a post-it to mark the distance. It covers the entirety of Anne Arundel County, which includes Annapolis. That is a pretty significant reach.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[dywolf]

" "Tyranny" " !
DRINK!

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[bleh-of-the-huns]

There have always been bans on flying RC planes in the Area. There area a number of parks designated specifically for RC planes, and tracks for RC cars.

What I would be more curious to know is if there is an exemption for the flying of drones at the RC airplane field as it falls within the no fly zone.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Nethemas the Great]

You're mistaken. One of the primary functions of RC aviation, rocketry, etc. clubs is to promote, facilitate, and train safe, responsible operation. The incidents that keep showing up in the news have no affiliation with these clubs.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Coren22]

I'm thinking of all the aircraft this bans

You can't launch a model rocket in most of Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia now. You can't fly any model aircraft.

I looked into the FAA site, and it just uses a nebulous Drone/Unmanned Aircraft term, it doesn't give specifics if weight in any way, so it is very broad on what it blocks.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ChrisMaple]

Let's assume that in some critical area there are now 1000 people flying dangerous-looking drones. It's impossible to know whether any particular drone is being flown by someone dangerously ignorant or downright malicious

After the regulation becomes well known, maybe 10 people will be flying drones, and it's a much better bet that all those drones are flown by someone ignorant or malicious. Downing drones under the new conditions becomes easier for the police, safer for the general public, and more likely to catch the malicious actor.

There have already been drones brought down around the Capitol building. Were they flown by fools, or were they dry runs by Islamists?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Coren22]

It does. It blocks any unamanned aircraft in most of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. This includes such things as a little model rocket, as there is no manning it. This covers a considerable portion of land where you couldn't possibly get close enough to hit an aircraft.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Damarkus13]

I am imaging some kind of "self test" occurring during launch, and after in the air, before responding to commands, where all instruments are checked for reasonable measurement, and some type of physics test is done near the ground and the air, to confirm the drone is not carrying anything (Such as drugs, weapons, hazardous devices, or other stowaways, such as extra electronics mounted to it), And failure of a test forces limited movement and gradual automatic descent.

And I imagine anyone with nefarious intent (or anyone who doesn't want to deal with that BS) will just build a quad-copter from easily sourced components and a programmable flight controller.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[russotto]

Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.

Oh, it's even better than that. There isn't any regulation. The FAA has several ways to make rules about the airspace. They can publish regulations in the Federal Register; this is the hard way. Or they can issue a NOTAM, a Notice to Airmen, containing restrictions in the airspace. This is the easy way. The NOTAM for the DC SFRA is here.

It talks about model aircraft once:
"THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: [...] MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS"

Note "DC FRZ". The DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) is a 15-mile radius area centered on Reagan National. The SFRA is a 30-mile radius area centered on the same point. So where's the restriction for the whole SFRA? Well, they've published it on their website, and also in something called AC 91-57A. Thing is, "AC" stands for "Advisory Circular". By definition, it doesn't set any rules; it's advisory.

So it's really tough to challenge the regulation, because _no such regulation exists_. The FAA has told the police to shut down fields, and told the (private) Academy for Model Aeronautics to shut down fields, or else. But they haven't bothered to make an actual regulation to back up their orders.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Nethemas the Great]

I suspect the principle reason behind this has little to do with drone strikes and far more to do with the prevention of aerial surveillance.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Coren22]

A crow has more chance of taking down an aircraft than a drone, which is still 0% chance.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[russotto]

I can't wait to see little SAM sites show up at parks known for repeat offenders of fun

If they blew one of my models up with a mini-SAM I woudn't even be mad. Not even my expensive ones. Well, provided I got it on video anyway. That would be cool. Probably counterproductive, though, as I'd start buying the cheapest crap models that could fly and getting them blown up just for the thrill.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ColdWetDog]

Apparently none, according to the same ban-happy FAA.

"Since 1990, the FAA recorded 198 airplane-and-turtle collisions, and exactly zero drone-and-airplane collisions."

http://www.popsci.com/airplanes-hit-more-turtles-than-drones

CAPTCHA: tyranny

It's turtles all the way down!

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ColdWetDog]

The FAA has previously stated that they will regulate anything between .5 and 55 kg as a 'hobbyist UAV'. Above 55 kg it's treated as a 'real' aircraft and gets an N number. UAVs get an "FA" number in the registry.* So little toy drones like a Hubsan X4 aren't being regulated but anything much over that, including the wildly popular DJI Phantom series, is being regulated.

And for all of you firmware freaks, DJI has already implemented no fly zones where the craft will not start it's motors if it detects it's within those boundaries. Of course, you just have to shut off GPS mode and it has no clue as to where it is and you can continue your attempts at world domination by dispensing 250 grams of C4 or whatever .....

* Except UAVs with a 333 exemption for commercial use which get an N number after a pilot's license, three hundred pages of forms and a six month wait.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[crunchygranola]

Indeed. *Cough* *cough*.. langley... *cough* *cough*.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ColdWetDog]

If there is a jumbo jet in my backyard, then they (and I) have more problems than a $40 drone.

Honey, it followed me home. Honest. Can we keep it?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mark-t]

Your liberty doesn't extend to flying quadrocopters wherever the fuck you feel like it.

How about simply on one's own fucking property?

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ColdWetDog]

He might, the masses of Germany decided that they 'needed' to get out of the onerous restrictions placed on them by the Entente states after WWI. Couple a recession / depression, a burgeoning populace, limited natural resources, a couple of vulnerable populations and a crazy smart demagogue then you have a tyranny.

Hitler wasn't the first. Won't be the last.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ColdWetDog]

Idiot. It's absence of tigers. How many tigers did we have before the drones?

Are you willing to risk it?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[tibit]

What's so special about DC? Say I was in a park in Greenbelt, why couldn't I fly my super-dangerous 2oz drone there? The ruling is nonsensical. Really.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[tibit]

Really? A 2oz drone that can stay aloft for maybe 3 minutes, and simply drops down to the ground if it's past about 300ft of LOS range from the operator? Nah, you're just making shit up to justify a yet another stupid law.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mark-t]

Please enlighten me as to exactly what hazard to air navigation flying above one's own property at a height of less than 300 feet causes (the maximum range for bluetooth), exactly? Bearing in mind of course that the absolute *MINIMUM* safe altitude for an aircraft that is not either on final approach or in the process of taking off is well over twice that height. I can understand a potential hazard within perhaps as much as a few hundred yards of the airport, but outside of that? Really?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[tibit]

You're completely out of touch with reality. 99% of sales is drones that weigh a couple of ounces, and have similar payload capacity. If you've got $500+ to toss on a big drone, you can get custom controllers, put custom firmware on them, and pretty much do anything you want anyway. You haven't paid for any payload *yet*. Personally, if I wanted to launch a malicious payload on a target a dozen miles away, I'd use a guided mortar shell, not a drone.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mark-t]

I'd suggest 300 feet as a maximum altitude, personally.... still *FAR* below the minimum safe flying altitude for any aircraft that is not just taking off or on final approach, and perhaps I cite this range specifically because it is also the maximum range of Bluetooth, a widely utilized wireless communication system across relatively short distances. Imposing the 300 foot maximum would not require an altimeter to be installed, and the altitude ceiling would instead be imposed by layer 1 constraints on communication with the device, rather than artificially imposed limits that require sensory devices to be installed and a mechanism that reliable responds to them.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[tibit]

If jumbo jets can be taken out of the sky by 2oz drones (that's 99.9% of sold drones!), then we have waaaay bigger problems, dude.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[andydread]

North Korea = Authoritarian paradise.
Somalia = Libertarian paradise.

While I agree that this law is moronic and brought to you by the bed wetters of America the fact still remains, a land of little to no government will look like Somalia or Afghanistan.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[russotto]

Most model aircraft don't use bluetooth, they use either FM 72Mhz (for the very old school people) or some sort of spread spectrum 2.4Ghz. Range is up to three miles. There are also very long range UHF systems available, though I think technically you need a ham license to operate them. (35 multiple choice questions, need 26 to pass... it's dead easy if you actually want to do it. But no one checks anyway)

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Obfuscant]

Birds are not a microscopic minority, though, and civil aviation has managed to live with bird strikes for decades.

I keep seeing this nonsense and I just can't let it keep going on. Birds are living things that, for political and scientific reasons, we cannot simply eliminate as a way of reducing the risk they cause to aviation. We have to live with them because we've decided that they have a right to live. We do take steps to limit the problem when we can.

Drones, OTOH, are not living things, and they do not have a right to live. We can easily ban them from airspace where they pose a threat to other aircraft.

The fact that one threat to something exists and cannot be eliminated does not mean we must put up with all threats, especially ones that can be eliminated. Trying to argue that since birds are a threat we cannot do anything to limit any other kind of threat is just stupid. There are all kinds of hazards in daily life that we cannot prevent, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to mitigate all of them that we can.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Obfuscant]

You don't know any cops do you? They won't do anything that interferes with their on duty naps and donut eating.

You don't know any cops, do you? I live in a city that has a lot of ex-pat cops from southern California cities, and when anything interesting happens they ALL manage to "go 12-2" (on scene) so they can play. It's boring in a small city, compared to big city copping.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ChrisMaple]

When someone can hit a golf ball from a tee in Reston, Virginia, and land it on the White House lawn 12 miles away, the law will change.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

My point was not made, then.

The point is that birds are not going away and they dwarf the threat to aircraft posed by drones. If you have a whole system in place which can accommodate birds, that same system can handle drones. Drones as a threat to aviation only exists in the imagination, or in a tiny number on a risk assessment spreadsheet.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Jane Q. Public]

Um... probably not.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mark-t]

Most model aircraft don't use bluetooth

True... but many more do. Of course, bluetooth-based "drones" have never posed any of the problems for anyone that these regulations are being created because of. Excluding so-called "drones" with such a limited range that for most practical purposes would amount to line of sight operation anyways would still achieve the same ends without creating criminals out of innocent people that are not hurting or posing any threat to anyone or anything that laws are created to protect.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[spire3661]

All i read in this 'we can control man, so we will! If we could control the birds we would do that too! CONTROL!!!!!!11 BLLEERRRGGGHHHH'

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[spire3661]

You realize you can build these things in a garage from off the shelf parts that cannot be regulated this way, right? DO you understand the word Liberty at all?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

If I wanted to "wake up" and use a drone in a violent way, no FAA restriction would stop me. This has been true for at least 20 years with fixed wing and helicopter hobby aircraft. That we have such a long streak without incident either tells me that the risk is very low, or that the limitations of a model aircraft make such attacks pointless.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Mal-2]

The point is that birds are not going away and they dwarf the threat to aircraft posed by drones. If you have a whole system in place which can accommodate birds, that same system can handle drones. Drones as a threat to aviation only exists in the imagination, or in a tiny number on a risk assessment spreadsheet.

We cannot (as yet) teach birds to target aircraft, thus it is unlikely to get multiple bird strikes in a short span of time. It does happen though, and the result is planes landing in the Hudson river. Despite their smaller numbers, drones can be directed to target aircraft. The absolute numbers don't matter.

I'm not saying this ban is justified, merely saying that the almost-not-a-problem of bird strikes does not automatically imply that drones are likewise almost-not-a-problem.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

I am not opposed to government. I actually support a government that has a singular purpose, to protect the liberties of those that cannot protect themselves. This doesn't mean a "nanny state", but rather a government that serves to protect its citizens from tyrants, large and small. There are VERY few crimes that fall into this category.

I'm very much idealist in this regard. The purpose of the government, is the secure the blessings of liberty. Those blessings are being eroded in the name of safety and security all the time, by people who aren't really concerned about either, but rather using those concerns to control the masses.

Think of it this way, the citizens in general, are they afraid of their government or not? Personally, I do not trust the government a single bit. I don't trust those that have eroded liberties for everyone but themselves. I point to the current classic case, Hillary Clinton, who while trying to hide her public service email from everyone, including the public trust (government) is at the same time, wanting to back door Security on everyone's email (encryption) so the government can snoop. The government should not need to trust its citizens, but the citizens should be able to trust the government. Currently we are 100% backwards. And it is all done in the name of security and safety.

Or, take this example from the TSA, who won't let more than 5oz of liquids on a plane. Mind you, they wantonly toss those same "dangerous" larger capacity liquid containers into the same trash, right next to the high density choke point for travelers in airports. Further, the 5oz limit doesn't actually stop the dangerous combination chemical reactions, in a well coordinated terrorist plot. The only conclusion I have is that appearances are more important than reality.

And besides that, between 9-11 hijackings that will never happen again, and Paris Nightclub style attacks, it is much easier to go to high density population zones to mass kill people. Reality is not perception, and perception is not reality. Planes will still explode, rarely, on occasion (Egypt), and terrorists win with every tyrannical move to protect the people.

True liberty depends on eternal vigilance, and too many people want to abdicate their responsibilities as citizens and have someone in the government do their job for them. And I personally consider people like that a threat, more so than all the Jihadis in the world, because they seem so innocent as they give away their liberties.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[spire3661]

They ALREADY ask for your papers. We have long since passed "Papieren, BITTE!". The big news this week is that some State government's IDs are not valid for the TSA for flying (and Amtrak too i assume). We are at the point where not only do you need papers, but specifically approved papers as mandated not by your state, but by the federal government.

"State to state, no papers" my ass. I too would have liked to have seen Montana.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

"Feel the Bern"

DRINK!

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[spire3661]

" Tyranny by choice is not tyranny."

You are being obtuse here. Part of the reason we dont have direct democracy is that the public is DUMB. We are a Constitutional Republic for a reason. Part of that reason is to keep the Tyranny of the Masses, AKA Democracy, in check by not allowing them the power to arbitrarily change the rules.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[ganjadude]

lisa id like to purchase your rock

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

Problem is, I am an adult and don't need your nanny state to protect me from your phantom boogiemen. Strawman attack aside.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[dywolf]

Nanny state!
DRINK!

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[dywolf]

Whoa whoa whoa! you trying to give me alcohol poisoning?

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Obfuscant]

My point was not made, then.

That's right. You didn't make your point.

The point is that birds are not going away and they dwarf the threat to aircraft posed by drones.

That "point" is meaningless. You do not stop trying to mitigate other hazards to safety just because you cannot eliminate one of the hazards. That's just stupid. This continued harping on how birds are a danger to aircraft is a red herring.

The locks on my doors won't stop a determined burglar, so I might as well not lock them. That's what your argument boils down to. Can't stop all dangers so don't bother dealing with any.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[kwbauer]

Let me guess... It means that as long as I do exactly what the government tells me to do, they will let me do exactly what they tell me to do?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[andydread]

While I agree with the majority of your post I would note that it's not just Hillary Clinton calling for back doors. All the republican candidates are too with one notable exception. Rand Paul.

As far as the TSA thing goes. It's important to note that in America, optics matters more than reality. We are a society of drama and optics. You can generally thank the for-profit news media for that where their concern is about ratings not reality. So when something happens and you see the CNN and Fox news talking heads and pundits calling for the government to do more to protect us from "The Muslims", the government reacts because optics matters not reality.

I distinctly remember when there was a big broohaha over the orphans coming over the southern border and pundits and opposition party officials were calling for the President to visit the border and claiming the President doesn't care because he didn't visit the border as if him visiting the border during that time was going to make a shred of difference. However people didn't care about the reality of the situation they cared about the optics of the President visiting the border and that was it.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[JimSadler]

This over restrictive law is serious bullshit. We might want to get to the point at which more people use drones than use commercial aircraft, and therefore, vote to shut down commercial aviation. I am aware that there are sensitives sites in the DC area but drone laws are sort of like gun laws. A terrorist will not obey drone laws at all and that is surely what the government seeks to prevent with such a law.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[kwbauer]

Hey, you just parroted the "gun nut" line but applied it to RC aircraft. We've been asking this question for years: "Exactly how is a law that requires me to ask government permission via an FFL holder permission to give a birthday gift to my wife going to stop a drug dealer from buying a gun in a back alley?" Or this way: "Do you really think that drug dealers are going to walk down to the local FFL holder and ask for a background check before selling or giving a stolen gun to another drug dealer?"

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this even a real comment, or is it trolling?

There's a gigantic difference between beneficial, equal access government paid and regulated things (education, roads, health and safety including regulations that actually protect us) and total bullshit like banning people from flying toy drones in their backyards, attempting to wedge backdoors into encryption implementations and pervasive illegal spying.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most of those are simple RC aircraft, not drones. Once they get out of the very short range (a few hundred feet at most) of their radio/IR controllers they basically go out of control and crash. Drones on the other hand have built in control software/hardware that allows them to function somewhat beyond the range or in interference. In either case most of the time they also have very limited flight times, I think some of the entry level DJI drones ($2k and higher) only can fly for 10 minutes or so.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[myowntrueself]

You know what I find amusing? For a country that enjoys a lot of freedom, American citizens complain a lot of about tyranny and oppression, as if they've lived through it.

They might not have a lot of tyranny but they don't have much freedom either, its mostly illusory. The USA (and Canada too) are so bogged down with federal laws, state laws, county laws, bylaws, regulations etc etc that theres little you can do that you can guarantee isn't illegal.

Take Toronto for example, that large city in one of the most freedom loving countries in the world, Canada. The taxis were recently protesting because, so far as they can tell, Uber is illegal in Toronto and the cops and city aren't doing squat about it. The police and the city however say they can't enforce the law BECAUSE ITS TOO COMPLICATED. Now thats a shit-hole to be in; laws so complex even the law enforcers can't enforce them. Thats not freedom, dude.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[parkinglot777]

Is TFA a click bait? I DO NOT see any link or picture of an email in the TFA at all. It is all about "talking to drone hobbyist." Why do people get hive and talk bad about it when they have NOT even verify the source for the issue. I also do not see any announcement on FAA site -- https://www.faa.gov/news/press... -- about the banning drone in DC area. Strange...

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

Okay, since you like to "DRINK!"

Everytime Bernie says "1%" (or variation 10%)
Everytime Bernie says "Fair Share" (or variation)
Everytime Bernie says "Tax the rich" (or variation, tax loophole etc)

You should be drunk by the middle of the next "debate" (aka DNC love fest)

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

My inspected food is laced with E.Coli
My building is falling apart even after Architecture and reviews
My cars regularly fail spectacularly (see recalls)
And roads can be paved by Taxes on fuel (not siphoned off for progressive social programs).

Meanwhile natural foods and Non-GMOs need to be certified, but GMOs and foodlike products don't.
You can buy whole raw milk or various other things because they are "too dangerous".
In some places, it is illegal to grow your own food (and other "plants").

The fact that you're completely unable to make non-binary choices is your problem. All or nothing with you, and you think I am an idiot.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Cederic]

Probably counterproductive, though, as I'd start buying the cheapest crap models that could fly and getting them blown up just for the thrill

Sadly in this country it would be illegal for me to design and build a mini-SAM site that I could lend to you :(

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[currently_awake]

We now have the technology to make a cheap cruise missile. A drone with a hand grenade isn't going to harm the white house.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[currently_awake]

How do they weigh the drone? A dirigible the size of a car can easily have a weight less than 1/2 a pound.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Morgon]

Usually, yes, but they've told the AMA to 'temporarily suspend' operations. The AMA thinks it's going to come to an agreement with the FAA in mid-January.

http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[TapeCutter]

"Anarchy is mental masterbation for the middle classes." - Johnny Rotten.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[TapeCutter]

What's so special about DC?

Taxation without representation.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Pfhorrest]

Then any charges brought against anyone breaking the "law" should be summarily thrown out of court as soon as the the defendant's lawyer asks what... hell, I was about to end this sentence "what the charges are", but if you're not actually in violation of any law, how are you even being charged with anything? You can't be charged with violation of... nothing. There has to be a law to even press charges.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Pfhorrest]

This post of mine isn't a response to this post of yours directly, but a broader question at you more generally.

Throughout this thread I keep seeing you speak of "binary" and "non-binary" in a way that's not familiar to me and not immediately obvious from context.

Can you explain what you mean by those terms, in this context?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[TapeCutter]

A (toy) drone with a hand-grenade strapped to it isn't going anywhere. From a non-american POV, the fact that a suspected "bad guy" on a no-fly list can legally obtain an assault rifle and a truck load of ammo but can't legally fly a toy plane in a park, is fucking insane.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[whistlingtony]

"The real spoiled children are the ones crying for big government to protect them from scary imaginary boogiemen."

You mean conservatives afraid of terrorists? :D

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[greatpatton]

And you really think that people willfully targeting an aircraft with multiple drone are going to comply to the no-fly zone?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[TapeCutter]

The US has the highest prison population on the planet both in per capita and absolute numbers. But as you say, that is a direct result of the "tyranny of the mob" cheering anyone who utters the phrase "tough on crime".

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[TapeCutter]

Google "stanford prison experiment", human nature makes us all susceptible to what happened in Germany (and more recently Rwanda). You can't fight universal human nature but being aware you are vulnerable to it is better than blindly following your "instincts".

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[HornWumpus]

Is DC a hick town full of bored corrupt cops or a big city full of lazy corrupt cops?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[HornWumpus]

Every time he says one of those things you drink from your neighbors supply.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[HornWumpus]

No. Assault rifles are select fire.

You need an expensive (and invasive to get) license to go full 'rock and roll'.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Ol Olsoc]

So if I owned property within 30 miles, I can't fly my little RC plane or Quadcopter in my backyard?

Because....why? And how does doing that affect you or anyone else?

From TFA

You read th ecommenhts in here don't you? 99 percent of slash dotters shit their pants when the hear the word "drone" mentioned.

Translate that to the rest of the country, subtract say 20 percent for sanity, and you have 80 percent of people thinking that that little parrot drone is going to steal their security.

Becuz trsts^H^H^H^H^H^H sheer coawardly fear!

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Ol Olsoc]

because arrogant asshats like you are unwilling to accept responsibility for the hazard to air navigation that you created. We've already had incidents, though they've been deemed "birdstrikes". You're flying something that has shit for software and shitheads for operators, and actually are a very real hazard.

Do you shit your pants when you see a radio controlled airplane Coward? They are scary, so you better head back down to mommies basement - she'll keep you safe.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Bartles]

They aren't concerned about it hitting aircraft. They're concerned about several kilos of c4 hitting the white house, or presidential limousine. They literally have no defense against this. None.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

Since drones don't typically flock, an event like the 1995 incident is pretty unlikely.

I'm not arguing that all regulations for drones are stupid. Far from it - I'm just not terribly worried about some kid with a $40 supermarket drone that he's going to break after a couple of uses - let alone that he'll manage to get into a flight path. The crappy remote won't let it fly that far anyway. The more expensive drones have more capability to get to altitude, but then so did more expensive model airplanes - and I don't think there is a single instance of a collision, let alone fatality, between a manned aircraft and a remote control aircraft.

There have been half a dozen fatalities on the ground, though - so perhaps efforts would be better spent making them safer to people on the ground?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[nytes]

This post of mine isn't a response to this post of yours directly, but a broader question at you more generally.

Throughout this thread I keep seeing you speak of "binary" and "non-binary" in a way that's not familiar to me and not immediately obvious from context.

Can you explain what you mean by those terms, in this context?

I believe the GP is accusing the AC of arguing with a false dichotomy, or "false binary", when the actual choice has a range of options. e.g. "We can either ban drones, or we can have everybody flying them into jet engines all over the country."

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

There you go, demonstrating that binary thinking that they mentioned. You don't actually know any Libertarians, do you?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

I don't really count myself as anti-gun, so the criticism doesn't really sting.

But I do think the similarities are quite limited. Guns have two demonstrable purposes: killing and sport. Drones - at least in the context we are discussing them - have only the sport aspect. You can theorize ways to use a drone to kill, but until we have tens of thousands of drone deaths (or even just "tens"), I'll take a pass on the direct analogy.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

No, I'm saying there is no significant danger. No low hanging fruit to even pick. Drones have killed zero people in the air. Zero. Model aircraft as a whole have killed perhaps half a dozen on the ground over the last 20 years. I'd argue that's not worth going after either, but at least there is something to argue about. All I'm asking is for a cost-benefit analysis that counts drone death equally to, say, high school football deaths (11 this year). What is happening right now is unfounded CYA rulemaking. Government regulations - even trivial ones about toys - should have some basis in empirical data.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

Ah - just the UID I was looking for. This gonna effect you? If so, sorry. In all fairness, I've been warning the RC aircraft folks that this was coming for, well, years now. Literally, years - I've even offered possible solutions.

They said, "You can't stop me!"
I said, "That's not what regulations do, they establish punishments - often draconian, for violators."
They said, "They can't find me."
I said, "You need to get lucky *every* time and they need only be lucky once."
They stuck their fingers in their ears.

I said, "Hey, I'll give you free space and even get you guys a domain name and you can make a site, get sponsor buy-in, and have the vendors give out the URL and some safety instructions in all the packages - I'm sure they'll hop right on it AND sponsor you so that one or two of you might actually manage to make a career out of it."
They said, "TL;DR"

I said, "You should find that guy and punch them in the nuts."
They said, "And go to jail?"
I said, "Sure, if you want to keep your hobby alive and healthy, otherwise you're going to be stuck with draconian regulation."
They said, "There you go with that draconian regulation. You Libertarians are stupid!"

Ya know... I've wasted a lot of time typing out long posts. I've tried to explain it. I've made a good-faith effort to help AND I'm not even a fan of the hobby. I just hate to see people getting screwed over by other people's actions - I know what it's like to have a hobby ruined by other people. (I'm very much a firearm and automobile aficionado.)

So, to you specifically - as I know you're into a variety of tech hobbies but unsure of this one, I do offer my sincere sorrow for this and your future losses. It's unfortunate that you'll be further restricted because of the idiots who have managed to turn an otherwise group of fine people into a group that's seen as a bunch of idiots and assholes. (I know some of these guys, they've been doing it since we were kids, they're neither of those.)

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

merely saying that the almost-not-a-problem of bird strikes does not automatically imply that drones are likewise almost-not-a-problem.

I was responding to a spat between ACs that went something like:
AC #1: We've been flying model aircraft decades and have not had a problem.
AC #2: But drones have only gotten popular recently, exponentially increasing the numbers of aircraft.
Me: Birds dwarf the number of drones and have not been a big problem.

My point was to support AC #1. Despite decades of model aircraft flying around, there have been no fatalities in manned aircraft. Zero. Bird strikes occasionally kill, but unlike birds drones do not flock, so they are not likely to cause the same sorts of fatalities as Canada geese have. The popular drones weigh almost nothing - you might as well worry about a flock of starlings. Sucking even a single drone through your jet engine is an impossibly low probability event - two is not going to happen in our lifetimes unless it is deliberate.

If things are deliberate, then a no-fly zone is pointless - it's already illegal to try to bring down an airplane.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

I would send you money to buy more. You don't even need to make it a charity, I don't need to write it off in taxes. For those familiar with my posting history, they know how I feel...

That would be AWESOME!

I might even splurge, once a month or so, and buy you one of those big ones like the giant RedBull thing. We're gonna cover it with tannerite and probably get you a few that run on alcohol or JP5/JP6. We're gonna do this DAILY, at least once a day, even if we can only afford to do it with some smaller ones a few days a week. Maybe if you do it often enough, they'll let me come push the button and shoot it down!

It should be noted that they don't let the average Marine play with things like that, and for good reason. I've never, ever, fired anything even close to that and to do so would mean that I'd be able to die slightly happier than I already would be. I have fired a belt fed grenade launcher which is also awesome but not as awesome as I'm imagining a missile. Hell, I'll settle just to see it in person.

Yes, yes I am a five year old in spirit and maturity. NYE is gonna be awesome. Hmm... Someone should bring a drone.

Anyone from Florida?
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

No, a goose cannot go through an engine without damaging it. And they flock, so two engines becoming damaged is rare, but does happen.

No drone has ever been sucked into a jet engine, and if it did happen the event would not be fatal because the other engine would still work.

A bullet would not hurt a person if it were traveling at typical baton speeds, and a baton can kill people at velocities far lower than bullets.

I'm not advocating that people be allowed to fly drones near airports, or even that they be allowed to fly over 400ft. Nor should they be allowed to deliver goods to inmates at prisons. I can understand the need for military secrecy, and by extension protecting the Commander-in-Chief. But as big as Obama and Bush's ears are, a 30 mile exclusion zone seems overkill. The entire DC area is not a sensitive locale. This is over-reach.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

Well, unless I'm misreading what you wrote, the whole peaceably assemble thing is already kind of in that thing we call the First Amendment. My memory is failing as I age but I think it goes like this:

... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

It might be peacefully? I'm too lazy to look. So, yeah, if you're assembled and not behaving peacefully then that right doesn't actually exist. If you're assembling for the purpose of not being peaceful then that right definitely doesn't exist.

Of course, they might be redefining 'peaceful' and that may be what you're getting at. I kind of hope that's what you're getting at because, no, you don't have the right to riot. I'm pretty sure that I'm quoting it close to verbatim, I'm sure someone can check, but I'm pretty sure you can't just riot and claim you have a Constitutional right to do so.

I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. This is not an attorney/client relationship. If you plan on rioting then, by all means, I encourage you to consult a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction. The good news is that, should you decide to riot without the financial ability to consult a lawyer then the State will provide one for you - the quality of said legal professional, and their dedication to your case, may not be quite as good as you are hoping.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

They have created the caricature that they think is Libertarianism and will not be swayed. The funny thing is, I've been a member of the party for a *very* long time. At one point in time, the Republicans were in power and we were portrayed, by the media, as the loony left. Now, we're the anarcho-capitalists on the right. Even though very few of us fit that description (and there are some) it's amusing to see the vast amounts of ignorance that is parroted by people who seem otherwise intelligent.

If you tell them a few things about your political ideology (and I have done this, many times, on this very site) and then let them opine - then tell them that you're a Libertarian then they're often quite astonished. Some simply refuse to believe it - no matter how many links you provide and what you give for proof, and they'll repeat the same stupid things a few days later - probably hoping you don't notice. Others get it and I've noticed that I've actually managed to show a few people that they are mistaken and they've made the effort to learn.

I hate to cite it but, well, the first five or so paragraphs on Wikipedia are actually pretty good. The whole article is pretty good but they really only need to read the first few paragraphs - just the opening four or five (I forget how many). Getting them to read it (I've had people tell me that they won't read it and they "know" what a Libertarian is) can be tough but, once you get that far, they might realize that they've been subjected to some biased media and some heavy propaganda.

Don't get me wrong, we've got some straight up fucking lunatics in the party - people that shouldn't be allowed to be in control of a household budget, never mind another human being. They don't represent the majority. They seem to think we're all Randians, extremists, anarchists, etc... They seem to all think we believe in some free market voodoo when, really, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model.

It's unfortunate to see otherwise smart people being so vulnerable to propaganda when the information is right there and takes maybe 90 seconds to read and 30 seconds to digest well enough to actually understand. It's not even complicated. It is, however, rather encompassing so we do end up with a whole bunch of lunatics and kicking them out of the party or taking away their voice would be a bit antithetical.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

I'll thread this hear so that both of you might see it. You may have standing as you've lost reasonable use of a purchased product without redress. This means not having to get into trouble and face stiff penalties. You'll need to have owned the property before this ban goes into place. You'll likely have to show that the need to relocate to use the property is unreasonable.

If anyone is interested in this then I may, or may not, be able to find someone who will give legal assistance. I may, or may not, be willing to help pay for this legal assistance but, I gotta admit, I'm kind of tired of offering to help these drone folks only to have 'em respond in the way that they do. *sighs* See comment up-thread (also threaded under you) for more information on that whole thing. I dunno, I'm kind of tired of it and reading this thread hasn't improved my mood any. ;-)

It has to suck for you guys. It's not quite a travesty but it's friggen unnecessary and stupid as shit for them to enact regulations like this. The word "unfortunate" springs to mind, over and over again, at this juncture.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[russotto]

The AMA is either credulous idiots or they're deliberately sacrificing the DC fields in hopes for later concessions. Which, come to think it, also makes them credulous idiots. The FAA isn't going to come to an agreement in mid-January. They're going to delay, say until March or May. Then when that deadline rolls around, they'll delay until November or something. Once they've strung it out long enough that everyone's resigned to the situation they'll tell the AMA "Sorry, but we really can't allow model aircraft in the SFRA ever". This is more or less standard operating procedure.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[skywire]

Somehow your fingers managed to slip and type "good" when you surely intended to type "no". Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, you know.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[mysidia]

No. Assault rifles are select fire.

They are originally from the manufacturer, but there are people who know how to modify them to clear the restrictions, and my understanding is, the criminals, particularly the bad ones, potentially have the capability to do this type of thing, and the "Expensive and invasive license" is only a hinderance to law-abiding citizens.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[delt0r]

I had a RC plane 25 years ago and had a radio range of about 2 miles, some of the guys in our club even cobbled a tv camera onto one of em. We have had the technology a long long time. This isn't new just because you are now aware of it. It wasn't a threat back then and it isn't now. Stop being chicken shit and jumping at every shadow. Time to grow up and stop being scared of the dark.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[JazzLad]

Federal rules prohibit any aircraft from operating in the Flight Restricted Zone around our nation's capital without specific approval, which includes all unmanned aircraft.

So, what's the big deal? Surely LEO will be given approval and businesses can purchase approval as needed to invade privacy, why do you hate America?

(Yes, I know, "why do you hate America?" - drink!)

Oh, and please assume sarcasm before modding/replying ...

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Coren22]

The concern in this case isn't about aircraft at all. there are three airports in this 30 mile radius circle, which all have their own exclusion zones, this zone is some overreaction, likely to the drones flying onto White House property.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[rpstrong]

Sounds like you're a potential Gnat customer.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[david_thornley]

I read the platform of the local Libertarian party once. There is no frippin' way those ideas would work in real life. That's part of where I get my idea of Libertarianism from.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[david_thornley]

Inspected food tends to be safe. There are exceptions, but you're a lot better off with the inspections. You don't describe your building problems in a way that's linked to any government action. Cars can fail. Recalls are primarily government actions. If your car has a safety problem, would you prefer to have a way to get it fixed at no cost to you, or just not be told about it. (Also, if your cars regularly fail spectacularly, you're buying the wrong cars, guy.)

In other words, you're using binary thinking. Implying that inspections are worthless because they don't catch all food contamination is as binary as it comes.

GMOs are not dangerous just because they're GMOs. Those things are tested. There's no reason to label them.

On the other hand, if someone wants to sell food as organic and/or not GMO, they're making that claim to induce people to buy their product, so that claim needs to be verified to mean anything at all.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

Oh, we do have our share of nutcases - even more than our share. Point being, it's a very broad term and encompasses many, many subtle (and not so subtle) differences. I, for instance, am a Classic Libertarian (my preferred term) but you'd find more information about my beliefs by searching for "Socialist Libertarian."

If you get a few minutes, read the first part of this page (or all of it, if you want):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'll be the first to admit that we've got some straight up idiots, assholes, and lunatics in our party but I'd also add that it'd be rather antithetical of us to attempt to silence them. Unfortunately, they're a rather noisy lot.

That should give you a good indication - more details given if requested. For example, I think social safety nets, health care, and taxes are a brilliant thing and don't mind paying them. My tax rates are lower than they could be. I make up for it by donating to worthy causes. I don't mind my taxes. I mind them being used to prop up a military industrial complex, allow corporations to pay less, and bomb little brown people. I'm quite happy to pay and have even elected to donate to NASA in the past.

As for NASA... You can donate but you can't earmark the donation - it has to go into the general fund. At least that's how they replied to my email. This was way back when I'd sold so around 2008. I'm guessing the regulations are the same.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Archangel Michael]

"Inspected food tends to be safe" - Tell that to Chipotle.

"You don't describe your building problems in a way that's linked to any government action." - Cracks due to poor designs inspected and passed by building inspectors is a "government action".

"Cars can fail" - Cars can fail. Tata makes crappy airbags that passed government inspections.

"Recalls are primarily government actions" - Assumption that no such service would exist without government intervention. A hefty lawsuit against bad product design has the same exact effect.

"If your car has a safety problem, would you prefer to have a way to get it fixed at no cost to you, or just not be told about it." - I would prefer the market decide how do deal with bad manufacturers. We have courts to cover faulty - dangerous designs.

"In other words, you're using binary thinking." - My thinking isn't limited to "Government or Somalia" logic, as is yours. There are PLENTY of alternatives to government intervention into all aspects of our lives. I prefer the creativeness of the marketplace to the lame binary choices of "Government or nothing" approach.

GMOs are not dangerous just because they're GMOs. Those things are tested.

- I rest my case. You have no idea how many products where tested and deemed "safe" that actually weren't. FDA is filled with drugs that were once "safe" that were proven otherwise with better techniques. Sorry, I don't trust neonicotinoids and "Roundup Ready" food type products. You can, if you want.

"On the other hand, if someone wants to sell food as organic and/or not GMO, they're making that claim to induce people to buy their product, so that claim needs to be verified to mean anything at all." - Backwards. Natural foods have a history (million years) where GMOs have almost none. Or, as I like to say, "You can eat anything you want, but not everything you eat is food"

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[Obfuscant]

No, I'm saying there is no significant danger.

And you are wrong. But you keep yapping about birds, so you're not just saying there's no significant danger, you're saying that we already have a danger from birds so we don't need to worry about a danger from something else.

Model aircraft as a whole have killed perhaps half a dozen on the ground over the last 20 years.

Please continue to live in ignorance of the sea change in both quantity of, and quality of piloting involved in, unmanned aerial systems.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[kwbauer]

Actually, guns have a single purpose: to expel a projectile in the direction the gun is pointed. Drones have a single purpose: to fly wherever they are directed to fly.

I just love the rationalization you are using. You seem to be perfectly willing to give up your rights as long as a certain number of other people have abused that right (used it for malicious purposes). How about we all give up the right to travel freely from state to state or town to town because a fairly large number of people have been known to engage in those very activities for the purpose of committing crimes?

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[david_thornley]

Inspected food is usually safe. Sometimes, things slip through. Chipotle does not make the majority of the country's food. If you're saying that government food inspection is useless because it isn't perfect, you're using straight binary thinking. If you're saying the private sector would do better, you're speculating against the evidence. If you think it might well be possible to come up with something better, you're being reasonable.

I realize you have your panties in a twist about GMOs, but that doesn't mean it should be labeled while sulfites don't have to be labeled. I have a friend who could easily wind up in the hospital from eating food with sulfites, and that's actual potential harm, not speculative potential harm.

You seem to misunderstand what I mean with organic/not GMO/no HGH labels. Those are used to sell food, because lots of people want to buy it. Most food is not grown according to "organic farming" standards. It doesn't matter how my ancestors were farming when they got ergot poisoning. If a label is used to attract sales, the consumer has an interest in knowing that it's accurate, so the government regulates it. If lots of people liked to buy GMO food, the government would have to enforce standards on such a label.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[david_thornley]

That's what makes it complicated. If someone has an opinion about libertarians that you think odd, there are probably some people calling themselves libertarians who hold something like those views seriously. As politics go, I can look at the Libertarian Party, but as you say that's not necessarily representative.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[KGIII]

Probably fairly accurate. I guess, what I find odd is that people continue to paint with a broad brush without actually taking the time to notice that there are some finer strokes to be made. To them, all Libertarians are Randian, anarcho-capitalistic, greedy, etc... There are a number of fine resources, for free, that explain that there are a whole host of variations.

By now, you're familiar with my posts and I with yours. I assume you are also aware that I'm willing to take criticism and hold my beliefs up to scrutiny. I say that in order to say this: I've put my beliefs up to scrutiny and have given an adequate defense. I'm comfortable with the logic and reasoning used to form these political beliefs. I've held them up to scrutiny *because* I wanted to ensure that these conclusions are logically sound.

So, yes... I expect people who opine to have taken the time to do a little bit of research. There are, by insinuation or overtly, a number of things applied to the pejorative use of the name and they aren't accurate. I don't see it as being much different than saying something akin to, "Jews are greedy."

Add to that my own biases, my expectations of people, and my frustrations and you get what you see here.

What's more frustrating is that my particular beliefs were actually held by the vast majority of folks in the party. Now? The party has been co-opted, usurped, and bastardized. At one point, we were the "loony left." Now, though I've not made any change, I'm the "greedy right" by association. I'd have much preferred the Randians to elect to use a different title. I'd much rather the ashamed Republicans form their own party instead of assuming this title without actually understanding the concept of liberty.

They are not so keen on liberty unless that liberty is for them and them alone. I am of the mind that the greatest liberty is one that is shared and a protected asset known as the commons. I think the more people have leisure and assets then the more they able to use their freedom to enjoy their liberties. Ah well...

Oh, for some clarification on the verbiage, I like to put it this way: I am free to kill you, I do not have the liberty to do so. I do not have the right to take the life of a fellow human being unless my freedom is in jeopardy. That is the context in which I use the words in this, and other, posts.

(Thank you again for making me think, clarify, and subject my beliefs to critical thinking.)

I'm loathe to do so but it may, finally, be time for me to change my self-identification. But, as someone who has been involved in the party for some 40 years or so, it's not easy to give that up. In our haste, we let anyone participate and speak for us. This was a mistake but it would be rather hypocritical of us to not allow it. We also should have spoken up against those who claimed to represent us. In our defense, we were probably high.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

You describe how guns work, but not their purpose. If there was a better way to kill, people would use that and guns would go the way of the sword. The purposes of guns, for the moment, are killing and sport.

You seem to be perfectly willing to give up your rights as long as a certain number of other people have abused that right (used it for malicious purposes).

I make a sharp distinction between natural rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and granted rights (Bill of Rights, etc.). So your statement is true for granted rights, but not for fundamental rights. I think we should constantly revisit laws and the basis of them, including laws which grant us rights. I would argue that the laws granting us freedom of movement are justified in a cost-benefit analysis. Laws (or lack of enforcement) permitting any hoodlum living in his mom's house to pick up a handgun for $100? Not so much.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

Congratulations.

Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

Please continue to live in ignorance of the sea change in both quantity of, and quality of piloting involved in, unmanned aerial systems.

There are so many that the airliners are just falling from the sky!

Look up in the sky at the time of your choosing - even in the city - and count the number of drones vs. the number of birds.

QED.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[kwbauer]

According to the men who were involved in the Revolutionary War and in writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. The Declaration of Independence enumerates the rights you listed: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 9th Amendment states "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Further the 10th Amendment reminds us that the Federal Government may take no power or restrict no right unless it is specifically and explicitly given that power in the Constitution or its amendments. That means that, even absent the 2nd Amendment, we would still have the fundamental right to own and bear arms.

The Founding Fathers wrote many times about the right to bear arms being a fundamental right as it is the best way to protect life and liberty. The Founding Fathers were also well aware of the fact that some in society would misuse their rights to the detriment of the rights of others. It is highly unlikely that they intended the misuse of a right by a very small minority to be a reason to limit the rights of the majority.

Your claiming that the potential for misuse of firearms to be the reason we must restrict their ownership, is actually the very reason why the right of such ownership must not be restricted. The very fact that firearms are the best weapon we have to defend ourselves makes them the most important weapon we have to protect our Lives and ensure our Liberty.

I have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence a few times and parts of the Federalist Papers as well as other writings of our Founding Fathers and not once have I read anywhere that they thought our enjoyment of our rights was subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Some of them did, however, share the contrary opinion: that sometimes we must suffer a bit because of someone else misusing their rights. Even those on the left who seem overwhelmingly agreeable to a forfeiture of what we colloquially refer to as "2nd Amendment Rights" agree that "it is better for a few guilty to go free rather than give up our rights." They are generally referring to 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. However, when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights, the saying gets perverted to "it is better for all of us to lose our rights because one or two might misuse them." Notice the cognitive dissonance going on in there.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[MightyYar]

I don't disagree with your analysis, but you are leaving out the huge elephant in the room: that the reason the founders reasoned we needed a right to bear arms is that they distrusted a standing army and felt that the defense of the nation should therefore be carried out by armed citizen-soldiers in the form of a militia.

This proved unworkable within a decade, when they struggled to even put down a yokel farm rebellion. The militia was shown to be ineffective several more times, and so by 30 or 40 years out the entire spirit of the 2nd amendment was gutted and we were left with a standing army. That standing army, now well into 2nd century, has not yet overthrown the Republic.

Now, I would much prefer that that we the people had chosen to properly amend the constitution to reflect the actual behavior of the country, I also recognize that the 2nd Amendment has been half-ignored for 200 years or so without ill effect. That, alarmingly to some people, shows that the founding fathers are rather fallible human beings after all. The idea that a handgun is a natural right is not one that I'm willing to accept.

Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law

[HornWumpus]

It's 10 years federal just for possessing an unlicensed machine gun. Criminals, as a rule, know better.

It is not easy to modify a semi into a select fire full. What is easy is to break it so it slam fires (empties the clip when you close the bolt. Shut the fuck up...I own a M1, so clip is correct).

Old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this just the Permanent Temporary flight restrictions for Special Security Reasons that went into effect in 2010?
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_8326.html

Also, it's 30 nautical miles, so more like 35 miles.

Gotta love our overweening government!

[Anonymous Coward]

FAA Drone Rules May Already Be Outlawed By Congress

Geez.

The money quote from TFA (original):

A few years ago, Congress passed the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, an immense 300-page tome that set directives to the FAA including how airports should be improved, what medical certificates apply to what type of pilot, and special rules for model aircraft.

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft

In the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, ‘model aircraft’ are defined as, ‘an unmanned aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes.’ If these qualifications are met, the FAA may not make a rule regarding these aircraft, so long as they are not flown within 5 miles of an airport.

Imagine Teh evul BOOOOSH!!!! administration doing this.

But no, Obama gets a pass. Because of the "D" he puts after his name.

Re: Gotta love our overweening government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the ACA that the Republicans shoved down our throats.

Re:Gotta love our overweening government!

[queazocotal]

'To suit the whims of politicians, with no oversight or process'. FTFY

Re:Gotta love our overweening government!

[Zak3056]

I realize I lose the argument by starting it this way, but the above is just so clueless, that I feel I have no choice: "You're a fucking idiot."

Congress makes laws. The executive branch makes rules. The executive branch cannot make rules unless they have the delegated power to do so. Congress passed a LAW that said, in essence, that "the FAA's delegated power to make rules does not extend to model aircraft." The FAA made a rule that extended to model aircraft, which it specifically DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO.

This has nothing to do with "laws being revised to account for future development." It is a department of the government (unelected bureaucrats, no less) ignoring its enabling legislation. This is actually rule by fiat, i.e. dictatorship, and not the democratic process.

Go back to fucking civics class.

Re: Gotta love our overweening government!

[Viewsonic]

LOL if you believe this.

OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[careysb]

We need something as simple a Google Maps where we can zoom in to determine where the no-fly zones are. If you don't make it simple it ain't gonna happen.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[CaptainDork]

No. People don't need fucking toy airplanes.

For the few who insist on getting one, they need to pony up and get one that carries a database of no-fly, downloaded from the Internet and described in terms a simple GPS can understand.

Scenario:

A wildfire breaks out. FAA temporarily invokes no-fly for drones in a particular area. My drone won't cross the perimeter and returns an error that translates into: "Sorry, but I'm not allowed to go there."

The no-fly applies to permanent areas, as well.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[Threni]

I think they'll be in enforced. If you're not sure, fly one and see if your door gets kicked in and you get a gun shoved in your face. If so, then you're in the zone.

It's sort of ironic that Obama doesn't want drones near him; then again, he knows the risks so perhaps it makes sense. Expect more no-fly zones to follow. You'll probably end up with very few areas where they're allowed in a couple of years, and expect laws preventing them from flying more than a few feet away from the controller, and which mandatory online "i'm flying here" messages being sent out on the net, and local police checking that these are being sent correctly if they see you using a drone. This sort of stuff is trivial to police.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[Martin Blank]

SkyVector can help you there, though it's not authoritative.

TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction areas, though some aren't all that temporary--Disneyland has had one since the 1990s) and SFRs (Special Flight Rules areas) are outlined in red, and while they don't always get sporting events, TFRs due to fires usually do go up.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[drinkypoo]

Thanks for that link, it rams home what I thought, I have to go way north almost out of the county before I can fly anything. Luckily, that's pretty much where I was going to go anyway. I live within the SFR for Lampson Field...

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[MightyYar]

Great, then just program all of those dangerous birds flying around to obey the same zone.

This whole fucking discussion is predicated on the "fact" that these drones pose a danger. Yet, while we have drones enjoying unprecedented popularity, we do not have any incidences of an aircraft being in any real danger. Even if we did, how many more bird strikes are there each year?

This is yet another example of failure to do a cost-benefit analysis and simply accepting the government's default position of safety over freedom on something. Let's not allow the crippling CYA culture that dominates the public sector to invade our lives. Please?

Re: OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[nehumanuscrede]

Because sending a SWAT team is an appropriate response for flying a model aircraft. . . . :|

This country is a lost cause.

Re: OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[Threni]

I'm simply suggesting that there's a reason most countries have an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" attitude, otherwise everyone would pick and choose. Drones are going to be used almost exclusively for crime; moving drugs around, shining lasers at planes remotely, spying on people who are in their own property etc, firing projectiles at people, dispersing poisons. Fine, you might think these things are all ok, or that they're reasonable risks compared with the fun of ..uh.. flying drones around pointlessly, but I don't. Rich kids'll soon find another toy to play with.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[HornWumpus]

Yes the nation needs toy airplanes if we want another generation of pilots and aerospace engineers.

Ask any military pilot where/when he got 'the flying bug'?

Re: OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[HornWumpus]

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' is balanced by 'no cop, no law'.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[dywolf]

we cant control birds because they are wild, so lets not control drones either, even though we can totally control them.
makes perfect sense.

oh and hey, guess what birds naturally, instinctively, do when a wildfire breaks out?
they stay the F away

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[ChrisMaple]

I know it's popular not to read the article, and many don't even read the summary. Can't you even read the title?. This is a ban for the D.C. area, so the concern is obviously an attack on the center of national government, not bird-strike-equivalents.

Where is the cop on the beat going to draw the line between a large hobbyist drone and an RPG or a small cruise missile? How is he going to detect a .22 calibre pistol mounted to a medium sized drone, headed for the White House?

If some major government official were assassinated by a drone-pistol, Slashdot clowns would be the first to scream "It was obvious this was going to happen! Why didn't anybody do anything?! Can't anybody in government see the implications of technology?!"

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[ColdWetDog]

Been there, done that. The Phantom series has 'Geofencing' - if the GPS thinks you're in a no fly zone (updated through the controller which is hooked to a smart phone / tablet which is hooked to the Internet) it won't start the motors. If you are in a restricted area it will throw up a warning and have the crafts lights blink red (whoo hoo).

You can bypass it by turning off GPS functionality which does limit the drone significantly, but it will fly. DJI (the manufacturer of the Phantom series) has promised an opt out for this system but we've not seen it.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[MightyYar]

A drone pistol? Seriously?

Anyway, I'm going to come back and accuse you of not reading since you did me the favor. Look at the comment I was responding to, suggesting that drones have a government-controlled chip in them to enforce no-fly zones. But take your "drone pistol" and throw it in there along with bird strikes as the kind of CYA thinking that is infecting us.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[MightyYar]

It does make sense, since the same kind of precautions you have to take for birds also will avoid drone damage. And a wildfire is a bit contrived, since not too many drones are flying in the wilderness to begin with - especially where it isn't safe to be a bird, let alone a human drone operator. This is a solution with no evidence of a problem.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[tibit]

I don't know what you're droning about, but what people normally buy is not planes, but toy drones, that weigh 2oz, have a ~100m control range, and 3 minutes flight time. That's 99.9% of the drones out there. It doesn't matter where you fly them, the most damage they'll do is to cut up someone's eye if you fly one into someone's face. My biggest worry was about what happens if one gets sucked into the turbine of a small helicopter. A friend who was doing some FOD ingestion testing on these small turbines tells me that there might be some damage in the rarest of circumstances, but nothing that makes it immediately non-flyable/fall out of the sky. He then told me "oh, BTW, the choppers have big fucking screens on the intakes - I told you what would happen if you'd toss one straight into the turbine inlet. If you got it to hit the screen first, it'd fragment enough that it'd most likely not register anywhere until the turbine overhaul."

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[tibit]

Dude, the drones the uninformed fly have a 300ft range and 3 minute flight time. You're more than welcome to try and fly one into a wildfire. It won't cause anyone any harm. Get real.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[ChrisMaple]

What door is going to be kicked in if you're flying the drone outdoors?

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[Obfuscant]

Dude, the drones the uninformed fly have a 300ft range and 3 minute flight time.

No, dude, the drones the uninformed fly around wildfires are much larger, have a much longer flight time, and go quite a bit further. Not all drones are the 2 oz pieces of crap you get from the Crackerback Jox.

You're more than welcome to try and fly one into a wildfire.

No, you are not. They put TFRs around wildfires for a reason.

It won't cause anyone any harm.

That's only because when they are detected, all aircraft operations cease. You're right, they won't hit any of the firefighting aircraft because the firefighting aircraft are grounded for safety. That also means the fire isn't being fought in the most efficient manner.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[ganjadude]

people dont need (insert anything material here) so might as well become a hermit in the mountains and live off the land.....

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[spire3661]

Fuck you. Thats the most eloquent response i can come up to this ridiculous appeal to authoritarianism.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[spire3661]

You cant control birds so instead you control man...... wise.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[argumentsockpuppet]

People don't need anything except to accomplish something else. Example: People don't need air unless they want to breathe. People don't need to breathe unless they want to live.

People need fucking toy airplanes exactly the same way you need a home or car or running water. All those things accomplish is giving a person some satisfaction in life. You can live without any of them.

Your "solution" is stupid for several basic reasons. 1) Maps managed in the fashion you describe would become stale too fast to accomplish the goal described by your scenario. 2) It's insane to expect a 30 yr old model airplane to stop being used or to get said imaginary software 3) It isn't done for things that have much higher risk, like cars, boats, guns and idiots.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[bhhenry]

We need something as simple a Google Maps where we can zoom in to determine where the no-fly zones are. If you don't make it simple it ain't gonna happen.

This is what I found: https://www.mapbox.com/drone/n... "This map represents areas where it is not recommended to fly drones due to regulations."

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[MightyYar]

The answer to government CYA culture invading our lives is more government.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[zippthorne]

The only people buzzing firefighting airplanes with drones are news organizations covering the fire and drone "epidemic." As evidence, I point to an article not long ago where the pilots of a firefighting aircraft complained about and described the path a fairly substantial-sized drone took in relation to their aircraft, which was accompanied by video footage of a firefighting aircraft taken from pretty much the same positions described in the article. Where did they get that footage?

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[nytes]

A drone pistol? Seriously?

Did you miss the video where some guy mounted a pistol with a remote actuator on the trigger on a drone and then demonstrated the drone hovering and firing at a target?

I think it was posted about 3-4 months ago.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[MightyYar]

As neat as that was, it was hardly a demonstration of how menacing a drone could be as a weapon. Even if you couldn't hear it coming, accuracy looks pretty shaky, pun intended.

Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify

[tibit]

Not all drones are the 2 oz pieces of crap

3-5 min flight time, on-board camera, ~300ft ceiling, gyro and drift stabilization... I don't know what you're going on about, this stuff was pretty much science fiction just 30 years ago, and even 20 years ago it was only affordable by the few and an active area of research. Pieces of crap, my ass.

That's only because when they are detected, all aircraft operations cease

I wonder what imaginary uebermensch fly around wildfires if they can still have enough attention to spot what looks like a rather small bird.

No, dude, the drones the uninformed fly around wildfires are much larger, have a much longer flight time, and go quite a bit further.

If you have $500+ to spend on a drone, you can afford to be informed :) That's not what sells by the thousands at Walmart, though.

FAA rules conflict with local laws

[careysb]

This has been a widely reported issue that the FAA rules override local laws. In the Boulder, CO area there is designated "open space". It would be a good place to fly because there is lots of space and few people. Boulder says drones are forbidden, FAA says it's ok. Who to believe.

Re:FAA rules conflict with local laws

[Zak3056]

It's more complicated than that. Your murder example doesn't fit here, because while there is no federal law against murder, there is also no federal law saying "states cannot make laws banning murder."

I agree with you that Boulder can ban the operation of drones from within their city limits--what they CANNOT do, is ban the flying of them over the city, because (and your opinion on whether or not this is constitutional may vary) the FAA has the exclusive power to regulate airspace.

Re:FAA rules conflict with local laws

[ChrisMaple]

It hasn't been all that long since the Supreme Court of the US ruled that Arizona couldn't have a law that agreed with federal immigration law.

Re:FAA rules conflict with local laws

[dywolf]

no, the ruling was that Arizona could not have its own immigration law, at all , because immigration, as a facet of US citizenship, is strictly within the purview of the federal government, and not the states.

there's a difference.

Re:FAA rules conflict with local laws

[drinkypoo]

This has been a widely reported issue that the FAA rules override local laws. In the Boulder, CO area there is designated "open space". It would be a good place to fly because there is lots of space and few people. Boulder says drones are forbidden, FAA says it's ok. Who to believe.

FAA does not grant you permission to operate your drone anywhere. They only deny it. If nobody denies you permission to operate your drone somewhere, then you can operate it there. If anyone denies you permission to operate your drone there, you can't. Property owner. City. State. FAA, assuming they have the authority or someone will behave as if they do on their behalf, meaning local law enforcement. Or, you know, just use it as an excuse.

Government bureaucrat sucking all the joy

[hey!]

... out of life. If you have to get up and drive 30 miles to fly your drone, why bother getting out of bed in the morning?

Solution? Itty bitty drones

[fustakrakich]

We just have to make them smaller and harder to see. We can also shape them differently so they don't look like drones. We can't just let the government do all the spying. We have to be able to spy on them too. A balance of power must be maintained.

Re:FED

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, the Constitution requires 51 senators for quorum, or else the vote is not valid. Three senators voting unanimously to pass a bill in an empty Congressional meeting wouldn't meet requirements any more than dressing up in full court regalia and decreeing new US laws from your toilet seat would.

Go Fly a Kite!

[bbsguru]

Yet a tethered craft is still legal.
You can still legally fly a kite (with pretty much any payload you like)
My 'tethered drone' remains legal for use in the National parks, as well. Since upgrading my kite to quad-engine status, it works well even with no wind...
As I was reminded by a federal judge, do not forget to hang on to your end of the string...

Re:Go Fly a Kite!

[DewDude]

Wait a second......the main reason I'd like to fly a small quad-copter...is for the EXACT reason of having a tether attached to it; that I fly up...over a tree....then back down to the ground where I disconnect the copter and tie a larger string on the fishing line. Pull that string over...repeat with a rope...and I can get my amateur radio antennas in even higher locations, more accurately, than I can the barbaric way of flinging it over using a sling-shot or air-cannon.

Seriously...if having a tether attached to the thing changes it's classification; this is the loop-hole I'm looking for!

Re:Go Fly a Kite!

[MightyYar]

Unless my info is out of date, tethered drones are classified as "moored balloons" at the moment. Slightly more restricted than kites. Key points:

• Stay under 150 ft, unless you notify air traffic control - in which case stay under 500 ft. If you go higher than 150 ft, you need to light or flag the tether.
• Stay 5 miles away from an airport
• If you are within 250 ft of a tall structure, you can go as high as that structure.
• Only fly in daylight unless you have a lit tether and drone.
• There has to be a fail-safe where the drone descends if the tether breaks.

Re:Probably the extent of their radar

[BitZtream]

Why? A Phantom without a camera can carry plenty of payload to do plenty of damage. Doesn't have to move fast, just get there.

30 miles is outside the range of your off the shelf DJI phantom, but I've got one thats flown 18 miles thats the same size roughly, of course all its payload capacity was consumed with the extra batteries ... but its a quad, the least efficient form of flying machine man has ever invented. A fixed wing aircraft has an order of magnitude more distance given the same inputs.

Remember, quads (the toys you see) are really horrible flying machines. They require full artificial stability 100% of the time or they won't fly. No human can sense or react quick enough to keep them in the air, and they only get made because they are mechanically simple, strap 4 motors with props onto 4 arms and you're essentially done. No linkages for control services, no control surfaces, no control surface flex or any other things that happen during flight, the software on the controller takes care of everything and making software is freaking cheap as shit compared to designing a proper aircraft. So the toys are quads.

Any drop thats going to be a threat isn't going to be a quad.

Re:What is a "Drone?"

[ArmoredDragon]

Same reason why that modified Silverado Suburban is called Hummer, even though it in no way resembles the HMMWV from which it got its namesake: Hipsters and wannabe veterans like to pretend they own military grade equipment when it is anything but.

Drones.

[truck_soccer]

Because words don't ever mean what they're supposed to anymore.

Re: Today I learned how to double

[Entrope]

I think the 15 vs 30 miles is the thickness of an irregular ring, starting at the (non-circular) borders of DC. It's not as simple as pi*r*r.

Re:What is a "Drone?"

[RobertJ1729]

Is a regular, run of the mill R/C toy that is flown within line of sight of its operator at all times considered a "drone?"

According to the FAA, yes. The FAA believes it has authority over ANY rc aircraft, including paper airplanes, though the FAA has so far only sought to apply regulation to aircraft over 0.55 lbs.

Re:What is a "Drone?"

[CaptainDork]

The word, "drone," is a media-applied description.

The FAA does not use the word drone. It uses, "Unmanned Aircraft System."

You are correct in that it's simply any small airplane, regardless of configuration (fixed-wing, helicopter, quad-copter, whatever).

Here's a FAQ.

Amazon customers will be grumpy...

[Entrope]

I wonder how long this will hold up once Amazon says they can no longer offer one-hour delivery in DC because the no-fly zone keeps them from operating delivery drones. Even if Amazon gets a regulatory exemption, rich and powerful hobbyists will be pointedly asking what makes Amazon so special.

Politician ban....

[Lumpy]

Can I have a 30 mile Politician ban around my home? I cite public welfare and safety as the reasons.

Re:FED

[bws111]

Do you believe every stupid thing you read? The House passed the Federal Reserve Act 298 to 60 and the Senate passed it 43 to 25. And President Wilson signed it.

Re: Today I learned how to double

[Martin Blank]

It is that simple. The area described matches that of the DC SFR (Special Flight Rules area), which extends 30 nautical miles from the Washington (DCA) VOR (Latitude: 3851'34"N, Longitude: 7702'11"W). As complicated as the FAA can make things, they keep most things as simple as possible.

Re:What is a "Drone?"

[RobertJ1729]

>Is a regular, run of the mill R/C toy that is flown within line of sight of its operator at all times considered a "drone?"

No, but RC aircraft are also banned in DC, since they can be weaponized nearly as well as a drone can.

You are mistaken. According to the FAA, any unmanned aircraft is under the jurisdiction of the FAA. The new registrations rules only apply to aircraft over 0.55 lbs. I can't find details about the DC "No Drone Zone," but I assume the same criteria applies even though the FAA's website says, "all unmanned aircraft."

As you can see by the crazy stuff that gets posted here, and worse at political sites, we have a lot of dangerously stupid, deeply-misinformed people running around.

Indeed. ;)

Re:FED

[Martin Blank]

The Federal Reserve Act was passed 287-85 by the House on September 18, 1913, and passed 54-34 by the Senate on December 18, 1913. President Wilson signed it on December 23, 1913.

Re:Drone Buzzes Obama's Motorcade in Hawaii

[Martin Blank]

The motorcade wouldn't stop or significantly slow down for that. It may change its path, but there are few reasons for a significant change in planned speeds because it could jeopardize the safety of the motorcade (slower targets are easier to hit).

Re:FED

[Martin Blank]

Correction from info posted by bws111: The votes I posted were for the initial passage. The votes bws111 posted were for the reconciliation form of the Act. Those are more technically correct.

Sounds like mistress photos got out of hand?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Hmmm...I wonder if some muckity-muck and their mistress got outed by some drone photography. The new ban ought to prevent that in the future.

Theory that Drones can be weaponized

[DigiShaman]

Drones can be weaponized; hence the ban. Short of turning the metaphorical DC bubble into literal reality, this was entirely expected. I'm extremely annoyed and dismayed that any of you would be surprised. This isn't news except for the clueless morons out there.

Re:Theory that Drones can be weaponized

[0xdeadbeef]

Dey derker derns!

Now they can assume any drone is a threat and respond accordingly, and have the legal authority to take it out and arrest its pilot if they can find him.

If you don't understand how easy it is now to build a homemade cruise missile, well, you're probably the kind of stupid person who was shocked, shocked that passenger jets could be turned into weapons.

Re:Theory that Drones can be weaponized

[DigiShaman]

Given that the TSA requires all shoes to be inspected, you'll be luck if you can walk barefoot within a 30 mile range in the near future.

Definitions matter

[argStyopa]

So wtf do they call a "drone" this week?

Can I still fly my plain-old R/C plane? Because that's NOT A DRONE AND NEVER HAS BEEN (except for the ignorant).

What if it's unpowered (like an RC glider)?

If the language is sufficiently vague, how about model rockets? Bottle rockets? Fireworks?

Hey, maybe they could expand the definition, make it illegal to release a balloon?

Re:Definitions matter

[BradleyUffner]

So wtf do they call a "drone" this week?

Can I still fly my plain-old R/C plane? Because that's NOT A DRONE AND NEVER HAS BEEN (except for the ignorant).

What if it's unpowered (like an RC glider)?

If the language is sufficiently vague, how about model rockets? Bottle rockets? Fireworks?

Hey, maybe they could expand the definition, make it illegal to release a balloon?

Even better, just tying a string to the drone and holding the other end as a tether makes your drone a "kite" in the eyes of the FAA, which it has no authority to regulate. The whole thing is so stupidly and randomly arbitrary.

Re:Definitions matter

[HornWumpus]

They have no authority to regulate model airplanes ether. Doesn't stop them.

Re:Definitions matter

[spire3661]

"Can I still fly my plain-old R/C plane? Because that's NOT A DRONE AND NEVER HAS BEEN (except for the ignorant)."

You are going to provide a definition to make a claim like this. Google says R/C planes fall under the definition of drone.

https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

"A remote-controlled, pilotless aircraft or missile."

You dont get to 'distance' yourself from 'idiots' by claiming R/C is not the same thing as a drone. It is, you are just experiencing an Eternal September and dont like it

Re:Definitions matter

[toddestan]

Actually, by that definition, R/C planes wouldn't be drones because they are piloted. It's just that the pilot isn't physically in the aircraft. To be a drone, the aircraft must have at least some capability of flying autonomously. Which also means that the cheap $40 supermarket quadcopters aren't really drones either, because they likewise aren't capable of flying in any kind of controlled fashion without a human at the controls.

Psychological projection, or blame shifting

[Max_W]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life."

I think it is a classic psychological projection in action. The authority in the D.C. feels a guilt for using drones in military combat with an inevitable significant collateral damage. And it is shifting blame to the civil drone operators and RC hobbyists in the D.C. area.

No Fly Zones

[Frosty Piss]

There are a number of ways to look at "no-fly zones", principally NOTOMs. But for a good FREE visual, go to SkyVector. the maps will show all "TFRs" - Temporary Flying Restrictions, as well as permanent flying restrictions.

That's bullshit

[AndyKron]

That's complete bullshit. Fuck our government.

Re:Probably the extent of their radar

[mikael]

" They require full artificial stability 100% of the time or they won't fly. No human can sense or react quick enough to keep them in the air, "

That's the case with many biological flying critters as well, like swallows and house martins. Greater flight instability leads to higher maneuverability, but at the cost of higher sensitivity to tiny changes in wind conditions and flight surface configuration, which in turn requires constant and rapid readjustment.

Many creatures have been able to adapt to maneuverability in small spaces only by making flight control autonomous. Insects use optic flow where the input to their compound eyes is used to estimate velocity all around and then make the requiring flight readjustments. Fish make use of their lateral line which provides input in the form of vortex pressure and velocity, providing an immediate response to muscle movement. Even honey bees get it wrong sometimes:

https://imgur.com/gallery/Q2aM...

Re:"but deep within the FAA site"

[gavron]

This is not a restriction on piloted aircraft. Hence, it's not listed as a NOTAM as you pointed out.
Nor is it listed as a TFR at http://tfr.faa.gov/

I agree the FAA needs a MUCH BETTER MECHANISM so UAS pilots can check for such flight restrictions.

Ehud
CPL-H
Tucson AZ

It's threads like this one...

[Deadstick]

...that show us how many home-schooled constitutional lawyers there are on the Internet.

Re:It's threads like this one...

[spire3661]

Shouldn't EVERY citizen be home-schooled in the Constitution? Are you saying the law is above lay-men and they should just be subject to it without questioning?

Re:It's threads like this one...

[Deadstick]

QED...

Re: What is a "Drone?"

[ZeroWaiteState]

FAA rules apply to any unmanned aerial vehicle, regardless of whether it is fly by wire. So yes, model aircraft are included, unless they have a specific legal exemption.

But they can fly an MQ-9 Reaper out of Syracuse!

[BubbaDave]

No model planes within 30 miles of DC just because, but Syracuse N Y has MQ-9 Reapers flying overhead out of Syracuse International Airport.

If I was in a model airplane club affected by this, I would be radicalized by it.

I wonder how much those model airplane club fields will be selling for, and to whom?

Re:2 things...

[RobertM1968]

First, 30 is not MORE than double 15 it is exactly double than 15, no need for hyperbole.

While the radius may be "double", the area covered by the ban has increased tremendously.

Re:FED

[radarskiy]

-1, lie

The Federal Reserve Act passed the Senate on Dec. 23, 1913 with 47 yeas, 25 nays, 27 not voting. The voting roll is listed here: http://www.llsdc.org/assets/FR...

Re:2 things...

[wonkey_monkey]

The summary specifies radius, not area.

Re:What is a "Drone?"

[HornWumpus]

It still remains a VW Thing body stuck to a truck frame. Never seen one on a trail. Only at malls.

Proof It Has Little to Do With Airline Safety

[BrendaEM]

The authorities do not want citizens to know what's going on.

Replace Drones With Guns

[CycleFreak]

So let's tell the public that it is now ILLEGAL for anyone within a 30 mile radius of DC is to buy a gun of any size.

Right. I'm sure everyone would just say, "Yeah, that's a good idea. I feel more safe now."

Re:Replace Drones With Guns

[dywolf]

depends. are you going to enforce the law competently?
or allow them to buy weapons 31 miles away, and bring it back?

Re:Replace Drones With Guns

[CycleFreak]

You could ask the same question of the drone law. If you can't fly it, then why should you be allowed to buy it? But, as you say, you could just buy it elsewhere and then bring it to within 30 miles.

The point is that guns are responsible for way more carnage than personal drones will ever cause. But there is no political willpower to make any attempts to control guns. But these new-fangles drones!? They must be registered and banned, damnit!

[ Same reason dry counties are such a joke: Mammoth liquor stores open just outside the county line and are constantly doing a booming business. ]

Home of the Free and Brave

[charles05663]

Okay, let me edit this

Home of the Free Subjugated and Brave Cowardly

It is a shame that the American public allowed themselves to become subjugated and accepted the fear pushed by all the fear-monger politicians and government "servants."

Re:Probably the extent of their radar

[tibit]

They require full artificial stability 100% of the time or they won't fly.

You said that as if the human body was any different. Guess what: a human body has no passive stability of any kind whatsoever. You can't even make a fresh corpse sit straight in a chair. That doesn't make the human body particularly inefficient at what it does, though. So please, don't imply that a quad is a particularly bad flying machine. I urge you to look at the complexity of a "simple" helicopter. You'd probably have a better TWR on a large quad powered by a gas-turbine-driven generator, than on a helicopter with a similar payload capacity, with its monstrous gearbox and complex control mechanics.

Re:Today I learned how to double

[ChrisMaple]

Due to the Earth being almost spherical, doubling the surface distance results in less than quadrupling the surface area.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:2 things...

[ChrisMaple]

In 2002 a car was weaponized, 10 people were murdered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Cars don't often jump fences, which makes them less effective for attacking critical government facilities. Still, car bombs have been used many times.

Re:Good!

[thegarbz]

I'm sure you can find more important things to do with that money than waste it on a little flying toy.

I'm sure glad I have you and the government to help me decide what my hobbies should be and where I should spend my money.

Re:Good!

[BlueStrat]

I'm sure glad I have you and the government to help me decide what my hobbies should be and where I should spend my money.

Have you properly registered your intention to exercise First Amendment privileges, checked the map for 1-A exclusion zones, and paid the licensing fees for that comment, comrade?

No?

Gulag for you!

Strat

Re:Good!

[kheldan]

Not my problem if some people can't make responsible decisions in the first place, prompting the government to step in and force people to be responsible, or face prosecution and/or fines. As is I'm happy that they're not being wishy-washy about the subject, before someone actually gets hurt because some fool with his toy drone couldn't be bothered to play with it responsibly. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at the fools who flew them into the way of tanker aircraft or emergency vehicles or into places like the Whitehouse grounds, not me for telling it like it is, and by the way IDGAF if you're mad or not so bugger off.

I was sad to see this whole quadcopter crap

[p51d007]

Been involved with R/C since the early 80's. As a ham radio operator, I even had my own frequency (black flag on the transmitter). Never once did I fly in a public space. Always at R/C parks, out on a farm...in other words AWAY FROM PEOPLE. With gyro's, micro controllers and the like, people take them out of the box, charge them up and VOLLA! They are a pilot! They know nothing about flying, nothing about the controls are backwards when flying upside down or towards yourself. Obviously they know NOTHING about safety. Now, R/C plane/helicopter flyers are going to be lumped into this crap and have to register. At least the AMA (not the medical one) is trying to fight this load of crap. I say just fine the idiots flying them in a dangerous matter and be done with it. Most people are irresponsible, so just punish those, and not the ones like us that are responsible.

Any Airport in Canada

[gordguide]

There is a 16 Km (10 mile) radius operations ban in Canada (Federal Law) of drones from any airport with military or commercial aviation activities.

In my city (pop 300k) the location of the airport and the city limits intersect in such a way as to ban the use of drones pretty much anywhere in the city. Interestingly, one of the world's most successful drone manufacturers (more than 10 years in operation) with mostly military, research, university, and law enforcement clientele is based in the city, but have to foray out of town to demonstrate outdoors.

Re:Good!

[thegarbz]

Not my problem if some people can't make responsible decisions in the first place, prompting the government to step in and force people to be responsible, or face prosecution and/or fines.

Yep all of which has nothing to do with your earlier post, which has been marked appropriately.

Just "common-sense drone control laws"

[mpercy]

I know a few anti-gun folks who blather on and on about closing loopholes using "common-sense gun control".

Some of them are also quad-copter enthusiasts.

I've very much enjoyed using this phrase on them now that it's their ox getting gored. Of course, I point out that while the RTK&BA actually appears in the Constitution and "shall not be infringed", quad-copters do not.

And then I got a quad-copter for Christmas and have to decide if I'm going risk my CCW by not registering the damn toy drone.

Sure it is, the people rejoiced when Idi Amin

[mpercy]

took over Uganda. Millions cheered Hitler, Lenin, and Mao. Hugo Chavez was swept in to power by the people.

Shades of grey

[TapeCutter]

Some people fly drones near bushfires to take pictures, they are an unnecessary pest that clog the roads and airspace. Here in Oz firefighting aircraft operations have been delayed on several occasions due to drones. Banning toy planes in the Aussie bush would not be an appropriate response, arresting the handful of stupid fuckers who get in the way of emergency services and aircraft is much more appropriate.

Re:Shades of grey

[MightyYar]

Yes, there have been instances of idiots pestering firefighters with drones here in the US as well. I agree this is a matter that can and should be attacked with existing law - at this point there is no widespread problem to address with mandates and regulation.

Re:Today I learned how to double

[HornWumpus]

That depends on how rough the various surfaces are. Given that more or the inner 15 miles is paved I'd guess it more the quadruples it.

See also 'How Long is the English Coast?'

Re:Good!!!

[BlueStrat]

Drones are a menace. Imagine a sport pilot coming in low for a landing at a local airstrip, going about 110mph, and hitting a drone head-on. It would probably smash through the windscreen and kill the pilot, and crash the plane and thus kill everyone else. Get those drones out of the air!!!!!!!!!!

Except that the NTSB & FAA requires aircraft windscreens to be tested for resistance to bird-strikes using dead chickens and/or equivalent substitutes weighing from 2.2 to 8 pounds, far heavier than the vast majority of consumer/entertainment style drones like DJI Phantoms.

https://youtu.be/lp7uLTNiGrQ

The ban in D.C. is based on fear on the part of the government revolving around two main concerns, first of which is politicians and officials being video recorded breaking the laws (like partaking in Saudi sex parties using human-trafficked underage sex-slaves) and secondly (and probably to a much lesser degree) also possible use as a weapons platform for assassinations.

Those in government want to use UAVs/UASs/drones to watch and take out whomever they want but are violently opposed to civilians having even a small portion of the same capability. Heck, it's a safe bet that quite a few politicians and government officials would prefer to be assassinated as opposed to having their worst misdeeds exposed and be forced to face the consequences.

Strat

i'm totally ok with lifting the ban

[dvv]

provided I can use my shotgun against the damned things if they hover too close to my property. The problem is that the county bans me from doing that, so keep the ban in place until I can. And oh, keep your fucking toys away from the flightpath of my Cessna. Or any other manned aircraft for that matter.

Re:FED

[david_thornley]

How is quorum determined? If it's a matter of establishing that there were too few Senators in the chamber at the time of vote, that's one thing. If a Senator has to call for quorum, that's another.

Facial recognition

[NewYork]

If drones have Facial recognition software they'll become ultimate killing machines;

Re:FED

[bluefoxlucid]

Quorum is technically the capability to make a decision. Without quorum, a decision cannot be made. The House can operate without a quorum by forming a Committee of the Whole, in which the entire body of the House becomes a Committee and can discuss and vote on a particular issue (e.g. bill) without a quorum present; at that point, the entire house is in on it. Such a Committee can make amendments to a bill; the House must then ratify the bill as normal, requiring quorum to actually pass it to the Senate.

The Senate doesn't do this anymore. They used to.