And its already been appealed, and the FAA will win, the presiding judge fucked up in multiple ways. There isn't any question about this.
On the other hand, the story here is that a moron flew his r/c aircraft dangerously and he's going to get spanked for that.
Do you think its okay to let people fly into your house or car or you because its some random douche with an R/C airplane he bought and knows absolutely nothing about? 2 of my 4 aircraft can EASILY kill you, the other 2 can EASILY maim you, and I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by one of them as that could kill you as well, though less likely than the others. We're talking airspeeds of 150 and 300 mph for the rotor tips of my RC helicopters and 70 for my airplane, the props on my quad can easily cut a finger off, so the right impact from them would certainly be capable of killing you as well.
There are NO rules that define anything called a 'drone'. Just people using words they heard on CNN.
The FAA has rules for hobby aircraft, which this man violated multiple times, and those rules have barely changed since the 60s! They will spank your ass for flying your 1960s vintage r/c airplane into a building as well as that is a violation of the rules that have existed since then, you can't fly within a close proximity to buildings OR people, and you can't fly in an unsafe manner... EVER.
All of the things you mention ARE regulated by the FAA. Anything that flies, even a rock is regulated by the FAA. The regulations of them are different depending on which thing you are referring to.
But hey, why don't you go ahead and stay completely ignorant and act like the big bad government is personally making your life a living hell rather than growing the fuck up and getting a clue before spewing random shit out of your pie hole, eh?
Drone is what the public uses since they heard it on CNN, thats all.
My 'drone' as everyone calls it, is a quadcoptor... which is funny, because my R/C Heli's (one electric, one nitro) and my fixed wing airplane ALL use the same hardware for flight control.
No one calls the heli's or the fixed wing a drone because it doesn't have a camera attached that they can see, the camera on those is inside a tinted canopy. On the quad, there are 3 cameras, one for First Person View while in flight, one still camera for hi-res images, and a HD video camera which are easy to see as they stick out like a sore thumb.
The FAA doesn't define a drone. It defines what is allowed to fly under the rules of a 'hobby aircraft', anything else is a Unmanned Aerial System and regulated far more strictly. I know of no FAA regulation that uses the word 'drone' anywhere.
This has already been done... 30-40 years ago, in voluntary cooperation with the R/C model industry, to avoid this very situation from becoming a problem and resulting in retarded regulations against the industry.
First off, the FAA regulations everything that flies, including baseballs and rocks your sister throws at you.
They already allow you to 'do what you want' in certain circumstances, which are easy to find out. For instance, a baseball is not something the FAA will take an interest in as it falls under the rules that allow operate without anything special from the FAA.
These rules are already defined and are very clear cut. Flying within 500 feet of a building with a radio controlled aircraft is flat out prohibited without exception.
The feds also define rules for ALL US water ways even if you aren't aware of it, which is why we have standard navigation buoys and lighting requirements for instance.
You do not want random laws defined by random cities as they see fit when everyone needs to play by the same rules or lives may be lost.
Even buildings fall under FAA regulations, which determine how they must be lit and announce themselves to aircraft with proper beacon lights.
No, the sheriff isn't your problem, you're ignorance is.
Its not his call, its the FAA's jurisdiction and the fact that you don't know that shows that you aren't qualified to be flying aircraft in the first place.
You don't get to pretend you're qualified to have an argument about safety issues when you don't even know the rules, which are simple to find, with a quick Google search... or the many times its been posted here (with citations) on slashdot.
As a formerly licensed pilot, and an R/C pilot of 20 years, you are EXACTLY the type of person that I don't want in the air.
If you had a clue, you'd get a waiver and you'd know the sheriff's opinion is irrelevant. Again, its not his call.
Depends on the paper plane. The record sized paper plane from a few years back is most certainly something they would regulate as it is large enough to be a serious problem. It didn't fly for shit so they probably won't ever care, but none the less they do have the ability to do something about it.
There is no such thing as uncontrolled airspace as far as the FAA is concerned in the manner you are speaking.
Uncontrolled airspace to a pilot means the area where you are not required to be in contact with air traffic controllers, not that its a free for all.
In the USA: ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FAA as far as physical objects are concerned, that includes BUILDING, which the FAA has regulations that apply to them, such as how they must be marked and lit at night.
ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FCC as far as electromagnetic regulation is concerned, and again, that includes BUILDINGS.
FAA regulations require ALL aircraft, Radio controlled, ultralight or Commercial airliner to observe safety protocols.
By flying within 20 feet of people he's ALREADY breaking FAA regulations. Flying in NYC limits is almost certainly a violation as well as there just aren't that many places where you can be the required 500 feet away from a building other than central park.
The police have reason to be involved as well, but it most certainly is also an FAA matter.
The police don't police the sky, the FAA does. You don't call the cops when on water either in most cases, its a wildlife officer or coast guard issue depending on the body of water. Police DO get involved in both cases as typically what happens in the sky or on the water has implications on the ground near by as well.
Fly by line of sight. (They get too small to fly more than a mile away) Stay below 400 feet AGL... ABSOLUTE GROUND LEVEL, the distance between the aircraft and the ground below it must be less than 400 feet, not operator level. No commercial use (this was added in 2007 to prevent a maelstrom of idiots with RC planes doing shit for money, and is the main arguing point right now) Do not fly within X number of feet of buildings or Y number of feet of people. I forget the specifics of X and Y right now. Do not fly within 5 miles of an active airport or helipad, where active is defined as shows up on sectional charts as 'open', regardless of the actual usage of the airport or its size.
and a bunch of other more obscure and less likely to apply rules.
No, he didn't invalidate the law. That article headline is worse than most slashdot headlines, and when you use the verge are your reference, you're wrong from the start.
The judge ruled that the interpretation was too ambiguous to apply as it was written. That doesn't invalidate it, it just puts them back in court at a later date with a modified argument.
Nuclear reactors turn matter into energy. If you can continue to reprocess the waste without adding more matter, you will end up with less waste over time. Better still is that the new waste, while more dangerous in the short term, is much much less dangerous in the long term.
Even if it is released, it's going to cause less of an effect on the planet.
They claim the stage was successfully able to soft-recover. Except it wasn't actually recovered. Thats a failure by every definition, they just don't care that the overall mission was a failure, they're happy to have the onboard systems do their job.
Of course, there were systems to do this in the 60s, but hey, don't let that ruin your day. And don't let the fact that you can buy hardware and software to manage the flight itself over the counter for peanuts... including OSS versions.
Managing a decent and hover is not exactly impressive with modern electronics. They aren't doing anything new, just reinventing someone else's wheel.
Credit where credit is due, they are DOING IT, but there are plenty of people who could do it given the money they've expended to do so.
Meh, I'd say they've been pretty successful by their definition.
The problem is, most people define success differently then they do and this is a particular example.
The system failed, but one part worked. They call success, but from a practical perspective it was an utter failure. The system as a whole failed and the stage was lost. To me, thats a failure.
They are just happy the thing was capable of hovering for a few seconds. Considering its a freaking guided rocket, I would expect that to be a relatively simple task when you already are capable of launching from the ground and staying on course till the stage is expended and the next one takes over.
And thats why you (and if SpaceX didn't record it, them to) will fail. Kids who think like you are the reason SpaceX is asking for outside help.
I'm fairly certain you don't understand how these things actually work.
And NASA most certainly would disagree with you as well. As do I, none of my video transmitters on my aircraft are digital. Even my telemetry radios can record the analog stream, though I don't do it.
You most certainly CAN filter the analog stream to create a cleaner signal to the digital stage... that is in fact one of the primary functions of the analog stage, but it was certainly not optimal in this case.
And for reference, this isn't 'remote sensing' or anything special, its just a standard video feed, but someone without a clue decided to use mpeg to do it. That was fucking stupid.
Stronger signals take bigger transmitters with higher power consumption.
Its a fucking rocket dude, the cost of a high power transmitter that doesn't use fucking mpeg or any compression is an unnoticeable drop in the bucket. Hell, 20 of them wouldn't be a noticeable dent in the budget compared to the fuel it burned holding for 8 seconds.
Its fucking retarded that this is what they have to work with.
That, or they have a clue. Hey, who am I to inject logic into your silly little reality.
The only people who think BitCoin is something useful are those who want its value to rise so they don't lose money. The only difference between it and any other generic commodity is that BitCoin actually has no usefulness beyond speculators wet dreams.
They turned the equipment that sends out the GPS coordinates and plane id OFF.
Do you understand that? The plane DID have a way to tell us where it was... and it was disabled in flight.
You can't make it impossible to disable in case it does something like starts causing shorts or fires, which are FAR more likely than a pilot turning it off so he can take the plane down.
There is limited available funds to save peoples lives with, even if everyone on the planet devoted all their effort to helping solve problems, there is still a finite amount of resources available. With that in mind, there are far more dangerous things in the world that kill far more people in a year, solving those problems should come first.
Prioritizing doesn't mean you do nothing, it means you work on the more important problems first.
Says the guy with no retail experience what so ever.
30% is pretty much standard everywhere in retail. Buy office from bestbuy, bestbuy takes ATLEAST 30%. If your smaller, they charge more like requiring you rent the shelf space as well.
Slashdot Mirror
And its already been appealed, and the FAA will win, the presiding judge fucked up in multiple ways. There isn't any question about this.
On the other hand, the story here is that a moron flew his r/c aircraft dangerously and he's going to get spanked for that.
Do you think its okay to let people fly into your house or car or you because its some random douche with an R/C airplane he bought and knows absolutely nothing about? 2 of my 4 aircraft can EASILY kill you, the other 2 can EASILY maim you, and I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by one of them as that could kill you as well, though less likely than the others. We're talking airspeeds of 150 and 300 mph for the rotor tips of my RC helicopters and 70 for my airplane, the props on my quad can easily cut a finger off, so the right impact from them would certainly be capable of killing you as well.
No.
There are NO rules that define anything called a 'drone'. Just people using words they heard on CNN.
The FAA has rules for hobby aircraft, which this man violated multiple times, and those rules have barely changed since the 60s! They will spank your ass for flying your 1960s vintage r/c airplane into a building as well as that is a violation of the rules that have existed since then, you can't fly within a close proximity to buildings OR people, and you can't fly in an unsafe manner ... EVER.
All of the things you mention ARE regulated by the FAA. Anything that flies, even a rock is regulated by the FAA. The regulations of them are different depending on which thing you are referring to.
But hey, why don't you go ahead and stay completely ignorant and act like the big bad government is personally making your life a living hell rather than growing the fuck up and getting a clue before spewing random shit out of your pie hole, eh?
Drone is what the public uses since they heard it on CNN, thats all.
My 'drone' as everyone calls it, is a quadcoptor ... which is funny, because my R/C Heli's (one electric, one nitro) and my fixed wing airplane ALL use the same hardware for flight control.
No one calls the heli's or the fixed wing a drone because it doesn't have a camera attached that they can see, the camera on those is inside a tinted canopy. On the quad, there are 3 cameras, one for First Person View while in flight, one still camera for hi-res images, and a HD video camera which are easy to see as they stick out like a sore thumb.
The FAA doesn't define a drone. It defines what is allowed to fly under the rules of a 'hobby aircraft', anything else is a Unmanned Aerial System and regulated far more strictly. I know of no FAA regulation that uses the word 'drone' anywhere.
This has already been done ... 30-40 years ago, in voluntary cooperation with the R/C model industry, to avoid this very situation from becoming a problem and resulting in retarded regulations against the industry.
First off, the FAA regulations everything that flies, including baseballs and rocks your sister throws at you.
They already allow you to 'do what you want' in certain circumstances, which are easy to find out. For instance, a baseball is not something the FAA will take an interest in as it falls under the rules that allow operate without anything special from the FAA.
These rules are already defined and are very clear cut. Flying within 500 feet of a building with a radio controlled aircraft is flat out prohibited without exception.
The feds also define rules for ALL US water ways even if you aren't aware of it, which is why we have standard navigation buoys and lighting requirements for instance.
You do not want random laws defined by random cities as they see fit when everyone needs to play by the same rules or lives may be lost.
Even buildings fall under FAA regulations, which determine how they must be lit and announce themselves to aircraft with proper beacon lights.
No, the sheriff isn't your problem, you're ignorance is.
Its not his call, its the FAA's jurisdiction and the fact that you don't know that shows that you aren't qualified to be flying aircraft in the first place.
You don't get to pretend you're qualified to have an argument about safety issues when you don't even know the rules, which are simple to find, with a quick Google search ... or the many times its been posted here (with citations) on slashdot.
As a formerly licensed pilot, and an R/C pilot of 20 years, you are EXACTLY the type of person that I don't want in the air.
If you had a clue, you'd get a waiver and you'd know the sheriff's opinion is irrelevant. Again, its not his call.
Depends on the paper plane. The record sized paper plane from a few years back is most certainly something they would regulate as it is large enough to be a serious problem. It didn't fly for shit so they probably won't ever care, but none the less they do have the ability to do something about it.
There is no such thing as uncontrolled airspace as far as the FAA is concerned in the manner you are speaking.
Uncontrolled airspace to a pilot means the area where you are not required to be in contact with air traffic controllers, not that its a free for all.
In the USA:
ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FAA as far as physical objects are concerned, that includes BUILDING, which the FAA has regulations that apply to them, such as how they must be marked and lit at night.
ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FCC as far as electromagnetic regulation is concerned, and again, that includes BUILDINGS.
There is no question.
Airspace, ALL OF IT, is under FAA jurisdiction, no one else has any say, certainly not local police.
No, you call the FAA.
FAA regulations require ALL aircraft, Radio controlled, ultralight or Commercial airliner to observe safety protocols.
By flying within 20 feet of people he's ALREADY breaking FAA regulations. Flying in NYC limits is almost certainly a violation as well as there just aren't that many places where you can be the required 500 feet away from a building other than central park.
The police have reason to be involved as well, but it most certainly is also an FAA matter.
The police don't police the sky, the FAA does. You don't call the cops when on water either in most cases, its a wildlife officer or coast guard issue depending on the body of water. Police DO get involved in both cases as typically what happens in the sky or on the water has implications on the ground near by as well.
No.
The rules are (short version of legalese)
Fly by line of sight. (They get too small to fly more than a mile away) ... ABSOLUTE GROUND LEVEL, the distance between the aircraft and the ground below it must be less than 400 feet, not operator level.
Stay below 400 feet AGL
No commercial use (this was added in 2007 to prevent a maelstrom of idiots with RC planes doing shit for money, and is the main arguing point right now)
Do not fly within X number of feet of buildings or Y number of feet of people. I forget the specifics of X and Y right now.
Do not fly within 5 miles of an active airport or helipad, where active is defined as shows up on sectional charts as 'open', regardless of the actual usage of the airport or its size.
and a bunch of other more obscure and less likely to apply rules.
No, he didn't invalidate the law. That article headline is worse than most slashdot headlines, and when you use the verge are your reference, you're wrong from the start.
The judge ruled that the interpretation was too ambiguous to apply as it was written. That doesn't invalidate it, it just puts them back in court at a later date with a modified argument.
No, it isn't, and your ignorance is why there are rules to prevent people from doing it.
Fewer morons who know nothing about what they are doing will do it if it cost them $500 and they can't make any money.
Make it so you can make a quick buck on it and it'll bring out a bunch of morons with no clue what the risks are endangering peoples lives.
The difference is staggering, but your short sighted viewpoint is pretty much the core problem. You think you know a lot more than you actually do.
Nuclear reactors turn matter into energy. If you can continue to reprocess the waste without adding more matter, you will end up with less waste over time. Better still is that the new waste, while more dangerous in the short term, is much much less dangerous in the long term.
Even if it is released, it's going to cause less of an effect on the planet.
They claim the stage was successfully able to soft-recover. Except it wasn't actually recovered. Thats a failure by every definition, they just don't care that the overall mission was a failure, they're happy to have the onboard systems do their job.
Of course, there were systems to do this in the 60s, but hey, don't let that ruin your day. And don't let the fact that you can buy hardware and software to manage the flight itself over the counter for peanuts ... including OSS versions.
Managing a decent and hover is not exactly impressive with modern electronics. They aren't doing anything new, just reinventing someone else's wheel.
Credit where credit is due, they are DOING IT, but there are plenty of people who could do it given the money they've expended to do so.
Meh, I'd say they've been pretty successful by their definition.
The problem is, most people define success differently then they do and this is a particular example.
The system failed, but one part worked. They call success, but from a practical perspective it was an utter failure. The system as a whole failed and the stage was lost. To me, thats a failure.
They are just happy the thing was capable of hovering for a few seconds. Considering its a freaking guided rocket, I would expect that to be a relatively simple task when you already are capable of launching from the ground and staying on course till the stage is expended and the next one takes over.
I think you are living in the past.
And thats why you (and if SpaceX didn't record it, them to) will fail. Kids who think like you are the reason SpaceX is asking for outside help.
I'm fairly certain you don't understand how these things actually work.
And NASA most certainly would disagree with you as well. As do I, none of my video transmitters on my aircraft are digital. Even my telemetry radios can record the analog stream, though I don't do it.
You most certainly CAN filter the analog stream to create a cleaner signal to the digital stage ... that is in fact one of the primary functions of the analog stage, but it was certainly not optimal in this case.
And for reference, this isn't 'remote sensing' or anything special, its just a standard video feed, but someone without a clue decided to use mpeg to do it. That was fucking stupid.
Stronger signals take bigger transmitters with higher power consumption.
Its a fucking rocket dude, the cost of a high power transmitter that doesn't use fucking mpeg or any compression is an unnoticeable drop in the bucket. Hell, 20 of them wouldn't be a noticeable dent in the budget compared to the fuel it burned holding for 8 seconds.
Its fucking retarded that this is what they have to work with.
That, or they have a clue. Hey, who am I to inject logic into your silly little reality.
The only people who think BitCoin is something useful are those who want its value to rise so they don't lose money. The only difference between it and any other generic commodity is that BitCoin actually has no usefulness beyond speculators wet dreams.
That ... and silver is actually hard enough to use as a bullet, where as gold would probably mushroom out, jam in the barrel and cause an explosion.
Yes, inside the car is way better than the road around the car.
You utterly fail, your license should be revoked if inside the car is where you think your attention belongs as the driver.
...
They turned the equipment that sends out the GPS coordinates and plane id OFF.
Do you understand that? The plane DID have a way to tell us where it was ... and it was disabled in flight.
You can't make it impossible to disable in case it does something like starts causing shorts or fires, which are FAR more likely than a pilot turning it off so he can take the plane down.
There is limited available funds to save peoples lives with, even if everyone on the planet devoted all their effort to helping solve problems, there is still a finite amount of resources available. With that in mind, there are far more dangerous things in the world that kill far more people in a year, solving those problems should come first.
Prioritizing doesn't mean you do nothing, it means you work on the more important problems first.
Are you 12 or do you just live under a rock?
Sheldon doesn't have Aspergers, he's just a fucking douche. Theres a difference.
Says the guy with no retail experience what so ever.
30% is pretty much standard everywhere in retail. Buy office from bestbuy, bestbuy takes ATLEAST 30%. If your smaller, they charge more like requiring you rent the shelf space as well.