MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"  (Read 25088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« on: January 10, 2015, 14:09 »
-4
FAA Issues UAS Guidance for Law Enforcement January 8The proliferation of small, relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft (UAS) presents the Federal Aviation Administration with a challenge in identifying people who dont follow the rules of the air or who endanger the nations airspace. So, the agency is asking the law enforcement community for help.

The FAA released guidance to the law enforcement community explaining the legal framework for the agencys oversight of aviation safety in the U.S., including UAS operations. The guidance describes how UAS and model aircraft can be operated legally, and the options for legal enforcement actions against unauthorized or unsafe UAS operators. The document also discusses the law enforcement communitys vital role in deterring, detecting and investigating unsafe operations.

State and local police are often in the best position to immediately investigate unauthorized UAS operations, and as appropriate, to stop them. The document explains how first responders and others can provide invaluable assistance to the FAA by:

Identifying potential witnesses and conducting initial interviews Contacting the suspected operators of the UAS or model aircraft Viewing and recording the location of the event Collecting evidence Identifying if the UAS operation was in a sensitive location, event or activity Notifying one of the FAAs Regional Operation Centers about the operation as soon as possible The FAAs goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws, but the guidance makes clear the agencys authority to pursue legal enforcement action against persons who endanger the safety of the National Airspace System.

The guidance stresses that while the FAA exercises caution not to mix criminal law enforcement with agency administrative safety enforcements, the public is best served by coordinating and fostering mutual understanding and cooperation between governmental entities with law enforcement responsibilities


Original posting: FAA Issues UAS Guidance for Law Enforcement http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=81244

I still can't believe all the hullabaloo about model aircraft and people getting all upset about personal "Drones". These are toys and RC hobby craft and someone attached a camera to some. I mean I had a camera in an RC airplane in the 60s, we shot rockets up with cameras.

But call it a drone and suddenly it's dangerous and in the news. Now the FAA has to step in and regulate them.

STUPID!


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2015, 14:25 »
+8

I still can't believe all the hullabaloo about model aircraft and people getting all upset about personal "Drones". These are toys and RC hobby craft and someone attached a camera to some. I mean I had a camera in an RC airplane in the 60s, we shot rockets up with cameras.

But call it a drone and suddenly it's dangerous and in the news. Now the FAA has to step in and regulate them.

STUPID!
Until one of them fly through the engine of the aircraft you are landing or taking off and you die in the crash. Model RC flyers were always super well self regulated. I don't recall hearing about them in the news flying recklessly or in stupid places. Drone operators, as the very name of the thing they operate suggests, are barely drones themselves in their thought capacity.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2015, 14:50 »
-4
Sorry Zeus you are 100% wrong. The problem is news media and the internet and people calling them Drones which is scary like calling every black rifle that's semi-automatic an "assault weapon" when they are not.

People with RC planes are just as stupid as people with UAS. They fly "cross country" following in a car, flying down the highways. People flew them in county parks, on golf courses and they aren't as easy to fly, so more dangerous.

Watch this 1/4 scale plane, get clipped by a bi-plane. And what idiot stands next to his RC plane flying stunts like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMK4QQnmyk

The problem isn't that UAS are dangerous, it's the same as always, the people who misuse them are the problem. So now we all get regulated into oblivion because of a few idiots.

Same kind of scare laws and regulations that stop us from taking photos of trains and airplanes because we might be terrorists?

You want all our rights taken away, because of possibly some numb head flying a UAS near an airport. Please reconsider. Everything that applies to UAS also applies to RC planes, and helicopters. That's the way it works.

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2015, 15:04 »
+8
There is also a huge proliferation of these drones with no end in sight. You will always find exceptions to the general rule, but most RC operators are only interested in the act of flying, therefor even when crashes occur, they are in areas that have little population. Drones are interested in pictures and video so often seek out " interesting sites" which contain much higher populations. It's all about statistics Pete, nothing to do with what they are called.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2015, 16:56 »
+1
Have to agree with you, most RC people are responsible, except the last sentence. People hear drone and get all strange. It's a model helicopter, it's a RC toy aircraft, and I think the problems are being blown out of proportion.

I don't like having my rights or yours, taken away, because of someone else who's an idiot. Just doesn't make sense.

Like teenagers have more fatal accidents, speed is the cause. Some drink and drive, so we should take away the right to drive for everyone, and the right to have a beer, until they are 21? That's real deaths. Not hypothetical knee jerk, fear of what could happen.

Photo rights are being taken away, (similar fear reactions) because some people think terrorists are stalking railroads, airports or buildings. I love to laugh at this. They could use a cell phone or hidden camera, instead they have a big DSLR and a white lens and that's a hidden threat?

I really think these regulations will have a negative impact on RC people and their fun. Now the police are supposed to investigate and get witnesses, and report to the FAA. Really? They don't have more important things to do, than stop people from having some fun with a model aircraft?



There is also a huge proliferation of these drones with no end in sight. You will always find exceptions to the general rule, but most RC operators are only interested in the act of flying, therefor even when crashes occur, they are in areas that have little population. Drones are interested in pictures and video so often seek out " interesting sites" which contain much higher populations. It's all about statistics Pete, nothing to do with what they are called.

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2015, 17:18 »
+1
People are concerned, with good reason, about invasion of privacy. Plus, you have people like this guy flying stuff around. He managed to kill himself with his model helicopter...he could've killed anyone else who happened to be nearby that day:

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/

Lucky me, I live near a tiny airport that is one of the first to be chosen as a testing spot for real drones...the big ones. So now I get to have those things flying overhead, as well as general aviation airplanes (10x more likely to crash than a car), homebuilt experimental aircraft (even more likely to crash), and "RC toy aircraft" that buzz our neighborhood in between the real aircraft takeoffs and landings. I'd really love to take their fun away. Big time.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2015, 19:04 »
-2
Agree Shelma and also agree with Zeus when it comes to invasion of privacy or hazardous operation, near people or property.

My disagreement is with the Feds getting into regulation and calling in the police, to observe and collect information.


People are concerned, with good reason, about invasion of privacy. Plus, you have people like this guy flying stuff around. He managed to kill himself with his model helicopter...he could've killed anyone else who happened to be nearby that day:

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/

Lucky me, I live near a tiny airport that is one of the first to be chosen as a testing spot for real drones...the big ones. So now I get to have those things flying overhead, as well as general aviation airplanes (10x more likely to crash than a car), homebuilt experimental aircraft (even more likely to crash), and "RC toy aircraft" that buzz our neighborhood in between the real aircraft takeoffs and landings. I'd really love to take their fun away. Big time.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2015, 19:56 »
-3
I am with Pete on this.

People  have  flying model aircraft, helicopters and boats since back on the 70's.

Oh wait BOATS!

No regulation on them?

Getting caught in props or waterpumps etc.

It is the idiot that launched and flew one at an airport! WTFWHT???????

And because of this now there are new laws for the police to try and figure out when most of them already have no idea about photography on foot much less photography in the air now.

Basic common sense applies to the photography law and rules both on foot and in the air.

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

Shelma1

« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2015, 19:59 »
+1
Well, the FAA has to get involved because they govern U.S. airspace. You can't have people flying drones around where they'll get in the way of flight patterns. Already in New York there have been a couple of instances of videographers flying drones too close to police helicopters. That's what they're testing near me...how to incorporate unmanned drones into the airspace. They promise the drones will just fly out to sea to record and there will be no invasion of privacy. But they'll only be a couple hundred feet over my house as they head out or come in, so I find that hard to believe.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2015, 20:45 »
-3
Well, the FAA has to get involved because they govern U.S. airspace. You can't have people flying drones around where they'll get in the way of flight patterns. Already in New York there have been a couple of instances of videographers flying drones too close to police helicopters. That's what they're testing near me...how to incorporate unmanned drones into the airspace. They promise the drones will just fly out to sea to record and there will be no invasion of privacy. But they'll only be a couple hundred feet over my house as they head out or come in, so I find that hard to believe.
The FAA only governs air space above 400 feet and for good reason.

If the FAA starts limits on anything below 400 feet then that will include ultralight planes and copter that hobbyists build and fly and I am not talking drones I am talking about manned ultralights which right now are not governed by the FAA same as drones.


Anyone flying a drone near a police copter is a F*****G IDJUT and should be arrested besides police choppers are easily above the 400ft limit so what kinda drones are they flying at those altitudes?

And even at 400 feet the drones become a spec in the sky unless you are watching through binoculars.

Here is a 1/4th scale USAF jet (drone) top speed can be no more then 200mph as per the law and always are flown below the 400 feet limit, trying to keep up with one of these from the ground takes some serious concentration and skill, just one jet cost's $60,000 and the guy who owns this has 3 of them.

Pros obey the laws and rules wile other F*****G IDJUTS don't and ruin it for those that do.


Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2015, 21:07 »
0
The drone was flying at 2,000 feet. Article also has info about FAA regulations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/two-men-arrested-after-drone-flies-near-new-york-police-helicopter.html?_r=0

« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2015, 21:53 »
0

People are flying drones in controlled airspace, which is controlled to the surface, not to just 400 feet. This is the problem, if the FAA, and the other governing bodies in other countries, don't step in and regulate and an accident happens, then they will be looked at as not having done their job. And for good reason, because they will not have been doing their job.

« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2015, 22:08 »
+1
Here's an incident close to home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/drone-seen-flying-in-path-of-landing-planes-at-vancouver-airport-1.2693601

It won't take many of these before they will outright ban them, never mind regulate them.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2015, 22:12 »
+1
And it's those Idjuts that need to be arrested, but yet that is to hard apparently so the one bad apple spoils it for everyone else!


« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2015, 22:19 »
0
And it's those Idjuts that need to be arrested, but yet that is to hard apparently so the one bad apple spoils it for everyone else!
Yes, that is the problem.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2015, 12:29 »
+3
Yes we agree at this point Zeus and Barry. I think we already have laws and regulations, and yes they need to jail or at least find a suitable stiff fine, for people who infringe on protected spaces and invade privacy with cameras on UAVs. If someone operates a balloon or kite and does the same thing, it's just as bad.

My perspective is that laws that punish everyone for what a few do, are infringing on personal freedoms and giving Big Brother just one more way to take away our rights. There's too much of that going around lately.

No one here, (I assume?) would say, ban all street photography, because of some paparazzi who are invasive and over the lines of decency?

It's really the same issue and knee jerk reaction. Laws to punish the majority of civil and law abiding members of our society, based on what some knuckle-head does. Nope I can't support that.

And it's those Idjuts that need to be arrested, but yet that is to hard apparently so the one bad apple spoils it for everyone else!
Yes, that is the problem.

« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2015, 12:29 »
+1
As cool as it would be to get one of these and start producing a ton of great aerial footage, I'd be really scared of the legal consequences if spotted flying one in a public area.  Especially metropolitan/urban areas.  In the country, not so much. 

« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2015, 15:05 »
+1
As cool as it would be to get one of these and start producing a ton of great aerial footage, I'd be really scared of the legal consequences if spotted flying one in a public area.  Especially metropolitan/urban areas.  In the country, not so much.
And that's the way I think. So much cool stuff happens where things are happening. There are drones, for lack of a better word, that have auto follow features now. So you go racing along on your ATV or bike or running down a beach and they follow the action. How easy is that?

ogm

« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2015, 06:04 »
+1
Yes, the drones are dangerous in the airplanes ways!
 
But I dont understand why FAA and other worldwide agencies governing the air space dont simply determine their operating frequency range and height of flight? This frequency could be controlled(like many others), like a shield in a quite far distance from the airports, military objects, places with many people and other important objects/places? May be it is not easy and cheap, I don't know?

Yes, the drones are only models like other air models. They are very useful in certain cases and there is no point people to be arrested or to die in air crashes because of them!


« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2015, 09:33 »
+1
Yes, the drones are dangerous in the airplanes ways!
 
But I dont understand why FAA and other worldwide agencies governing the air space dont simply determine their operating frequency range and height of flight? This frequency could be controlled(like many others), like a shield in a quite far distance from the airports, military objects, places with many people and other important objects/places? May be it is not easy and cheap, I don't know?

Yes, the drones are only models like other air models. They are very useful in certain cases and there is no point people to be arrested or to die in air crashes because of them!
Blasting an area with a specific jamming frequency is not the answer. There are many finely tuned electronic navigation components around and airport that could easily be affected.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2015, 09:38 »
-1
With stories like this, I may be moving over to the scarey side... In one way, do we really need little camera drones, watching us for news? The helicopters are invasive enough. It's getting like some sci-fi movie where little UAVs track us and watch everything.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cnn-seeks-to-fly-its-own-drones-1421108456?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_NeedToKnow

While the other side of me says, I agree with this:

"Last year, a group of media organizations, including the Associated Press, New York Times and Tribune Co., filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the FAAs legal authority to regulate drones. They complained that the FAAs overly broad policy violates the First Amendment and has already had an impermissible chilling effect on some journalists reporting."

or

"In countries where drone rules are less restrictive, journalists are already using them to gather news. Drones helped show the scope of recent protests in Thailand and Hong Kong. BBC has used the devices to do some reporting. And last year, CBS News used a drone to explore the contaminated areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine."

If you fly your camera and sell the footage to a news service, you may get a letter from the FAA. Article also says, to this point, no one has been fined.

As you may have guessed, I'm more interested in the news, Editorial, or photography aspects, taking images for stock for example. And not interested in people hovering over your back yard, looking into windows, flying in a crowded park, or chasing a car down the public highway for entertainment.

Already got the word from the safety team at the race track, no kites, no RC vehicles of any sort and No Drones! Good move. It's private property and there are likely to be all kinds of people and any inadvertent landing could cause injury.

Shelma1

« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2015, 09:51 »
+1
It's the injury part (and the invasion of privacy) that concerns me. It's great that drones were able to capture news events, but IMO it's just a matter of time before a news drone crashes and hurts or kills someone. In the U.S. general aviation planes crash every day. Someone is killed in one or by one a few times a week. I wish the FAA would regulate those a lot more, to be honest. I just don't want to see these things (drones) crashing into people. On the other hand, I do think they're cool and useful and fun; we just need regulations to be sure they're operated safely.

« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2015, 10:15 »
+1
Many rights contradict each other. It's usually  a matter of compromise, and establishing who should get the trump card. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can slander at will, as is often proven in court.

No one has said it yet, but my guess, is the real worry, is that drones are such an easy method of dropping carnage with.

« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2015, 10:51 »
+2
So, is anybody here actually using drones to shoot pictures or video for stock?
I believe it qualifies as a commercial activity even if the subject is just a landscape in a remote location.

Concerning invasion of privacy, I would say that Google street and satellite pictures are giving more details about my neighborhood that pictures I can shoot flying over my backyard.

« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2015, 11:30 »
0
It's the injury part (and the invasion of privacy) that concerns me. It's great that drones were able to capture news events, but IMO it's just a matter of time before a news drone crashes and hurts or kills someone. In the U.S. general aviation planes crash every day. Someone is killed in one or by one a few times a week. I wish the FAA would regulate those a lot more, to be honest. I just don't want to see these things (drones) crashing into people. On the other hand, I do think they're cool and useful and fun; we just need regulations to be sure they're operated safely.

I hadn't even thought of that.  Batteries and guidance systems can fail, and anything with a few lbs of weight could potentially be as dangerous as a falling tree branch from a high elevation.

An ex Microsoft executive and his son recently crashed his private airplane into a home and killed 3, I believe, including a few children.  My sister lives a few streets over.  I was on the phone with her at the time.  She smelled the smoke, heard all of the sirens from the rescue crews, and wondered what was going down.  That could have been her house, just as well!  One of the joys of living a few minutes away from an airport, I guess. 

There are hazards that come even with driving our cars down the road, which are all potentially death hazards to pedestrians and others on the road, even when we've done our best to maintain them.  It's probably no difference when it comes to operating UAV's and the responsibility that comes with it; it's just a new area to have to think about.  You will definitely want to be full insured and be sure your insurance covers that sort of situation...

Shelma1

« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2015, 12:06 »
0
Yes to the plane crash. The pilot had already crashed a plane, and from what I've read his family wanted him to stop flying, but instead he bought a bigger plane and ended up killing himself, his son, a mom and her two babies who were home when his plane came down. The husband who lived there lost his wife and two of his three children, and the house was completely destroyed. Very sad.

« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2015, 17:02 »
+1
Paparazzi using drones: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paparazzi-take-to-the-skies-to-pursue-stars-with-drones/

"Yeah, absolutely," he said. "You're walking down Rodeo Drive here in Beverly Hills, and there's a pack of paparazzi. Why wouldn't there be 30 drones flying over them?" Yup

These things definitely look like a lot of fun but as the technology evolves and the price comes down the dirtbags will take advantage in the worst ways. Not just paparazzi but drug dealers could make drops in town or across the border, hacks will be created to weaponize them. In my opinion, any number of nefarious uses will inevitably make these annoying at best and more-than-likely dangerous.

-Mat

Shelma1

« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2015, 13:55 »
+1
Article today in the NY Times about news organizations joining Virginia Tech in testing drones in the airspace. So now I can look forward to the Times overflying my house. (Our tiny airport is one of the test sites.) The video is interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/business/media/10-companies-join-effort-to-test-drones-for-newsgathering.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150115&nlid=26752818&tntemail0=y&_r=0

« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2015, 01:24 »
+2

"Last year, a group of media organizations, including the Associated Press, New York Times and Tribune Co., filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the FAAs legal authority to regulate drones. They complained that the FAAs overly broad policy violates the First Amendment and has already had an impermissible chilling effect on some journalists reporting."

or

"In countries where drone rules are less restrictive, journalists are already using them to gather news. Drones helped show the scope of recent protests in Thailand and Hong Kong. BBC has used the devices to do some reporting. And last year, CBS News used a drone to explore the contaminated areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine."
You can be sure that gov wants to be able to watch you but they don't want you to be able to watch them.

As far as safety concerns, should we outlaw something because somebody somewhere might be injured someday?

What about kids riding bicycles, they get going pretty fast and some of those kids are big. What if one hits somebody and injures them? Better make bicycles illegal. And what about home swimming pools? You know how many people drown in them every year? Better make those illegal too. And silverware. Those knives and forks are too sharp to be used at the dinner tables of people who might suddenly decide to stab each other or do so by accident. Only plastic spoons should be legal.

« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2015, 08:51 »
0

"Last year, a group of media organizations, including the Associated Press, New York Times and Tribune Co., filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the FAAs legal authority to regulate drones. They complained that the FAAs overly broad policy violates the First Amendment and has already had an impermissible chilling effect on some journalists reporting."

or

"In countries where drone rules are less restrictive, journalists are already using them to gather news. Drones helped show the scope of recent protests in Thailand and Hong Kong. BBC has used the devices to do some reporting. And last year, CBS News used a drone to explore the contaminated areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine."
You can be sure that gov wants to be able to watch you but they don't want you to be able to watch them.

As far as safety concerns, should we outlaw something because somebody somewhere might be injured someday?

What about kids riding bicycles, they get going pretty fast and some of those kids are big. What if one hits somebody and injures them? Better make bicycles illegal. And what about home swimming pools? You know how many people drown in them every year? Better make those illegal too. And silverware. Those knives and forks are too sharp to be used at the dinner tables of people who might suddenly decide to stab each other or do so by accident. Only plastic spoons should be legal.

To stay on topic: Drones are cool when used responsibly.

Off topic: You really have a cool portfolio, Michael.

Shelma1

« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2015, 09:08 »
0

"Last year, a group of media organizations, including the Associated Press, New York Times and Tribune Co., filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the FAAs legal authority to regulate drones. They complained that the FAAs overly broad policy violates the First Amendment and has already had an impermissible chilling effect on some journalists reporting."

or

"In countries where drone rules are less restrictive, journalists are already using them to gather news. Drones helped show the scope of recent protests in Thailand and Hong Kong. BBC has used the devices to do some reporting. And last year, CBS News used a drone to explore the contaminated areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine."
You can be sure that gov wants to be able to watch you but they don't want you to be able to watch them.

As far as safety concerns, should we outlaw something because somebody somewhere might be injured someday?

What about kids riding bicycles, they get going pretty fast and some of those kids are big. What if one hits somebody and injures them? Better make bicycles illegal. And what about home swimming pools? You know how many people drown in them every year? Better make those illegal too. And silverware. Those knives and forks are too sharp to be used at the dinner tables of people who might suddenly decide to stab each other or do so by accident. Only plastic spoons should be legal.

Who's talking about outlawing them? The FAA is trying to determine how they'll operate in existing airspace and how to set reasonable regulations for operating them. All the items you mentioned have regulations, possibly with the exception of silverware. Bicyclists have hit and killed pedestrians, just recently in Central Park, leading to bike speed restrictions there. Kids are required to wear helmets while on a bike. Pools have regulations, and you can't get a certificate of occupancy for your house without meeting them, at least where I live. I'm sure there are even more regulations regarding public poolsrequiring lifeguards and use of chemicals, for example.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2015, 09:20 »
-2
Bicycle laws have been in effect for well more than 40 years.

If you ride a bicycle on any street in any state you must obey the traffic laws and that includes speed limits, stop signs, stop lights, crosswalks and everything else.

I got pulled and warned by police when I was 14 or so for going 30mph and the speed limit where I was was 25mph.

No  one truly enforces bicycle laws no matter if they are on the books or not.


"Last year, a group of media organizations, including the Associated Press, New York Times and Tribune Co., filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the FAAs legal authority to regulate drones. They complained that the FAAs overly broad policy violates the First Amendment and has already had an impermissible chilling effect on some journalists reporting."

or

"In countries where drone rules are less restrictive, journalists are already using them to gather news. Drones helped show the scope of recent protests in Thailand and Hong Kong. BBC has used the devices to do some reporting. And last year, CBS News used a drone to explore the contaminated areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine."
You can be sure that gov wants to be able to watch you but they don't want you to be able to watch them.

As far as safety concerns, should we outlaw something because somebody somewhere might be injured someday?

What about kids riding bicycles, they get going pretty fast and some of those kids are big. What if one hits somebody and injures them? Better make bicycles illegal. And what about home swimming pools? You know how many people drown in them every year? Better make those illegal too. And silverware. Those knives and forks are too sharp to be used at the dinner tables of people who might suddenly decide to stab each other or do so by accident. Only plastic spoons should be legal.

Who's talking about outlawing them? The FAA is trying to determine how they'll operate in existing airspace and how to set reasonable regulations for operating them. All the items you mentioned have regulations, possibly with the exception of silverware. Bicyclists have hit and killed pedestrians, just recently in Central Park, leading to bike speed restrictions there. Kids are required to wear helmets while on a bike. Pools have regulations, and you can't get a certificate of occupancy for your house without meeting them, at least where I live. I'm sure there are even more regulations regarding public poolsrequiring lifeguards and use of chemicals, for example.

« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2015, 00:50 »
0
 Drones are interested in pictures and video so often seek out " interesting sites" which contain much higher populations.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2015, 11:32 »
0
Well here we go. If you can use it, you can abuse it:   ???

Traffickers have used drones to do their dirty work for several years, according to the Latin Times. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reported that, in 2012, about 150 passes were made across the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the summer, there came reports that Mexican drug cartels were building drones to move narcotics into the United States.

Last year, a drone carrying marijuana, tobacco and cellphones crashed outside a South Carolina prison. One was even used to sneak cigarettes into Russia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/22/a-meth-toting-drone-just-crashed-in-tijuana/

Not that this has anything to do with the local issue, photographers and drones. But it was amusing. Overloaded drug drone crashes...


« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2015, 11:45 »
0
Chase Jarvis just unpacked a new one this morning (says something like "what do I call it, a drone?")  New gizmo to be released at the end of the month - just in case you want your own before they are banned :)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152593149955978&set=vb.58624920977&type=2&theater

Uncle Pete

« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2015, 13:21 »
0
Well I must compliment Chase for his excellent R2D2 imitation during the unboxing. (people say sarcasm doesn't play well in messages, hope people get that one, it's annoying as heck Mr. Jarvis)

Wow, I'd have to decide new UAV or replace two cars and the riding lawn mower, with one good car? Hmm, which will it be?

4K video and 12MP stills, that is impressive.

I remember when I launched a rocket and as the parachute deployed, it would trip the shutter and take one photo on B&W 16MM film. We thought that was really up there in space.  ::) Then We'd run home to the dark room (if we found the rocket and the camera) develop and have ONE really cool photo!

Now you can watch on the remote controller 720P live?

My Brother gave me a "Drone" for Christmas. It's still in the box. Came with spare batteries and spare propellers. Smart guy, isn't he? Plan ahead. I think it was $14.99 on ebay and has a camera, takes some tiny size video. I'll go terrorize some cows in the Spring (not really, but I will go take pictures of them) No GPS, doesn't fly in the wind and I won't be taking it out over water, but what the heck, it could be fun?


Chase Jarvis just unpacked a new one this morning (says something like "what do I call it, a drone?")  New gizmo to be released at the end of the month - just in case you want your own before they are banned :)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152593149955978&set=vb.58624920977&type=2&theater

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2015, 08:18 »
-4
Drone found on the White House lawn this morning i the wake of a historic Blizzard that is arriving and it is  already snowing in DC!

Gee I wonder why?

Think maybe just maybe because someone wanted to get aerials of the snowstorm and perhaps the wind blew it off course and into the Lawn.

Now another reason for limitations.

« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2015, 10:13 »
+1


I remember when I launched a rocket and as the parachute deployed, it would trip the shutter and take one photo on B&W 16MM film. We thought that was really up there in space.  ::) Then We'd run home to the dark room (if we found the rocket and the camera) develop and have ONE really cool photo!


I had one of those too and it was incredible magic at the time. Now we have so many toys that I don't know what to do half the time.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2015, 21:11 »
+1
We need to ban SUVs also: A woman has been shot dead outside the US Capitol after first trying to ram a barrier at the White House and then leading police on a car chase through the streets of Washington.


And we need to ban airplanes and private pilots: Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.

Also knives and people from Texas:  A Texas man armed with a knife was able to get over a White House fence in September (2014) and run deep into the executive mansion before being subdued.

Drone found on the White House lawn this morning i the wake of a historic Blizzard that is arriving and it is  already snowing in DC!

Gee I wonder why?

Think maybe just maybe because someone wanted to get aerials of the snowstorm and perhaps the wind blew it off course and into the Lawn.

Now another reason for limitations.

I know why. The problem is Humans.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2015, 21:33 »
0
Guess what ... it's against the law to operate a drone in Washington D.C.  Since when is a law against something going to stop anyone?  It's against the law to do a lot of things, but some people still do them.  Or, as Captain Barbosa said on the first Pirates of the Caribbean, "they're more like guidelines."

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2015, 19:15 »
0
And today there are reports from LA, Chicago, Dallas and others with drones being flown at airports with pilot sightings from 1,800 feet to as high as 8,500 feet!

The laws are boiling in the pots somewhere just waiting for the simmering and distribution.

« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2015, 20:53 »
0
Guess what ... it's against the law to operate a drone in Washington D.C.  Since when is a law against something going to stop anyone?  It's against the law to do a lot of things, but some people still do them.  Or, as Captain Barbosa said on the first Pirates of the Caribbean, "they're more like guidelines."
Maybe small SAMs

« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2015, 04:45 »
+1
Those goddamn commies and their drone thingamabubs. If I see one within a mile of my property I'll take a twelve gauge to it and that'll be all she wrote.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 05:12 by Red Dove »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2015, 08:40 »
0
Drones are illegal at the race courses, so are fireworks, guns, kites and... OK you get the idea. We had a safety team meet last month, and I said, someone could start off the property and fly over and take photos, then fly back. They aren't "on the property".

When someone owns the land, like any of us or a business, they do not own the air space over it and often not the mineral rights under it.

Just one more case where someone could get into trouble.

My answer was much like yours. Allow the staff to bring shotguns from home. If the UAV is over the race track, we shout PULL and blast it out of the air!  ;D Not really a safe and sensible idea, but it's sounds like fun?

The models have GPS and are now being programmed so they can't fly within 5 miles of an airport. Also the White House and I'm sure other locations. That's one way to deal with people who can't understand self control and living within the regulations or acting in a sensible manner.

Another idea would be a Government drone that captures UAVs. (only when they are flying illegally) Kind of like the  old tractor beam or the big doors that open and the little space ship is captured by the big one. This big drone, flies up and "recovers" the little ones. Brings them back and the officials can check to see who it belongs to and issue a citation.

We have your drone, pay the fine and get your toy back.



Those goddamn commies and their drone thingamabubs. If I see one within a mile of my property I'll take a twelve gauge to it and that'll be all she wrote.

« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2015, 10:03 »
0
Uncle Pete, you're being stymied in an attempt to make sense of a world regulated by government bots, trying to regulate a renegade populace.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2015, 19:12 »
0
I'd agree and it will never end.

I'm just angry because I don't have my own Drone with a HD GoPro on it. I still want to fly like a bird, over cows and cornfields...  ;D But come on, why would I spend a couple grand to do that? At least some people have sensible commercial uses, and that's what's banned?

So what do we get? People with loads of money, buying a toy, and causing these personal invasions of privacy and disruptions. Heck, maybe it should be "only for commercial use", licensed, and then restrict the private use?

Yes, just a thought. You probably know my viewpoint. I'm for freedom of choice and rights being with individuals not bloated or oppressive government regulations.


Uncle Pete, you're being stymied in an attempt to make sense of a world regulated by government bots, trying to regulate a renegade populace.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2015, 20:16 »
0
To hell with drones and go pros!

Get a Mad Max one man copter with a real DSLR and go to it!

And as long as you stay under 400 feet all is fine have fun and just don't run outta gas!

I'd agree and it will never end.

I'm just angry because I don't have my own Drone with a HD GoPro on it. I still want to fly like a bird, over cows and cornfields...  ;D But come on, why would I spend a couple grand to do that? At least some people have sensible commercial uses, and that's what's banned?

So what do we get? People with loads of money, buying a toy, and causing these personal invasions of privacy and disruptions. Heck, maybe it should be "only for commercial use", licensed, and then restrict the private use?

Yes, just a thought. You probably know my viewpoint. I'm for freedom of choice and rights being with individuals not bloated or oppressive government regulations.


Uncle Pete, you're being stymied in an attempt to make sense of a world regulated by government bots, trying to regulate a renegade populace.

« Reply #47 on: February 10, 2015, 20:36 »
0
I filmed with a couple of GoPros last year and got pretty tired of them. I see that there are copters now that take Real Man cameras with serious optics.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #48 on: February 11, 2015, 17:37 »
0
So I live in a military flight path.

Now I have trees that are easily 100-200 feet tall and I get Jets coming over top of them at speeds easily reaching 400-500 mph that their jet wash bends the tops of the trees so this tells you how low they are which is well below the radar for training purposes I am sure but now what if I was flying a drone in my air space under 400 feet and one of these jets flew into it and sucked it into their engine and then they crashed !

Whos fault is it?

Not mine but yet it will be!

Even though I am under 400 feet the military will do all their BS testing and determine it is my fault rather then admit to what they did that is wrong!

Shelma1

« Reply #49 on: February 11, 2015, 18:55 »
0
Are you within 5 miles of an airport or military airport? If so, flying drones there at any height is illegal, as far as I know. Unless they're testing them at the airport, like they will be at mine. Then it's just hunky dory to have them skimming your rooftop and treetops.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2015, 19:05 »
0
Are you within 5 miles of an airport or military airport? If so, flying drones there at any height is illegal, as far as I know. Unless they're testing them at the airport, like they will be at mine. Then it's just hunky dory to have them skimming your rooftop and treetops.
No I am only in a flight path for their training and a direct line to get over the water so they can hit the afterburner and exceed the sound barrier legally.

Besides they are not allowed to fly below 400 feet in civilian airspace but they do quite often.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 19:07 by ruxpriencdiam »

Shelma1

« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2015, 19:46 »
0
They're allowed to fly below 10,000 feet. If you're in a military flight path I doubt you're allowed to fly drones. We have a public use airport, MOA and Coast Guard station around here. So we get Coast Guard choppers, military fighter jets and general aviation aircraft. The military pilots have managed to cause a forest fire that burned down dozens of homes and strafed my niece and nephew's grammar school by mistake. And now we'll get drone testing too. Fun times.

« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2015, 02:47 »
+1
Ha...what are they going to do when we all have flying cars and jet packs?

« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2015, 21:13 »
+1
Here's a good article and show on drone use.

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/the-age-of-the-drone

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2015, 04:35 »
-1
drones will be soon banned everywhere because people are abusing and misusing these new "toys" ... sadly every time a new technology pops up there's always a bunch of idiots ruining it for everyone :(

at best, only operators carrying a civil aviation licence or whatever will be allowed to buy and operate drones.

i think this new tech is too much underestimated, you can easily kill somebody misusing a drone "just for fun" ...
i warmly welcome very strict laws against as-s holes running drones.


« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2015, 15:35 »
+2
i warmly welcome very strict laws against as-s holes running drones.

That's easy for people to say when they're not small video producers like myself that can't afford to get a pilot's license for something no more dangerous than the thousands of gas-powered radio control airplanes already out there.

The beauty of the DJI Phantom, etc. is that their low cost allows producers like me to provide a great service to our clients at an affordable rate.

« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2015, 19:03 »
0
i warmly welcome very strict laws against as-s holes running drones.

That's easy for people to say when they're not small video producers like myself that can't afford to get a pilot's license for something no more dangerous than the thousands of gas-powered radio control airplanes already out there.

The beauty of the DJI Phantom, etc. is that their low cost allows producers like me to provide a great service to our clients at an affordable rate.

Elvinstar, you are so right.

At the same time the FAA came out with prohibitive restrictions on drone use by American citizens, the Obama administration announced that it will sell weaponized drones to foreign countries. We lose our freedoms, and foreigners are empowered to kill people using technologies paid for by us taxpayers. And some people think that is right.  :'(

Uncle Pete

« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2015, 10:33 »
+2
We are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to some technology. I pointed out to a friend that we have had model airplanes, radio controlled, with cameras, for fifty years. He started shouting, "but they aren't armed! People will put weapons in these drones..."

They are model airplanes and helicopters. They have nice cameras, and limited lift capabilities. Taking photos from the air, would be fun, but I can't afford a plane (see above) heck I can't even afford a "Drone".

People are going overboard with the dangers and getting all excited about a toy. UAVs are not drones.

Now if citizen had armed drones, yes I'd get quite upset. Also as people have pointed out back on other pages, if I had them buzzing my back yard, or invading my privacy, I'd be tempted to shoot one down. (probably illegal on my part) The laws say you can't fly within five miles of a commercial airport. The electronics is being programmed to prevent the UAVs from flying in restricted airspace.

Like anything else in this world, most people are responsible and the news will stir up interest using the exceptions. This is the same with "drones" and sensationalism about incidents. Come on , they have been around for 50 years!

I'll add this: Automobiles were so alarming to livestock that Vermont passed a state law requiring a person to walk in front of a car carrying a red warning flag, and some rural counties banned them altogether.

Pennsylvania 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified. (it was fortunately vetoed by the Governor)

Technology and toys. These things are hardly able to lift themselves and a GoPro. That's a personal UAV.

Now if someone is asking about something that can fly a DSLR, which starts to get large and powerful, I'd say there need to be regulations on who can fly them and where.

But lets not lump everything that flies a little camera into the same class as an armed drone that carries a rocket!

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2015, 23:11 »
+2
We lose our freedoms, and foreigners are empowered to kill people using technologies paid for by us taxpayers. And some people think that is right.  :'(

flying your drone in my garden or spying on private property is not your "freedom" and thanks god the civil aviation authorities are now pushing for new draconian anti-drone laws.

as for technology, what makes you think it's been made or designed in the USA ?? all the first prototypes (including toys) and all the early working models of what is now known as Helicopter were built in Europe.

and DJI itself is based in Shenzhen, China.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2015, 23:17 »
0
We are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to some technology. I pointed out to a friend that we have had model airplanes, radio controlled, with cameras, for fifty years. He started shouting, "but they aren't armed! People will put weapons in these drones..."

YES they will ... because this tech is not cumbersome as the old radio-controlled cr-ap sold in toy stores in the past, drones work out of the box, they're a turn-key solution unlike the old kits requiring hacks and a technical background.

the octo-copters on sale now (3-4000$) can pull up as much as 5-6kg of load and they've 15-30 minutes of battery ... that's way more than enough to carry small bombs or remote-controlled weapons.

« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2015, 12:12 »
0
My understanding is that FAA is trying to regulate commercial use of drones.
It means that I will be still able to fly drones (responsibly or not) for fun and shoot pictures,
but not sell them ...

Is flying with weapons and bombs considered a commercial activity? No license required here ...

« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2015, 19:22 »
+2
It seems to me that people using UAVs commercially (like myself) are more likely to be responsible and to have insurance than hobbyists. It feels like the FAA is focusing the regulation in the wrong direction.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2015, 20:41 »
+2
That's what I was trying to say before. Also I did write that the little ones will barely carry a GoPro or extra battery pack. The big expensive ones are a different problem.

Commercial use, units with heavy lifting or larger mass themselves, should be regulated. Hobby use, even one of us shooting with a sport camera, is just having some fun.

The commercial label just confuses things terribly.

Lets say "Professional Photography" and now I want people to explain who's a professional or not. Then go back to "Commercial" and tell me, someone making 28 cents is a professional doing commercial work?

Let me straighten out what I'm writing. The size of the craft and the weight, is more important than labeling someone who makes a photo for sale as commercial. That's not the same as a TV camera flying over some news scene. Defining the USE, doesn't change the person at the controls, or make them more responsible or less responsible.

Don't prejudge.




It seems to me that people using UAVs commercially (like myself) are more likely to be responsible and to have insurance than hobbyists. It feels like the FAA is focusing the regulation in the wrong direction.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 20:51 by Uncle Pete »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2015, 10:33 »
0
Yeah big difference between Drones which are primarily Military armed 1/2 scale unmanned aircraft compared to the general public's tiny little model aircraft!

That's what I was trying to say before. Also I did write that the little ones will barely carry a GoPro or extra battery pack. The big expensive ones are a different problem.

Commercial use, units with heavy lifting or larger mass themselves, should be regulated. Hobby use, even one of us shooting with a sport camera, is just having some fun.

The commercial label just confuses things terribly.

Lets say "Professional Photography" and now I want people to explain who's a professional or not. Then go back to "Commercial" and tell me, someone making 28 cents is a professional doing commercial work?

Let me straighten out what I'm writing. The size of the craft and the weight, is more important than labeling someone who makes a photo for sale as commercial. That's not the same as a TV camera flying over some news scene. Defining the USE, doesn't change the person at the controls, or make them more responsible or less responsible.

Don't prejudge.




It seems to me that people using UAVs commercially (like myself) are more likely to be responsible and to have insurance than hobbyists. It feels like the FAA is focusing the regulation in the wrong direction.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2015, 12:00 »
0
And who is gonna regulate the Speeders that Honda is making?

Will it be DMV or the FAA?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun

« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2015, 13:22 »
0


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun

« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2015, 22:51 »
0
Here's a cheap way to get a decent (from the reviews that I've read) UAV:

http://www.gearbest.com/rc-quadcopters/pp_113550.html

Uncle Pete

« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2015, 11:39 »
0
Interesting, estimated 15 minutes flight (is that lifetime for the money? :) ) Lifting capacity 12oz / 350gms
Hero in a case, 5.5 OZ, I wonder how that effects the flight time, since more weight takes more energy to lift and keep in the air.

I'm still worried that the UAV will fly up, lose radio contact and Bye Bye toy RC Quadracopter and GoPro.  :-\

I ran RC boats, hydros, tunnel hulls and mono-hulls. Kept one sailboat and one outboard. Even those managed to go off on their own, but in a pond or lake, it's not a total loss. (usually)

Here's a cheap way to get a decent (from the reviews that I've read) UAV:

http://www.gearbest.com/rc-quadcopters/pp_113550.html

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2015, 15:51 »
0

Uncle Pete

« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2015, 16:47 »
0
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2015/3/12/faa_tells_lutz_man_t.html

LUTZ --

Flying your drone could get you in a lot of trouble with the Federal Aviation Administration, as a Lutz man has found out firsthand.

Jayson Hanes likes fly his drone above and around different landmarks in the Bay area, then post the video on his YouTube page.

"I'm just trying to get that shot," he said. "You know, like you would with any camera, whether it be a cell phone or a full size DSLR."

His videos get a lot of hits, but now the FAA is stepping in and telling him to stop posting videos.

Hanes got a letter from the federal agency stating that he is considered a commercial operator because he has the potential to collect money from YouTube based on the number of people who click on his videos.

I havent done anything commercial, Hanes said.

But FAA officials beg to differ. They say the mere fact that there are ads on YouTube means he has the opportunity to make a profit.

In an email, FAA officials state, "The FAA's goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws.

But Hanes says he may voluntarily not comply. He doesnt feel hes doing anything wrong and says hes not making any money.

In the meantime, I'm not about to run and hide," he said. "I dont think that's the way we should conduct ourselves, is run and hide.

FAA officials have not responded to requests for clarification as to how they can get drone enthusiasts to "voluntarily" comply with the rules.


I find it amusing as this is starting to be like photographers getting stopped for being photographers.  :-\

Here's another one, no drone, but I was posting, so here goes:

NY: Walkway over the Hudson incident
Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by: "David J.Williams"

The Walkway over the Hudson is a linear park converted from an old railroad bridge that spans the Hudson River between Highland and Poughkeepsie, NY and is part of a walking/biking trail in the area. It has become popular with the general public and is also popular for railfans as the walkway provides an elevated view of the CSX River Subdivision on the West shore of the Hudson as well as Metro-North and Amtrak Passenger operations on the East shore. I have shot video and stills from the walkway on several occasions. This past Wednesday, I was set up with my backpack on the walkway surface and my scanner playing on the CSX frequency. As trains would approach, I would grab the camera and take shots of the trains. I was on scene for a couple of hours when a park service employee on routine patrol stopped by to say hello. She asked me if my radio was a ham radio....I replied that it was a scanner and that I use it to monitor train operations as part of my train photography hobby...lets me know when a train is near so I can be prepared to grab shots...If the train has interesting power, I will email it to other railfans further down the line to give them heads ups on what is coming toward them as I was doing with my smartphone. She replied all fine and good and then explained that the reason she stopped by was that several pedestrians walking by me had reported me as suspicious because I had a backpack ( with nothing inside aside from camera gear and bottled water) and that I was broadcasting railroad info on my radio. I responded that it was all simply related to the train hobby....She then wished me a good day and moved on.... Railfans routinely shoot from that walkway with scanners in hand and have done so for the several years that the walkway has been open..Internet searches will produce a wealth of pictures and videos shot from that walkway but apparently many in the general public do not understand the railfan hobby and the use of scanners as part of the hobby....Had I not had my radio playing, I probably would not have generated much attention.


Did I ever mention that I wear an earpiece, when I'm railfan shooting. I wonder if that's even more suspicious looking?  :) Fact is, I can hear the trains better and if they are near me, there's no way to hear anything on the scanner, without an earpiece in.


« Reply #73 on: March 16, 2015, 12:29 »
+3

« Reply #74 on: March 16, 2015, 13:44 »
+1
Marek, tnx for sharing.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #75 on: March 16, 2015, 19:30 »
+1
Alfred Hitchcock would be proud that his birds have hatched new eggs. Audi is having fun. How about the tow truck driver / Moby Dick ad. They still show that one.

http://www.enfemenino.com/video/see_492347/tippi-hedren-the-birds-trapped-in-a-phone-booth-1963.html

Tippi Hedren in the phone booth.



They are coming ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcV71liAMwc
« Last Edit: March 17, 2015, 11:46 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #76 on: March 16, 2015, 20:05 »
+1
They are coming ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcV71liAMwc
Great ;D (Don't tell the drone-phobes that Audis are likely to kill a whole lot more people than drones, or they will be wanting to outlaw cars.)

« Reply #77 on: August 19, 2015, 11:21 »
0
Drone found on the White House lawn this morning i the wake of a historic Blizzard that is arriving and it is  already snowing in DC!

Gee I wonder why?

Think maybe just maybe because someone wanted to get aerials of the snowstorm and perhaps the wind blew it off course and into the Lawn.

Now another reason for limitations.

that "reason for limitations" will, fortunately, not cut it anymore once they found out that it was one of their "own guys" (drunk, and flying the copter after "borrowing" it). The entire story speaks for the quality of Obama's security staff (same as his political staff, think Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder & Co): drunk, reckless, and unreliable...

Whackos -- but they hopefully leave us alone with more unreasonable "limitations" there.

« Reply #78 on: August 19, 2015, 11:24 »
0
They are coming ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcV71liAMwc
Great ;D (Don't tell the drone-phobes that Audis are likely to kill a whole lot more people than drones, or they will be wanting to outlaw cars.)

correct -- in fact, it should read "Audis and BMWs" though ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4273 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 09:49
by disorderly
25 Replies
13268 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
2 Replies
2399 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 15:28
by nicksimages
3 Replies
989 Views
Last post January 26, 2019, 03:15
by PZF
8 Replies
511 Views
Last post May 13, 2019, 19:42
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results