DescentBB

We all have been hearing stories of drones going where they shouldn't but the following is why we are going to have to look at licensing drone operators much the same as we do people who carry firearms. This also means background checks. Registration numbers etc. What brings this up? I was just reading how in Alaska a drone was spotted following children home from school. Parents were naturally upset and the police were called. They found the operator who was not breaking any laws and other than a warning, not much was done.

So I started thinking like a good liberal would and realized drones would be the perfect tool for pedophiles. They could pick their targets, follow them to see what routes they take and determine the best spot where they could grab them. Do we want to let our children be subject to such surveillance and potential threats? I say no and the sooner we control this dangerous activity the better. Perhaps such things as requiring a noise emitter to be active while in flight. Special licenses to mount a camera on them. Limit the range at which they can fly. I urge you to contact your state representatives to promote these ideas...after-all one must think of the children.

That is retarded.

Krom wrote:That is retarded.

Whats retarded? That a drone was following children around or my ideas of controlling drone use?

both
but, especially your trying to channel what liberals think as you don't have a clue.

So you are against protecting the children. Good to know.

woodchip wrote:We all have been hearing stories of drones going where they shouldn't but the following is why we are going to have to look at licensing drone operators much the same as we do people who carry firearms. This also means background checks. Registration numbers etc. What brings this up? I was just reading how in Alaska a drone was spotted following children home from school. Parents were naturally upset and the police were called. They found the operator who was not breaking any laws and other than a warning, not much was done.

So I started thinking like a good liberal would and realized drones would be the perfect tool for pedophiles. They could pick their targets, follow them to see what routes they take and determine the best spot where they could grab them. Do we want to let our children be subject to such surveillance and potential threats? I say no and the sooner we control this dangerous activity the better. Perhaps such things as requiring a noise emitter to be active while in flight. Special licenses to mount a camera on them. Limit the range at which they can fly. I urge you to contact your state representatives to promote these ideas...after-all one must think of the children.

wow you are so so wrong on so many levels.

This is the exact line of thinking that us hobbyists have been trying to quash for months now. I'll deal with this later.

Let me strap on my conservative thinking cap real quick... whoa man.. the colors.... the solution is.... tax cuts for the wealthy!!!

Vander wrote:Let me strap on my conservative thinking cap real quick... whoa man.. the colors.... the solution is.... tax cuts for the wealthy!!!

So you think it is funny that unregulated users fly their drones by commercial airports threatening planes taking off or landing?

No, he thinks it's funny that you try to think like a liberal.

Ferno wrote:

wow you are so so wrong on so many levels.

This is the exact line of thinking that us hobbyists have been trying to quash for months now. I'll deal with this later.[/quote]

Obviously not wrong if you hobbyist have been trying to quash it. all it will take is for a drone user to screw up and cause a loss of life and you will start to understand what all the hobbyist who hunt and target shoot have gone through. The difference now is it is your ox being gored.

I have no sympathy for hobbyists, my business is tightly controlled by government. Every time I turn around I have some new rule or requirement to comply with.

When some dipsh!t's drone gets sucked into a commercial jet engine crashing the plane and killing everyone on board, you better believe there are going to be regulations all drone users will have to follow.

Most of our laws and regulations are there because some dipsh!t pushed things too far. It's pretty much why we can't have nice things.

Vander wrote:When some dipsh!t's drone gets sucked into a commercial jet engine crashing the plane and killing everyone on board, you better believe there are going to be regulations all drone users will have to follow.

Most of our laws and regulations are there because some dipsh!t pushed things too far. It's pretty much why we can't have nice things.

And that's why we have to have those hated "regulations". There's always someone who's going to push the envelope of what's the right purpose for something and end up be a jerk, a pervert or a criminal.

I'm with woody. We don't need people using drones to follow anyone, especially children. Drones should be a hobby for entertainment and not used as a tool for illegal activity or spying on or otherwise monitoring the actions of other people. I think that needs to apply in most circumstances even the authorities.

Maybe the regulations should exist before some dipshit kills a hundred people.

Sometimes, no one's thought of what extreme stupidity a person could possibly think up. That's why most regulations are created after the crap has hit the fan. No one thought of the corner cases.

Well before everyone gets too carried away, there's already a solution in place.


the AMA code of conduct, which all responsible hobbyists adhere to.

Let's start with the official model aircraft safety code.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

the FAA model aircraft operations guidelines

https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/


As for background checks; regulations and what not...

this:




is not this:

Now how many people do you supposed follow a "safety code" voluntarily? Maybe most honest hobbyists do, but there are always the dishonest ones who ruin the show for the honest ones. How do we police those dishonest people without a few laws that have the teeth of punishment? The only thing that makes drones so different is that they can fly anywhere to higher altitudes and farther distances from the operator than model aircraft, carry cameras that transmit back to the operator and can hover anywhere the operator wants them to.

tunnelcat wrote:Now how many people do you supposed follow a "safety code" voluntarily? Maybe most honest hobbyists do, but there are always the dishonest ones who ruin the show for the honest ones. How do we police those dishonest people without a few laws that have the teeth of punishment? The only thing that makes drones so different is that they can fly anywhere to higher altitudes and farther distances from the operator than model aircraft, carry cameras that transmit back to the operator and can hover anywhere the operator wants them to.

The only reason why these "drones" [and let's start calling them what they really are, multirotors. drones are military vessels] go out of line-of-sight is due to the FPV gear they have on them. Most multirotors don't have FPV gear on them, and most multirotors that do have FPV gear on them don't fly very far out at all.

Those people you see doing stupid things with multirotors, like.. flying them over a busy highway (happened in russia) and letting the thing get creamed by a semi, or the dingleberry SS agent flying it over the white house lawn drunk, or the goofballs who fly too close to active runways (seriously??), there are already laws on the books to deal with these beacons of humanity. And they get dealt with accordingly.

and yeah...


This sort of reported behaviour has been the result of multirotors becoming almost idiot-proof to fly with GPS hold and return-to-home features. Just click a switch and the machine does it all for you. Just two years ago, you had to have some instruction on how to fly, and a good amount of experience to even attempt it. Multirotors were a lot harder to pilot than your standard fixed-wing aircraft back then.



I seem to remember posting about something closely related to this some months ago, and no one seemed to care then.

Thanks for pointing out the growing distinction between drone and multi-rotor. It is very helpful. I'll do my best to refer to them as such from now on.

Ferno wrote:Well before everyone gets too carried away, there's already a solution in place.


the AMA code of conduct, which all responsible hobbyists adhere to.

Let's start with the official model aircraft safety code.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

the FAA model aircraft operations guidelines

https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/


As for background checks; regulations and what not...

this:




is not this:

Before you get to blase protecting your sport:

Intern shot with 80,000-volt, drone-mounted stun gun

http://multirotorforums.com/threads/int ... gun.16459/

"Did anyone watch tonight's episode of Sons Of Guns? They mounted a gun on what looks like the s800 and selling it to defense contractors."

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2134998

Scroll down one post to video. So much for your quads being toys and not having to be regulated.

Spidey wrote:Maybe the regulations should exist before some **** kills a hundred people.

yet everytime that same logic is used, for,say, Fracking for oil and gas and injecting the waste into the ground, or similar untried technology, the outcry from the right is overwhelmingly negative......

Well there are good sense regulations and there are stupid ones.

Spidey wrote:Well there are good sense regulations and there are stupid ones.

one group consisting of the ones you agree with, or at least were told to agree with?

I make up my own mind, that should be apparent to you by now.

not trying to trap you, Spidey(oh, gawd, unintentional pun....I'm going to leave it in).....I just wanted to see how you define which are which, and you are like any of us. Thus, we simply seem to have to accept that all of us feel some regulations are unwarranted. If enough do around any given one or set, I would presume they can be overturned or revoked. But, as noted, MOST regulations develop out of reaction to events or bad experiences, rather than proactive supposition that a lot of stuff is probably harmful until proven otherwise. I'm not sure that one can swing to the latter approach without killing a real economy of any sort.

Here's the question that you guys should be asking...

Why should there be regulations for something that existing laws are more than capable of dealing with?

Why should I (and many others) be saddled with regulations that would only serve to unnecessarily restrict what we should do with our own property? If it's about spying inside public places, why are there not regulations for cell phone cameras? If it's about pedophilia, why aren't vans saddled with extra regulations, and what is wrong with the existing laws? If it's about airspace above your own place, what is wrong with Air Rights? If it's about spying into your home, why aren't telescopes regulated? and what is wrong with the voyeurism laws?

Ferno wrote:Here's the question that you guys should be asking...

Why should there be regulations for something that existing laws are more than capable of dealing with?

specific examples? I have a idea where you're going, but clarify with examples.....

I just added them.

If overly restrictive regulations are put in place, stuff like this will not be able to exist.

[youtube]y-rEI4bezWc[/youtube]

Very, very funny. They want to replace medical emergency on drones? Firstly they are highly dependent on weather conditions. Secondly, in my opinion this is a very dangerous idea, because instead of insulin can be attached to 300 grams of RDX, for example. It's just a perfect suicide bombers.

Ferno wrote:Here's the question that you guys should be asking...

Why should there be regulations for something that existing laws are more than capable of dealing with?

Why should I (and many others) be saddled with regulations that would only serve to unnecessarily restrict what we should do with our own property? If it's about spying inside public places, why are there not regulations for cell phone cameras? If it's about pedophilia, why aren't vans saddled with extra regulations, and what is wrong with the existing laws? If it's about airspace above your own place, what is wrong with Air Rights? If it's about spying into your home, why aren't telescopes regulated? and what is wrong with the voyeurism laws?

Not arguing with you Ferno but those of us who own firearms make the same arguments. Many laws exist but it seems people think even more are needed. Welcome to the club.

I've removed the off-topic posts.

Now my question is this: what made woody think regulations was a liberal thing?

I posted the OP on a multirotor group and the reaction was well.. everyone went nuclear.

At first gun regs may not of been liberal enacted. Some of the first laws were enacted down south to keep blacks in check. The conceal carry law is once such. It has been the last 30 years where liberal groups (try and find a conservative group that has spent as much time and effort) like the Brady Bunch have gone out of their way to control who can own and what types of firearms they can purchase. We are to the point where the number of rounds in a magazine is regulated.

Apply this to your drones. Someday they will try to regulate control distance, what you can mount on it, how powerful a engine and how much it can lift. All this will come about when someone does something stupid and people die. The writing is on the wall so I suggest your groups contact any of the possible regulating agencies and try to work with them. Oh, and forming a National Rotor Association will help also Good luck. Hate to see your hobby get outright banned.

woodchip wrote:At first gun regs may not of been liberal enacted. Some of the first laws were enacted down south to keep blacks in check. The conceal carry law is once such. It has been the last 30 years where liberal groups (try and find a conservative group that has spent as much time and effort) like the Brady Bunch have gone out of their way to control who can own and what types of firearms they can purchase. We are to the point where the number of rounds in a magazine is regulated.

as it should be, as the Second Amendment purpose is obsolete,as has been pointed out....but, I digress. Back to topic, you write:

Apply this to your drones. Someday they will try to regulate control distance, what you can mount on it, how powerful a engine and how much it can lift..

within reason, why the hell shouldn't these and more be regulated in public airspace? It is, as with the gun laws, about PUBLIC SAFETY, which, as noted in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution, is the responsibility of the federal government.

callmeslick wrote:...
as it should be, as the Second Amendment purpose is obsolete,as has been pointed out....but, I digress.

The purpose of the right for citizens to keep and bear arms is not obsolete. There is no reason to imply there is a shelf life to it or any benchmark for usefulness. Those limits were not included.

I've never excercized my right to assemble and I'm sure the government could create a rally of opposition that absolutely dwarfs any that I could call together. Yet if you tried to claim that is proof I don't need the right anymore you would be wrong on that count as well.

A right to free speech? The government can out broadcast, out publish, out soapbox me....is my right to free speech thus obsolete?

You are fond of proclaiming things that are unfounded.
Making an assertion is not proof of the assertions validity.

And "digress" is a euphamism for what you did...'regurgitate spin' is much more appropriate.

Will, you have to forgive slick as he's been raised to believe the constitution is a living breathing document subject to change by his political party

now that you fellas have gotten the predictable, Pavlovian response to any retort to whining about sensible gun regulations, shall we return to unmanned aircraft? Do you really NOT think it prudent to set certain guidelines from the get-go, as opposed to waiting for certain logically expected outcomes to occur? Not somewhat limit the range of control? What do you envision the need for long range personal drones being, and who is supposed to pay for the increased need for monitoring and control over our airspace?

woodchip wrote:Apply this to your drones. Someday they will try to regulate control distance, what you can mount on it, how powerful a engine and how much it can lift. All this will come about when someone does something stupid and people die.

I'm almost 100% positive this will never happen.

why not, Ferno?