As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace. There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a bird strike.
We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary equipment to keep the national airspace safe. (Yes I said nasa...national AERONAUTICAL and space administration. They help invent the technology that the faa uses ;) On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever > they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above > 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that. > I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing > rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500', > which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed > to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission. > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of >> them being over private property without consent, you should be able to >> destroy them >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I >>> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >>> *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty >>> >>> >>> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and >>> it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful >>> with these things from day one >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>> >>>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil >>>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator >>>> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a >>>> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday >>>> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan >>>> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, >>>> 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most >>>> congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City >>>> and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,” >>>> the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft >>>> were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and >>>> altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a >>>> certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, the release >>>> said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it >>>> said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > >
