Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission, and everyone is happy.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Airport exclusion zone would be important. I would like to limit them to > 250 feet. If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500 > feet could ruin their day. > > *From:* Sean Heskett <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty > > 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 < >> 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 < >>> 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" < >>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>>> *To: *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 < >>>> 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. >>> >> >> >
