|| posted on 30-8-2016 at 13:15
One of the unresolved issues (and perhaps unresolvable) is flying over private property, and whether the owner of the property has any right to shot
it down. These regs deftly avoided getting into that.
This has already occurred with flying over a public beach and someone complained; but it is likely that the complaint was in the new
"business"/untested area of the law for the police and they really were clueless (and I bet the demeanor of the drone operator had a great deal to
do with the police reaction, i. e., whether the police officer "suggested" that the operator move on, and the operator arrogantly told the cop to
'go fly a kite'--those kinds of actions/reactions never make it into a media article), although there are catch-all type categories for criminal
charges (such as "disturbing the peace").
Flying in conventional fixed-wing aircraft over private property never generates complaints, although there are regulations re how low you can fly
over terrain (don't remember exactly but it's pretty low).
Someone shot down a hobby drone last year, complaining that they were taping a family member sunbathing. Oddly, the news article did not mention
anything re the laws re firing a weapon (you cannot simply go out in your back yard and fire a gun such as target practice), to include the legality
of a bullet [re charges being filed], re the potential, if it misses the drone, killing someone as it descends back to the ground; a round can
literally kill someone re its trajectory speed at a considerable distance from where the gun was fired.
|| posted on 30-8-2016 at 09:54
|If they proliferate, I'm getting a few SAMs.
|| posted on 30-8-2016 at 09:41
If you want a free pizza it shouldn't be too hard to knock one out of the sky and just take what you get.......
|| posted on 29-8-2016 at 22:00
|Our drama Casualty celebrated 30 years of programming on Saturday by having a boy playing with new drone which hit into a helicopter. Quite apart
from the potential terrorist applications there is always the numpty factor. Very scary.
|| posted on 29-8-2016 at 21:46
I begin my reply to your post by again noting that I did not edit out/in anything from this article.
Thus I would point out that these regs found it 'necessary' not to interfere in mercantile affairs and in particular those, as pointed out [towardsthe end of the article] for those that want to hire a drone video company for their wedding (hopefully out of doors). Earlier in the article it
stated that the drones could NOT overfly people (without giving a distance as to how much offset is required). So I'm wondering just how you could
video a wedding and adhere to the non-overflight requirement?
I know, I know: Picky, Picky, Picky!!!!
What I personally find MOST scary is not the drones, but our govt, or what passes for it, and those that are in power. I no doubt am considered a
subversive since I don't wish to become EXPENDABLE for some grand cause that I don't understand, etc.,. The govt, on paper/press, is all for human
rights except for its own citizens.
|| posted on 29-8-2016 at 19:51
Please keep them on your side of the pond.
|| posted on 29-8-2016 at 19:04
|It's A Bird; It's Plane; No, It's A Commercial Drone!!!
The keyword in this article is that the weight allowed can be up to "55 lbs"; and you may not want to read the last paragraph re the drone operator
NOT having to demonstrate competence (the test noted in this article is a written test, NOT a flight test). By the way, I didn't leave anything out
re a liability insurance requirement either. Nor was there anything whether individual USA states could add their own regulations to include simply
banning them entirely.
WASHINGTON (AP) — There will be 600,000 commercial drone aircraft operating in the U.S. within the year as the result of new safety rules that
opened the skies to them on Monday, according to a Federal Aviation Administration estimate.
The rules governing the operation of small commercial drones were designed to protect safety without stifling innovation, FAA Administrator Michael
Huerta told a news conference.
Commercial operators initially complained that the new rules would be too rigid. The agency responded by creating a system to grant exemptions to some
of the rules for companies that show they can operate safely, Huerta said.
On the first day the rules were in effect the FAA had already granted 76 exemptions, most of them to companies that want to fly drones at night,
"With these rules, we have created an environment in which emerging technology can be rapidly introduced while protecting the safety of the world's
busiest, most complex airspace," he said.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said people are "captivated by the limitless possibilities unmanned aircraft offer." The few thousand
commercial drones that had been granted waivers to operate before Monday have been used to monitor crops, inspect bridges and transmission lines,
assist firefighters, film movies, and create real estate and wedding videos, among dozens of other uses.
In general, the new rules apply to drones weighing 55 pounds or less, and require commercial operators to:
—Keep the drone within sight at all times.
—Keep drones from flying over people not involved in their operation.
—Limit drone operations to the hours from a half-hour before sunrise to a half-hour after sunset.
—Limit speed to no more than 100 mph.
—Fly no higher than 400 feet.
Drone operators must also pass a test of their aeronautical knowledge administered by the FAA. More than 3,000 people had registered with the FAA to
take the test as of Monday.
The Air Line Pilots Association complained that the new regulations are "missing a key component" because there's no requirement that drone
operators first have an FAA pilot license to fly a plane. The FAA considered requiring drone operators to have manned aircraft pilot licenses, but
relented when the drone industry complained that the time and expense involved in obtaining a license, including considerable time practicing flying a
plane, would be prohibitive.