Drones Are They

Another example of regulations keeping the man down.
 
$1,000 for a 10 min flight? $10,000 for a helicopter drone. I'll take them up for $100 and let them fly the aircraft for a while. :D
 
Not using for commercial purposes, they say? They lie like an old dog.

If one of these shows its ugly self over my property, I believe I'd find a creative way to bring that sucker down. It's over my house, low enough, it's mine for the taking.
 
SCCutler said:
Not using for commercial purposes, they say? They lie like an old dog.
****My thoughts, precisely.****

If one of these shows its ugly self over my property, I believe I'd find a creative way to bring that sucker down. It's over my house, low enough, it's mine for the taking.[/QUOTE
**** Yup, fully agree.

HR
Click to expand...
 
SCCutler said:
If one of these shows its ugly self over my property, I believe I'd find a creative way to bring that sucker down. It's over my house, low enough, it's mine for the taking.
Click to expand...
If someone paid a pilot/photographer to take some pictures of their property for use by their real estate agent would that **** you off as much as if someone paid these guys to do the same thing? Assuming here that their property adjoined yours.
 
Been practicing my Skeet shooting skills recently. Just sayin.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
If someone paid a pilot/photographer to take some pictures of their property for use by their real estate agent would that **** you off as much as if someone paid these guys to do the same thing? Assuming here that their property adjoined yours.
Click to expand...

A pilot operating legally? Nope.
 
SCCutler said:
A pilot operating legally? Nope.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't understand the instant bias against drones. I get it that this guy is operating illegally, and there isn't an excuse for breaking the law. But let's fast forward to 2015 when this operation should be able to come out of the closet. The only difference between the drone operator and a pilot with a cameraman that I can see is the drone will have to operate at a much lower altitude, and will do so at an extremely reduced cost.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the population will never see a drone anywhere near their back yard. I expect the hordes of helicopters currently flying over the property of the Hollywood set will be replaced with drones over time, but for those of us that aren't public figures? Not so much.
 
Can your nosy neighbor buy a drone and shoot pictures through your upstairs windows then?

It's the same thing.

There's a reason we require search warrants here. Want to shoot video of my house, find a Judge who agrees.

That's the reason folks don't like drones. We know they're a game changer. When law enforcement has to fly an expensive helicopter and humans who can be witnesses, it's ok.

When they can fly 30 or 40 all day, every day, because they're cheap, it's the same argument as traffic cameras and automatic tickets.

You have a right to know who your accuser is. But when your accuser has 100 eyes and ears, things are a bit weird, wouldn't you say?

If we had similar eyes and ears on them, it might be a fair game. Most Public Safety communications systems will be hard encrypted by the end of the decade.

The old adage "you can't fight City Hall" gets stronger by the year, and we pay for it and vote for it. Until we get over our strange love affair with laws and more laws, we get what we asked for.
 
denverpilot said:
Can your nosy neighbor buy a drone and shoot pictures through your upstairs windows then?

It's the same thing.

There's a reason we require search warrants here. Want to shoot video of my house, find a Judge who agrees.

That's the reason folks don't like drones. We know they're a game changer. When law enforcement has to fly an expensive helicopter and humans who can be witnesses, it's ok.

When they can fly 30 or 40 all day, every day, because they're cheap, it's the same argument as traffic cameras and automatic tickets.

You have a right to know who your accuser is. But when your accuser has 100 eyes and ears, things are a bit weird, wouldn't you say?

If we had similar eyes and ears on them, it might be a fair game. Most Public Safety communications systems will be hard encrypted by the end of the decade.

The old adage "you can't fight City Hall" gets stronger by the year, and we pay for it and vote for it. Until we get over our strange love affair with laws and more laws, we get what we asked for.
Click to expand...
The nosy neighbor will need to get a permit for his drone, just like anyone else, which can be revoked if he abuses the privilege. It would be much easier for him to put a camera on a flagpole and snap all the pictures he wants for much less $$.

Drones/UAV/UAS are a fact of life. They will be with us, in ever increasing levels of capabilities and technologies, for as far in to the future as you can imagine. One can either shake their fists in the air or take an active part in shaping how they will be used and regulated.

protip: letters to congressmen work much better if they contain less fist shaking and more intelligent constructive suggestions. Nate, with your writing skills I doubt you would have much of a problem getting your congressman involved. :yesnod:
 
Nah... I get form letters from staffers. They know I'm not coming to any $10K a plate dinners. I write to 'em, though. If nothing else, it's cathartic.

When I really get bent, is when a staffer picks a hot topic from their list of hot topics, and sends back a form letter saying thanks for the input on XYZ hot topic, when it wasn't even the subject of the letter I sent.

They look at key words and choose whatever form letter to send, based on those, apparently. I got a form letter back about the Patriot Act once when I wrote about FCC frequency allocation issues.

Kinda slowed my roll even bothering to send letters, once that happened. They just aren't really interested and have far too many people represented under far too few representatives at the national level.

I've noticed that faxes get better quality responses over e-mails, and many Congress members make it near impossible to find direct contact info these days. They let you "auto-choose" from a drop down of those hot button topics on their websites.

I really don't think the system works well anymore as a representative form of Government. Not quite sure how to fix it, though. Too many people.

Don't mean to sound gloomy about it, at least we can try, but effectiveness of writing or calling seems pretty low.

It's what makes me the most bummed that large aviation organizations don't seem to go after things very hard. They barely have the numbers to get heard, but then only fire at one or two topics a year. I get the whole concept of "keep your powder dry, and don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes", but there's also value in being the noisy, squeaky, wheel. I'm sure they have some excellent power-broker negotiation folks working Washington, but the effectiveness seems pretty low.

In this particular case, I can't find anyone "on the street" that really thinks drones will make them any safer or that we really need them, unless... Unless they're an Agency who wants a new budget for a new plaything, or they're selling the new playthings. Those folks seem to get heard. I have a bad feeling that it's all about the money, not really the public good.

Sorry, long answer. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I haven't seen any evidence that writing skill or critical thinking garners much attention from my local Congressman. Even less from my Senators.
 
denverpilot said:
When I really get bent, is when a staffer picks a hot topic from their list of hot topics, and sends back a form letter saying thanks for the input on XYZ hot topic, when it wasn't even the subject of the letter I sent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I received one of those several years ago. Convinced me to stop writing, until I had a problem that *only* my congressman could help with. Sent a letter, got a staffer assigned to my case, got the issue resolved to my satisfaction. So my mileage has varied. :redface:

In this particular case, I can't find anyone "on the street" that really thinks drones will make them any safer or that we really need them, unless... Unless they're an Agency who wants a new budget for a new plaything, or they're selling the new playthings. Those folks seem to get heard. I have a bad feeling that it's all about the money, not really the public good.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe that most of the police/government agencies that are contemplating starting up a UAV program view it as a way to expand their aviation department with minimal impact on their aviation budget. The guys that are successful in pushing such a proposal through will get kudos for "thinking outside the box to expand the effectiveness of his department while working within tight budget constraints". And stuff.
 
denverpilot said:
I really don't think the system works well anymore as a representative form of Government. Not quite sure how to fix it, though. Too many people.
Click to expand...

I would break the country down in to smaller organizational units which would have a much better citizen to representative ration, and then make sure that these organizational units had the authority to deal with most issues. That would certainly help, and these organizational units could always work a level up if they needed to coordinate, but the personalized representation would still be there.


// Oh no! Have I become one of those people who makes sarcastic commentary on current events?! Say it ain't so!!
 
bluesky74656 said:
I would break the country down in to smaller organizational units which would have a much better citizen to representative ration, and then make sure that these organizational units had the authority to deal with most issues.
Click to expand...

You mean like limiting the FedGov to its enumerated powers, and leaving everything else to the states and locals?
 
Government uses drones as a cost cutting measure as well a them being safer than piloted aircraft. As long as money is part of the issue, it's commercial.

The article said universities are using them for educational purposes. If the universities that use them charge students tuition, it seems to me, that makes them a business and are using drones for commercial purposes.

What this boils down to is that it is OK for government & education to use drones as a cost cutting measure, but it is not OK for civilians to do the same, even though it is their tax dollars that are ultimately giving the government and education the money to use them.

It is OK for us to save money, but it is not OK for you. We will fine you and/or jail you if you try it.

-John
 
bluesky74656 said:
I would break the country down in to smaller organizational units which would have a much better citizen to representative ration, and then make sure that these organizational units had the authority to deal with most issues. That would certainly help, and these organizational units could always work a level up if they needed to coordinate, but the personalized representation would still be there.


// Oh no! Have I become one of those people who makes sarcastic commentary on current events?! Say it ain't so!!
Click to expand...

It is becoming obvious that we need block captains in every neighborhood.

(For you younger folks, block captains were used in Communist countries as a method of observation and control of the population. Every apartment building had one, every block in the cities and suburbs had one.)

-John
 
SCCutler said:
Not using for commercial purposes, they say? They lie like an old dog.

If one of these shows its ugly self over my property, I believe I'd find a creative way to bring that sucker down. It's over my house, low enough, it's mine for the taking.
Click to expand...

Who owns the property rights 400ft above your lot? According to an audiobook on history of law in America, at one time property owners owned all of the sky above their land. Then as aviation caught on and caused problems with livestock, legal challenges came up as land owners wanted to regulate traffic in their airspace the government took it all.

I don't know how accurate thar recount was, but who controls the right to that space?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top