Quoted for truth.
If there's even a hint of truth to the fact that a selfish drone pilot kept emergency services from performing their duty, and protecting the community at large, then that person needs to be held accountable.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Flying Drones are becoming a life threatening problem here in California.
- Thread starter Stewie26
- Start date
Quoted for truth.
If there's even a hint of truth to the fact that a selfish drone pilot kept emergency services from performing their duty, and protecting the community at large, then that person needs to be held accountable.
This is the bill currently being pushed through congress. It's a shame a law is needed to keep civilian drone flyers away from fires but apparently it is, as public common sense is highly lacking.
Link Removed
Link Removed
And that is the attitude of people like you that really pisses off people like us.
Bicycles in the middle of the lane in an 80 mph zone are just stupid and annoying. Your hacky sack (sp) circle in the middle of a mall in the 80s was stupid and annoying. Your skateboard destroying/defacing public property is stupid and annoying. Your personal camera buzzing over my back yard is stupid and annoying (not to mention just creepy and perverted ........ What fascination do you people have with that sort of thing?).
Just because .05% of the population found a new hobby that doesn't mean it should affect the rest of us. Go play with your toys in the woods......
Are you within the law to accupy certain air space? Sure. Still stupid and annoying. You would also be within the law to stand in the middle of your front yard and sing "Henry the 8th" at the top of your lungs. But to your neighbors you would be..... well.... you already know.
I look at it this way: Let's assume I walk up on a traffic accident, decide that I need to film it, step into the road and start filming. When the ambulance comes, I refuse to step aside, so that I can continue to capture my footage. Certainly, I would be arrested, or at least treated harshly by the arriving LE officers. A drone pilot should have to live up to the same standards.
Y'all best not be filmin my backyard still with yer flyin machines.... might catch a bunch 'o bird shot.... No really. If I saw one directly over my yard I would be.... irritated. Greatly. I would resist the urge to shoot at it, because I'm not stupid. But I would not be able to resist the urge to follow it back to whence it came and have a chat with its operator. That would definitely happen.
Last edited:
You might think differently if it were your house burning down, or if it was a loved one trapped in a car wreck, and some douche had their drone buzzing around your head looking for "a great shot to post online".
Heroic indeed. Something tells me that it would be you facing the lawsuit, not him.
Honestly, something tells me that someone that harasses others remotely with a drone probably isn't the type to involve themselves in direct physical confrontation.
Most model aircraft folks have been flying unlicensed for 50 years can't hover, aren't fitted with cameras and aren't used to spy on homes or capture footage of natural disasters, thereby interfering with emergency personnel........
Furthermore, most model aircraft folks that have been flying unlicensed for 50 years use dedicated or remote land for their hobby, rather than launching their noisy aircraft over dense residential location.
It does come down most of the time to how they are charged/discharged, and a properly maintained cell should have no problems theoughout its operating life, as long as it doesn't become damaged. But the fact remains, LiPo battery tech is far more volatile than NiMH cells. A puffed cell that gets punctured or ruptured will most definitely smoke and quite possibly iginite, causing the entire battery pack to touch off. It's not that uncommon, actually. It became common enough in RC car racing that only hard shell LiPo packs are allowed now. Some RC aircraft still use the soft-sided packs because of the lighter weight.
That being said, LiFe cells are far less likely to go up in flames, but they don't seem to be used as much, as far as I can tell. Maybe that is an avenue the makers should be going down.
The problem here is that someone's wife or girlfriend may be sunbathing in the backyard...or their kids and their friends may be swimming...and the drone operator may be a total pervert (you can paint the rest of the picture from there).
There's simply no good reason for a drone to be hovering over someone's private property, IMO.
And that is the attitude of people like you that really pisses off people like us.
Bicycles in the middle of the lane in an 80 mph zone are just stupid and annoying. Your hacky sack (sp) circle in the middle of a mall in the 80s was stupid and annoying. Your skateboard destroying/defacing public property is stupid and annoying. Your personal camera buzzing over my back yard is stupid and annoying (not to mention just creepy and perverted ........ What fascination do you people have with that sort of thing?).
Just because .05% of the population found a new hobby that doesn't mean it should affect the rest of us. Go play with your toys in the wood...
Are you within the law to accupy certain air space? Sure. Still stupid and annoying. You would also be within the law to stand in the middle of your front yard and sing "Henry the 8th" at the top of your lungs. But to your neighbors you would be..... well.... you already know.
Geeze, Generalize much ? Not sure who 'you people' are as I personally have never done any of that... And I clock a lot of bicycle miles on the road...
Let's just keep it on point, eh ? The fire crew was basically done, the house is likely gutted. The fireman willfully engaged in the destruction of private property. That was the point.
Agreed if instead of hover, which is a phase of flight we substitute the word loiter or orbit. Sometimes you might fly a pattern that includes a few seconds of hover at a location - probably trying to recon a next way point in the pattern. Loiter or orbit would be a whole 'nother thing. If the drone is hanging around a few minutes. As opposed to say 5 or 10 second. I'd be inclined to have that chat.
Truth is that a decent quad with a go-pro can be well from your property line and get down to rather fine level of detail. So I would advise the nude sunbathing set that maybe they need to rethink their activity if privacy is a concern. Depending on sight lines, that 'surveiling Tom' doesn't need to be anywhere near your property...
And yeah, I find that aspect as creepy as anyone else... Then again nobody in my family is likely to be affected given our behavior. Less a concern for me.
Anything hovering over my property is the same as trespassing in my opinion and subject to whatever treatment I care to apply.
Unfortunately, I believe the FAA initially ruled that homeowners don't own the airspace over their properties, and this is where there have been issues.
To anyone who says anything along the lines of "if you're doing x,y, or z in your yard or house then you should probably rethink it", what gives you the right to basically tell someone how to conduct themselves on/in their property? I also don't do anything out of the ordinary, but I shouldn't have to possibly change my daily routine because of someone elses hobby.
If I decide to operate my RC car on the road and it gets crushed by an automobile, that's on me. In my opinion, if I decide to fly a drone over my neighbors house and they decide to drop it because it's interfering with what they're doing there, to me that's the equivalent of driving the RC car in the road.
Also, one of my hobbies is RC, and I like the idea of responsible drone usage, not the current wild-west atmosphere.
I think the word you're looking for is ''decreed''. I got no problem claiming property rights in the airspace between the ground and any regular aircraft flightpath. If LE needs access in pursuit of crims they can go for it. Anyone else can ask permission. I think judges will eventually hand down decisions reflecting that state of affairs.
FARs says the minimum altitude for civilian flight in urban areas is 1000 feet AGL. They could have a GPS xponders fitted in the drones to limit their maximum altitude to, say 700 feet. That way, there would never be an issue of collision between civilian drones and civilian aircraft.
Of course, this significantly increases the cost of the drones, and reduce the drone's flight performance due to added weight. But 100% of that cost would be absorbed by the drone buyer.
And it seems that nobody gives a flying fark about those people anyway.
Almost correct. This goes way back before there was an FAA. As aviation started to prosper in the US, individual states to tried regulate aircraft in the same manor as states regulate automobiles today. They were even licensing and registering individual aircraft just like cars. The Feds then realized that aviation was good for interstate commerce and did not want states to mingle in such maters. So they decided to declare the nation's airspace as a Federal National Asset giving them full control. They also decided that all US aircraft must be registered and licensed only by the federal government, not states. This is the reason that even today all US aircraft tail numbers must start with the letter "N" meaning "National" registration. When the FAA was established in the 50's as the successor of the CAA, Civil Aviation Authority, these rules were already in effect. It is only when the Feds, (FAA) come out with new rules covering drones will we see changes. The are suppose to working on it but it has been under study for a couple years now with no results.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
What I am finding out with regards to playing as I grow older- Latest: fishdude101101