Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gliderjohn on July 19, 2015, 09:06:52 AM
-
If you all have seen any recent news on S. Cal fires you would have seen where five drones flew into the flight paths of the air tankers delaying their drops for 25 minutes. This is not a good sign concerning drones. Hate to see this sort of thing because the drones can be so useful and show much promise but these behaviors screw it all up. Apparently there is going to have to be some serious prosecutions to get these jerks' attention. My rant of the day!
GliderJohn
-
I hope they can be traced back to the owners. Wonder if they are part of the news media?
-
hate to say this, but I hope that the FAA will put some regs in place before someone gets hurt/killed. But i don't see that as a deterrent.
-
I posted about this in the drone gun thread that was deleted. It's a problem. Hobby stuff is great, but there will be a serious accident caused by a yahoo with a drone before any real restrictions are put in place.
-
Restrictions and guidelines are already well into the planning stages however I am concerned how well they will be followed, how traceable violators will be and how severely they will be dealt with when found. That also goes for the A-holes flashing lasers at aircraft. Jet engines will not eat drones well.
GliderJohn
-
Only solution I can see is some type of jamming device on the water bombers that will make the drones loose signal and then command them to drop like a big chunk of plastic bird crap, wrecking them in the process.
-
Maybe a nose gunner with a maduce.
I can't imagine what will happen when gravity can be neutralized!!!
-
I think one of the problems is going to be when people get annoyed like I did when I pulled my .44 (written up in deleted thread). Slugs go a far distance when fired upward. The safety warning on a .22LR says it's got a mile range. Bigger loads in bigger calibers have more. That's the other reason we don't wing shoot with slugs. Instead we use a scoop of shot pellets that have a range of 100yd or so. So please, if you do decide to bring one down, in the interest of public safety, use the Mossberg, not the Mauser (changed by spellcheck to 'mouser').
-
Only solution I can see is some type of jamming device on the water bombers that will make the drones loose signal and then command them to drop like a big chunk of plastic bird crap, wrecking them in the process.
Unintended consequences, the drone hits something after being jammed and that is what causes the more significant damage or injury. There is no easy solution, the genie is out of the bottle. Our system of dealing with rapidadvances in technology is outdated.
-
New reality show on TV called "The Drone Catchers" coming soon.
-
I hope they can be traced back to the owners. Wonder if they are part of the news media?
If it was news media, as in commercial, the FAA can come down on them hard. If it was hobbyists, it gets a bit complicated.
No matter what, the FAA controls the air space. A 'public hanging' so to speak might not ne a bad thing.
-
If it was news media, as in commercial, the FAA can come down on them hard. If it was hobbyists, it gets a bit complicated.
No matter what, the FAA controls the air space. A 'public hanging' so to speak might not ne a bad thing.
In this case, in CA, all the news stations have and deploy news helicopters for covering stuff like this & (daily) car chases... In a smaller news market, however... I bet you will see local TV news using them pretty heavily soon.
-
I know nothing!
-
I think one of the problems is going to be when people get annoyed like I did when I pulled my .44 (written up in deleted thread). Slugs go a far distance when fired upward. The safety warning on a .22LR says it's got a mile range. Bigger loads in bigger calibers have more. That's the other reason we don't wing shoot with slugs. Instead we use a scoop of shot pellets that have a range of 100yd or so. So please, if you do decide to bring one down, in the interest of public safety, use the Mossberg, not the Mauser (changed by spellcheck to 'mouser').
Air soft. There are some very good ones out there that can easily bring down a drone as they are semi and full auto, fire a biodegradable 6mm BB and are very accurate. Non-lethal, so quiet no one knows you even fired it and just enough to hose down a drone.
-
Air soft. There are some very good ones out there that can easily bring down a drone as they are semi and full auto, fire a biodegradable 6mm BB and are very accurate. Non-lethal, so quiet no one knows you even fired it and just enough to hose down a drone.
Apparently attitudes are changing VERY quickly with the times, I'm glad to say.
Was only a few months ago when someone posted a sort of "Drones Are Coming And There's Nothing You Can Do About It" thread, upon which my posts became heavy with #6 shot, full chokes, and 32" barrels.
I was damned up street and down alley for being a superstitious, hopeless vandal, fighting a Luddite rearguard action against progressiveness and technology ....
And now look! Turns out I was in the vanguard. I'll still shoot any one of them that comes into range over my property, and will debate about the propriety of spying only while standing next to the scattered remains .....
Lannis
-
Geez Lannis you're clairvoyant :grin: Plenty of crazies where I live that would just love to shoot a drone if it got close enough.
-
If you all have seen any recent news on S. Cal fires you would have seen where five drones flew into the flight paths of the air tankers delaying their drops for 25 minutes. This is not a good sign concerning drones. Hate to see this sort of thing because the drones can be so useful and show much promise but these behaviors screw it all up. Apparently there is going to have to be some serious prosecutions to get these jerks' attention. My rant of the day!
GliderJohn
even worse....we had some total asshole here in Ct mount a hand gun to one and he posted video of it firing at a target.
Video of gun-shooting drone in Clinton prompts FAA investigation
Josh Scheinblum, WTNH Reporter and WTNH.com Staff
Published: July 17, 2015, 10:27 pm Updated: July 19, 2015, 10:23 am
34Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)34 Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) 999Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)999 Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Related Coverage
Woman charged with assault over �drone� flight
Westbrook woman granted probation in drone case
CLINTON, Conn. (WTNH) � The FAA is investigating after a video of a drone shooting a hand gun in Clinton, apparently created by a local teen, was posted to YouTube. You may think military officials are the only people who can legally have a machine like this but Clinton Police tell News 8 what is seen in the video doesn�t appear to violate any state laws.
Bill Piedra is CEO of a Manchester based company called Flying Robots. He is also a drone enthusiast who, as part of his business, constructs drones that deliver flotation devices to people in danger of drowning, but with this video he has concerns it may have ramifications for his entire industry.
�It�s shocking,� said Piedra. �I really hope it doesn�t inhibit the continued development of drones for good purposes.�
The teen behind the video is Austin Haughwout of Clinton. You may remember him from another drone YouTube video that surfaced last year where he claimed to have been attacked by a woman who thought he was using his drone to record her at Hammonasset State Park. Sunday, News 8 spoke to Haughwout�s father about this latest situation and were told it�s his belief his son did nothing wrong.
Connecticut lawyer and drone advocate Peter Sachs disagrees. He thinks Haughwout may have violated federal aviation laws.
�I think they might have something legal to worry about,� said Sachs.
�The FAA will investigate the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in a Connecticut park to determine if any Federal Aviation Regulations were violated,� the FAA said in a statement. �The FAA will also work with its law enforcement partners to determine if there were any violations of criminal statutes.�
-
I get a good laugh out of those Bridgestone golfball drone TV adds. :laugh:
-
The problem here is in large part due to youtube. All these people hear about getting huge dollar payouts if they make a viral video. So, idiots go out with cameras all over the place with complete disregard for their and other people's safety.
The drones are just another way for these idiots to get their moment of fame.
There are already pretty strict FAA guidelines for flying of drones, ie, radio controlled model aircraft. What needs to happen is a few of these people need to be taken to court, fined and/or sent to jail. Then someone needs to sue their pants off just for good measure.
Until then every kid above the age of 5 up to 80 is going to be flying these annoying things all over the place.
-
And there are very strict rules regarding dropping objects or shooting from an aircraft. The handgun idiot might not have violated CT law, but the FAA will be all over that. If they don't it's just a matter of time before gang violence is all RC.
-
Certainly those copter jockeys should be found, fined and re-grooved for interfering with emergency civil operations. Yes indeed.
But please don't say that all drones are bad and they should be blowed up! (made illegal) :cry:
Maybe its time to fight fire with er, fire?
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/drone%20fireman_zpswwfpfdxg.jpg)
:boxing:
-
Certainly those copter jockeys should be found, fined and re-grooved for interfering with emergency civil operations. Yes indeed.
But please don't say that all drones are bad and they should be blowed up! (made illegal) :cry:
Maybe its time to fight fire with er, fire?
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/drone%20fireman_zpswwfpfdxg.jpg)
:boxing:
Of course we're not gonna blow 'em ALL up, just the ones that are misused and misbehaving; and it sounds like there's plenty of scope there.
If they figure out how to make them carry a fire hose to the 20th floor, or follow Lassie back to the well and pull Timmy out, then they'll be our friends ....
Lannis
-
One of my friends is marketing a drone system for SAR. It does grid searches, and can locate missing folks by a combination of thermal and digital image recognition. GPS marks the spot and the rescue folks get to do their thing much quicker.
He is also working with the FAA on regulations as his work falls in a current grey area not covered by either hobby or large drone regulations.
Interesting stuff.
jdg
-
The problem here is in large part due to youtube. All these people hear about getting huge dollar payouts if they make a viral video. So, idiots go out with cameras all over the place with complete disregard for their and other people's safety.
Some people shouldn't be a part of the human race in that regard.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/national/man-films-fatal-crash-without-helping-sells-it-pro/nm2Sf/
-
It strikes me that if you can gyro stabilise them and make them "return to home" it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to put some software on board that limits the height to 100 feet (say)
Sure some people will hack them to remove this restriction but the bulk of the Muppets will be ham strung
It would keep the drones out of the way of most aircraft I would think, plus it would put them in range of those of you with more creative solutions :wink:
-
It wouldn't be too hard to home build an air gun from pvc that would shoot a special nerf tipped projectile, (for safety to prevent collateral
damage) that would itself be a tube. The forward end nerf tipped, plastic arrow fletching that lays against the projectile until it leaves the barrel, and string inside the projectile that would pay out spinning reel style when it is shot.
If it passes through the area of the rotors the string entangles them. Even if it doesn't stop the rotor it will slow it down making it out of sync with the others and the drone will tumble from the sky. A plastic cigar tube could serve as the projectile and could carry 100 feet of string that would trail behind paying out as it flew. This could bring down a drone from as much as 300 feet high yet would do vitually no damage to anything it hit on its' way back down. Just be ready to deal with a pissed off drone pilot.
-
You guys have a lot of time on your hands. I have yet to see a drone. I'm really not too concerned about drones over my house as there's not much information to be gained that google maps can't already supply. They won't even know I have Guzzi's in the garage. From the ground level my neighbors are far more about what's lurking in my garage, etc. as well as my habits of coming and going.
-
You guys have a lot of time on your hands. I have yet to see a drone. I'm really not too concerned about drones over my house as there's not much information to be gained that google maps can't already supply. They won't even know I have Guzzi's in the garage. From the ground level my neighbors are far more about what's lurking in my garage, etc. as well as my habits of coming and going.
I think it's more that we're responding to the tone and the implications of "The Drones Are Coming" threads.
Not so much on this one, but some folks (probably just to wind us up) are like "Look at this new drone technology, they're coming, you can't do anything about it, they'll soon be invincible and omnipresent, so get used to no privacy ever".
So some of us respond with "Here's why that's not going to happen in MY space", with ever-escalating results.
Just fun and games. You're right, most of us will never see one. Could be a Hula-Hoop type toy fad ....
Lannis
-
It strikes me that if you can gyro stabilise them and make them "return to home" it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to put some software on board that limits the height to 100 feet (say)
Sure some people will hack them to remove this restriction but the bulk of the Muppets will be ham strung
It would keep the drones out of the way of most aircraft I would think, plus it would put them in range of those of you with more creative solutions :wink:
Some of them already do. We found out the hard way when using one on the test range (it had a laser target on int). At 2000ft AGL it turned itself off. Great bit of wreckage. Glad it was a funded program cause it cost us $5k to learn that lesson. We did talk to the mfg and they made a simple change that it would just not climb any more than 2000ft AGL. Turned out we were the first customers to hit that altitude.
Yes, some of us have been 'buzzed' by the things. They have some good uses, but, they can also be used inappropriately/illegally.
-
One of my too-many jobs is as an attorney. I am really curious about how the legal aspects of drone use will work out. Not holding my breath.
1. Licensing
2. Trespass (when is a drone overflying and when is it on private property? Is it an airplane or like noxious fumes?)
3. Liability (when is someone liable? When is the manufacturer liable?)
4. Human v. software control
5. Trace (Should each drone be required to have a transponder with identifier?)
6. Invasion of privacy (peeping)
7. Industrial espionage (expect to see them quietly sneaking into factories and the like)
And so on. When can I shoot one down? (Technical aspects don't concern me - I have the equipment!) Can the authorities shoot one down?
I expect to see intentional drone suicide attacks where debris will cause issues. This is really of concern for airports. Getting one into the flightpath is hard, but brings up the coming issue of coordinated swarms, which raises the level of threat immensely.
Killing individuals will also start eventually.
Add the problems posed by first person fliers. A model airplane moving 200 mph has tremendous energy and already seems too dangerous for public use, but they're out and about.
Odd laws are already happening. Can't use drones in TN to spy on people hunting and fishing. No idea why!!
Regardless, we'll see these issues popping up. I saw a mid size one in use flying from a parking area in the mountains here, going way out across a valley and way up, right into airspace I've seen military helicopters in. Nobody controls, no transponder. I imagine a jet engine would not ingest one of those well.
-
Some of them already do. We found out the hard way when using one on the test range (it had a laser target on int). At 2000ft AGL it turned itself off. Great bit of wreckage. Glad it was a funded program cause it cost us $5k to learn that lesson. We did talk to the mfg and they made a simple change that it would just not climb any more than 2000ft AGL. Turned out we were the first customers to hit that altitude.
Yes, some of us have been 'buzzed' by the things. They have some good uses, but, they can also be used inappropriately/illegally.
I normally fly from 800 to 1000 feet AGL. Hitting a drone at 130 could be a disaster. A friend hit a big bird this spring right over my runway and did serious damage to his airplane. If I see a drone over my place, I'll find a use for that Marlin Goose gun that I inherited. I (and you) own the airspace over your property.
-
Correct.
Right now the FAA has defined the difference between model drones and drone aircraft, along with flight restrictions of each. Models still have a visual sight control only and altitude limit. Even the ones with onboard cameras are "supposed" to obey.
The problem is enforcement and penalties. For full size aircraft it was easier, pilot's ticket gets revoked. These little things you get what, your toy confiscated? So what. Go out and buy another.
The aircraft drones regs are being worked. This is a huge deal and the FAA is working with other govt agencies to figure out airspace controls. Most mfgs who are serious about this are coordinating flights with the FAA/military.
Civil laws. Hey, if I can be sued cause my smoke goes into the neighbors yard, then drones are easy. The privacy issues are more of a problem. But, given the number of video devices out there these days people may have a different attitude about them. Don't know.
I probably would not care if one was over my house, as long as there was some safety. And if it became a nuisance, like buzzing the place all the time, then there would be an issue to work out with the pilot/drone.
FWIW, model aircraft are dangerous. Even the slower stuff. A 50lb aircraft flying at 50mph will kill you. The 'good' part is that 99% of these are flown at established flying fields, not in a housing area. The smaller stuff can be flown in some parks (different cities have different rules, including some that ban them entirely). Current rule is 2lb and 50mph. And both are limited to 300ft altitude (AGL).
Again, what is the penalty IF someone is caught violating those rules. Right now not much. The biggest issue is liability if you injure someone. There have been some pretty big settlements when someone was seriously hurt/killed.
-
And now we have the pistol firing drone:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4364111621001/video-of-gun-firing-drone-spawns-federal-investigation/#sp=show-clips
GliderJohn
-
As a pilot who has already had a close call with a drone, I have serious concerns about the lack of experience, lack of judgment and ill-intent of drone operators.
While the FAA is justifiably against sharpening your skeet shooting skills, it seems that a high burst of water and or the ability to tie up the rotors with a net or mass of threads would be ways to bring them down without associated harm to people on the ground.
I would like to see any drone that can fly more than 200' from a transmitter:
- be officially registered to the owner by the seller as part of the transaction
- with serial/registration numbers a necessary part of the transmission protocol used by the transmitters to control the drones
- the ability to (inexpensively) interrogate a drone and have it respond with its serial number/registration number
- and heavy fines for altering the serial/registration number protocol.
They're here to stay. But right now it's a wild west. Even with these changes, it will take time to build the rules, regulations, consequences and enforcement....adde d to the tax burden of the general population rather than the drone community.
I think they will be helpful in law enforcement, SAR, farmers/ranchers and other situations. Near some airports, you might even be able to program them to stay out of the airspace while adding a sensor to pick up laser light and have them pursue and identify some of the dimwits shining lasers into the cockpits of commercial aircraft.
But it's going to get worse before it gets better.
-
As a pilot who has already had a close call with a drone, I have serious concerns about the lack of experience, lack of judgment and ill-intent of drone operators.
While the FAA is justifiably against sharpening your skeet shooting skills, it seems that a high burst of water and or the ability to tie up the rotors with a net or mass of threads would be ways to bring them down without associated harm to people on the ground.
I would like to see any drone that can fly more than 200' from a transmitter:
- be officially registered to the owner by the seller as part of the transaction
- with serial/registration numbers a necessary part of the transmission protocol used by the transmitters to control the drones
- the ability to (inexpensively) interrogate a drone and have it respond with its serial number/registration number
- and heavy fines for altering the serial/registration number protocol.
They're here to stay. But right now it's a wild west. Even with these changes, it will take time to build the rules, regulations, consequences and enforcement....adde d to the tax burden of the general population rather than the drone community.
I think they will be helpful in law enforcement, SAR, farmers/ranchers and other situations. Near some airports, you might even be able to program them to stay out of the airspace while adding a sensor to pick up laser light and have them pursue and identify some of the dimwits shining lasers into the cockpits of commercial aircraft.
But it's going to get worse before it gets better.
If we could only get all that for the sleds. I worry far more about the cars driven by texting drivers, those oblivious to their surroundings and the heehaws driving jacked up pickups that for some reason have to sound like a diesel tractor and think intimidation is a driving skill.
-
They should all have self-destruct systems installed that can be activated by emergency personnel. Drone destroyed, no pics or video to salvage. That ought to get people to think twice.
Flying those planes is plenty dangerous enough without the damn drones flying around.
-
Firefighters knock drone out of sky....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEsieFoe-ns :thumb:
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/hitting-targets_zpsqbe9ulxu.gif)
-
They should all have self-destruct systems installed that can be activated by emergency personnel. Drone destroyed, no pics or video to salvage. That ought to get people to think twice.
Flying those planes is plenty dangerous enough without the damn drones flying around.
Or maybe a Signal jammer ? I have no clue how these little Beasties are controlled but a strong signal transmitted on the same or very close frequency might cause it to fold it's wings up ( Die ) :huh:
-
Or maybe a Signal jammer ? I have no clue how these little Beasties are controlled but a strong signal transmitted on the same or very close frequency might cause it to fold it's wings up ( Die ) :huh:
That's never going to work, long term.
The only solution is to make the behavior hurt so badly for the douchebag drone owner/operators that it'll become a rare occurence ....
Lannis
-
We are supposed to stay below 400 feet altitude in most places, could be lower in others depending on area. I fly mine just in my yard when I fly which has not been much lately. Full charge only last about 12-15 minutes, and 2 or 3 batteries and I am tired.
I'm not good enough to fly in RED mode, where the computer will allow flips and rolls, but also let you crash if you can't keep up. I stay in Blue mode mostly, easier to hold altitude and just cruise around dodging trees which I have a lot of on my 2 acres.
Flying with the goggles is pretty fun but stressful, and you need a spotter to help with backing into fences or trees which you cannot see with the camera facing forward only.
On the signals, they use a changing freq, not sure how it works. These things, well mine, is pretty basic and simple, a gopro will put it at max weight and reduce the flying time to about 7 minutes as will a strong wind (no fun anyway in wind).
I'm ex ATC so I know the rules, and airways, but I'm also not near any airports (over 25 miles from Barksdale). There should be a class or license to pass before someone gets these birds, especially if you live in town.
-
The control freq is the same basic band as cell phones and the same freq hopping scheme. In order to 'jam' one you'd have to use a cell jammer, which a lot of people would not like, including the emergency services folks.
But, the video downlink frequency is usually in the 5GHz or 8GHz (IIRC). Not sure if those freq are shared with anyone. Most of those have on board recording so jamming the video feed just means the pilot will have no feedback. If he is operating within visual range this will just be a minor inconvenience, it won't cause the thing to come down.
As to registering and all the rest. There are millions of these things already out there. From the palm size to 6ft or more in dia. The control boards are a commonly made element (not just for drones) and are sourced in China (isn't everything?).
Kinda like trying to make all lasers registered at this point.
I do love the video of the fireman taking out the drone...BUT....that drone owner just got his wish. A viral video and bragging rights around the world. So, now he will go out and buy another in order to do the same thing again. What needed to happen is a that video taken to a judge and he be sent to jail as well as forfeit any money made from that video to give to the firefighters widow fund. But, will that happen? No. Cause it was just poor Johnny just doing what boys do.
-
This news item appeared on my home page today. It pertains. (This is in NZ)
Strict drone rules for aerial enthusiasts
The Civil Aviation Authority has unveiled tough regulations to ensure the safety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
23 July 2015
Drone owners will need to request permission to take-off every time they want to fly them outside their own property under strict rules unveiled by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will not be permitted to take to the sky without owner permission of the land they will fly over, and the people in that area.
This means if an aerial enthusiast wanted to fly their UAV in a local park, they'd need the permission of the council and every person at the park before taking off.
However UAV owners can avoid the rule changes with a CAA operating certificate, but it's unclear how much that will cost and long it will take to be approved.
"Having a conversation with a property owner beforehand is an effective means of risk management because they are likely to have the best knowledge of the risks," CAA general manager Steve Moore said on Thursday.
"These changes address the safety risks that modern unmanned aircraft pose to other airspace users as well as people and property on the ground."
Other new regulations include operators to present a safety plan to the CAA if they want to fly their drones outside the existing rules.
New Zealand's Air Navigation Service Airways and ACT leader David Seymour both commended the changes after there was a reported 53 incidents involving UAVs in the first six months of 2015, nearly double the 2014 total.
But operators are less thrilled.
Aerial photographer Tim Whittaker said the new laws would be very difficult to police.
"It is basically going to give the authority to prosecute if people get stupid," he told NZN.
The new regulations come in effect on August 1.
NZN
-
This news item appeared on my home page today. It pertains. (This is in NZ)
Strict drone rules for aerial enthusiasts
The Civil Aviation Authority has unveiled tough regulations to ensure the safety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
23 July 2015
Drone owners will need to request permission to take-off every time they want to fly them outside their own property under strict rules unveiled by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will not be permitted to take to the sky without owner permission of the land they will fly over, and the people in that area.
Sounds like a good rule to me. Nobody's got a right to fly anything anywhere they want, any more than they have a right to ride their ATV anywhere they want anytime regardless of permission ....
Lannis
-
Apparently attitudes are changing VERY quickly with the times, I'm glad to say.
Was only a few months ago when someone posted a sort of "Drones Are Coming And There's Nothing You Can Do About It" thread, upon which my posts became heavy with #6 shot, full chokes, and 32" barrels.
I was damned up street and down alley for being a superstitious, hopeless vandal, fighting a Luddite rearguard action against progressiveness and technology ....
And now look! Turns out I was in the vanguard. I'll still shoot any one of them that comes into range over my property, and will debate about the propriety of spying only while standing next to the scattered remains .....
Lannis
Have fun, you will be dragged into court and end up paying to buy him a new just like the one with the scattered remains you so proudly stood next too!
-
This news item appeared on my home page today. It pertains. (This is in NZ)
Strict drone rules for aerial enthusiasts
The Civil Aviation Authority has unveiled tough regulations to ensure the safety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
23 July 2015
Drone owners will need to request permission to take-off every time they want to fly them outside their own property under strict rules unveiled by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will not be permitted to take to the sky without owner permission of the land they will fly over, and the people in that area.
This means if an aerial enthusiast wanted to fly their UAV in a local park, they'd need the permission of the council and every person at the park before taking off.
However UAV owners can avoid the rule changes with a CAA operating certificate, but it's unclear how much that will cost and long it will take to be approved.
"Having a conversation with a property owner beforehand is an effective means of risk management because they are likely to have the best knowledge of the risks," CAA general manager Steve Moore said on Thursday.
"These changes address the safety risks that modern unmanned aircraft pose to other airspace users as well as people and property on the ground."
Other new regulations include operators to present a safety plan to the CAA if they want to fly their drones outside the existing rules.
New Zealand's Air Navigation Service Airways and ACT leader David Seymour both commended the changes after there was a reported 53 incidents involving UAVs in the first six months of 2015, nearly double the 2014 total.
But operators are less thrilled.
Aerial photographer Tim Whittaker said the new laws would be very difficult to police.
"It is basically going to give the authority to prosecute if people get stupid," he told NZN.
The new regulations come in effect on August 1.
NZN
We have similar rules in the UK but it doesn't stop people flying them inappropriately
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33612631 (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33612631)
Sadly I don't think "rules" are sufficient.
-
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/phantomstatue_zpskxmaf4u3.jpg)
:tongue:
-
Yeah, we have laws on littering, has no effect at all. The ditches are full of trash everywhere!
My pet gripe, really ruins a hunt, when the woods should be pristine. Bring out what you take in, leave nothing. Sad, but not many people adhere to those rules.
-
Yeah, we have laws on littering, has no effect at all. The ditches are full of trash everywhere!
My pet gripe, really ruins a hunt, when the woods should be pristine. Bring out what you take in, leave nothing. Sad, but not many people adhere to those rules.
Like anything else, the laws need to be tough enough to make it painful for people who break them. We're finally getting there, for example, on drunk driving - law used to provide a slap on the wrist, now it's serious jail time, and the incidence is way down from what it was 40 years ago.
Around here, people used to just dump their trash on the side of the road in a convenient gully, up to the time I was a teenager. One gully was a mile from the nearest house on a road that probably saw 10 cars a day, and it was really bad.
But they made it illegal, toughened up enforcement, and (more importantly) it's now socially unacceptable, so that only criminals do it, so it's way better than it used to be.
It'll be same with drones, oh ha ha ha, what a card that young Josh is, he flew his drone over to the airport and a bunch of scaredy-cats are looking for him now, but it's just a toy, there he is flying it over the power substation, oh ho ho ho .... Time and the law will NOT be on these idiots' side ...
Lannis
-
Yeah, hopefully we get educated slowly but surely. I was following a trucker and got off I-20 at same exit (I was on the Griso), he tossed a bag of trash out as he made the turn. I followed him to I reckon his house, the went on and called the local police to report.
The were nice but couldn't care less even tho I was an eye witness and had a license number of the trucker. Country folks stick together it seems in these little outlying areas.
I don't frequent the Quad boards anymore as I have learned all I need to know about the model I have but even couple of years ago, they were raising cane with people that were posting videos of shooting up in the air over cities and such. There are lots of responsible flyers that wish we could rein in the stupids, but seems they outnumber us.
-
Or maybe a Signal jammer ? I have no clue how these little Beasties are controlled but a strong signal transmitted on the same or very close frequency might cause it to fold it's wings up ( Die ) :huh:
As far as I know they operate at 2.4 or 5GHz. Outside of the restricted bands for radio, TV and cell phones.
The issue is that every time a 'jammer' starts to get used, they tend to censor people. The FCC basically has ruled NO to jammers. Recently some hotels had put in jammers to force people to use the hotels commercial WiFi. The FCC ruled against that HARD. You allow the government to jam videos from drones, that is easily censorship. I know this is more a safety thing then a censorship thing, but the FCC just does not want to go there.
-
I wonder if drones could play Pied Piper or sheppard drones to control swarms of bad insects or birds from farmer fields and transportation corridors?
http://kfor.com/2015/07/22/massive-swarm-of-grasshoppers-and-beetles-picked-up-by-radar-headed-to-oklahoma/
Bugs coming! Ride with mouth closed advisory in effect. :shocked:
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/bugs%20on%20radar_zpshe1rw74v.jpg)
-
If it could be done in 15 minutes, maybe, but then you would be changing batteries again.
-
Now drones are interfering with Life-Flight helicopters. Ghouls trying to get a shot of blood and gore.
Roanoke, VA - Two close calls prompted the Carilion Clinic Life-Guard team to hold a media event in Roanoke. Helicopter pilots pleaded with drone operators to stay out of landing zones.
Drones ended up in Life-Guard helicopter landing zones on two separate occasions in the last six months.
A Life-Guard 10 pilot says drones pose a major mid-air threat.
"It could hit a rotor blade and definitely take it out of the air. It could hit the tail rotor,” said Life-Guard 10 Pilot Bob Bolton. “It could hit the front windscreen and come right through the windscreen and incapacitate the pilot."
One of the recent close calls happened on an accident scene in daylight. The other was at night near a hospital helipad.
The problem is that the helicopter pilots are "pleading" with the drone operators, who are the outdoor equivalent of a troll operating out of his mother's dark sweaty basement bedroom. They'd love it if they downed a chopper.
The drones should be destroyed and the operators horsewhipped on the spot .... I find one near me, you'll get to read about it in the news, and I'll find out if my lawyer's really any good ...
Lannis
-
http://youtu.be/cTJKXYx-jfo
-
http://youtu.be/cTJKXYx-jfo
<sigh> *Something* needs to be done. Now.
-
Watch the original version here until the end. That video is a fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuQUuE0DdfA
-
Humans are not the only ones offended by drones. Drone should not monkey around like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDbyl_Q5-oE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr-xBtVU4lg
-
Watch the original version here until the end. That video is a fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuQUuE0DdfA
Aaah...
Got to admit I saw it on Facebook previously and didn't investigate further...
-
Oh, it was fake? Whew! I'm glad of that, but it's only a matter of time..
-
You're probably right, but I sure hope not. I fly Southwest quite a bit...
-
Today in Tehachapi.
So far, the fire has burned 50 acres and KCFD officials said that it is looking like it'll burn 300 acres total.
There are 150 firefighters fighting the fire at the time of this post.
KCFD says there are 4 air tankers, 3 helicopters, 15 fire engines and 2 hand crews that are helping to fight the fire.
KCFD officials say that Air Attack reported a drone in the air space of the fire.
They added that Air Operations are on hold until the drone is removed.
Law Enforcement are attempting to locate the pilot of the drone at this time.
-
That is interesting. Sales of shotguns to Hollywood stars should increase.