Nitro-Tom

"Drones" Banned in a National Park? Things are heating up for sure......

Am I reading things right, they want to ban Drone use in Yosemite all together using this "Interpretation" which I do not agree with.

Makes me want to re-up for the AMA so they can go after this like the NRA does when a small town tried to ban guns ;-)

This is silly IMHO......


http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...on-their-side/

bullseye000

That's a pretty thin argument they have there. The article about the Arkansas Tornadoes after this one is interesting too. My fear is that any official agency will eventually trump anyone who wants to report or shoot images or video. It will be considered interfering with their operations when some else wants to get in on the action. This is a situation that seems to get more complicated everyday. Won't be easy or quick to sort this one out.

Nitro-Tom

agreed 100% - +1

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Spot on...this is exactly where we are headed. Once there, a lot of crying will take place but it will be too late then. Today most of us are little more than a bunch of trained mice anyway. We are fraught with endless short term solutions to long range issues.

JohnShe

Their attempt to devise a legal argument is kinda pathetic. But, why does anybody need to fly a remote controlled aircraft in the park anyway? It's not like we have had to use a UAS of any size in the entire history of the park. I suppose viewpoints and laws will change the first time an aircraft knocks a climber off of El Capitan.

bradpaul

It is pure intimidation and it will work. Even though a FAA judge said there was no regulatory authority in the Piker case the FAA has decided to publicly issue fines to drone pilots. Unless you can find a "pro bono" lawyer who is going to spend tens of thousands on lawyers to fight the fine? It is a government shakedown and who should be surprised at that ????????

"I am from the government and I am here to help........... (line my agency's pocket)"

JohnShe

In this case, there is no FAA involvement directly. the national Park Service is attempting to protect the parks from idiots. personally I think they are correct in their intent and rather pathetic in their method.

I wonder why you seem to ascribe malice to govenment agencies. Do you think you can read minds? Well you are doing a lousy job of mind reading.

Sport_Pilot

Why do they fine drone pilots, but not base jumpers? Or is it that the base jumpers get fined but it doesn't make the news?

JohnShe

Well usually they scrape BASE jumpers off the pavement with a putty knife. I guess that should charge the family for the putty knife.

JW0311

No reading of their minds is needed. I'm sure they think they are acting in the best interest of the general public. This is were it gets a little gray if you will. What is in the best interest of the public? Kind of subjective; is it not? Perhaps it's not in your mind but my perception may be different. A healthy skepticism of those in the government is a good thing; is it not? The very reason we need to have a government is the reason we should always be skeptical of them. They are human as well and are capable of being irrational. a look back through history should confirm that. I would prefer to be in charge of my own safety and well being. I will take them at their word that they care, but I will handle it, thanks. As for ascribing malice to government agencies? Hell yes I think there is malice. Does not take a PhD to figure that one out. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely but I'm sure i'm not telling you anything you don't already know.


James

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well said!

JohnShe

As a general rule, the interests of the general public are decided at the polls. The elected representatives attempt to carry this out through the enactment of laws creating agencies to carry out those laws. When an agency writes new regulations, these draft documents go through public review to ensure that the interests of the general public are carried out. it would appear that you might be helped by a remedial civics course. You are being skeptical of your own decisions made at the polls. Definitely a sign of flawed reasoning.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Seems a blissful position in my opinion.

JW0311

You are correct John. That is how it is supposed to work and on paper it does; however you are not taking in to account the part of my post that points out that we are all humans and are capable of irrational thought and actions. The assumption that there is no bias or pursuit of personal gain by our elected officials, in it's various forms is, as I'm sure you know, ignorant to say the least. My perception of you is that you are an intelligent individual and understand that although we, as humans, are capable of seeing and understanding the concept of perfection, we are incapable of obtaining it. Our elected officials included. Simply because the country agrees to do something does not mean it will work or that it is right. As to your assertion that my reasoning may be flawed. I'm human, of course it's flawed. It has been my experience, through out my life, that the Federal government is too far removed from society to manage us as individuals. I believe that is better done at the local level. I believe this Drone issue is an unprecedented power grab on the part of the FAA and has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. Just my opinion and influenced by flawed reasoning of course.


James

JohnShe

How do I object to your statement. let me count the ways:

1 - Well our democratic process takes that into account. There are numerous checkpoints built into the system to preserve the will of the people and to protect the people from flawed actions. Again, a remedial civics course might help you recognize that. A case in point, is the initiating issue of this thread. there will be legal analysis through the courts and maybe congressional hearings to discuss how to protect the parks from idiots.


2 - You have misread my rather succinct statement, there is no such assumption expressed or implied. perhaps a remedial reading course might also help you.

3 - What local level? Our elected congress asked the FAA to do it. If you don't like that vote to change it.

4 - Again, you ascribe ulterior motives to a agencies that are struggling to carrying out the orders of congress. That applies to the FAA and the department of parks and recreation.

JW0311

John, from reading your response I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at and perhaps that's my fault for not articulating it well enough. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and let it go at that. I'm going to continue to maintain skepticism of our elected officials and government offices and question their motives as they are not exempt from pursuing their own interests as I'm sure you will continue to assert that those who do not fly according to the rules are sociopaths.

James

JohnShe

Be as skeptical as you want to be. But, be certain that your skepticism is based on verifiable facts and go to the polls to express you opinion.

Yep, a good set of rules is constanly monitored for validity, effectiveness and fairness. Usually the rule makers, the rule followers and an independent body have voices in the process.

bradpaul

John, John so naive .................... so explain this from a "progressive website":

[h=2]US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study[/h]
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14

JohnShe

Well, there is strong verifiable evidence to support the conclusion.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

On the drones tell the goverment to go to he.l

Hossfly

Absolutely Correct in my opinion. OTOH, if not a Republic the Oligarchy is certainly leaning strongly away from a Republic. USA government has never
been a Democracy, just a Republic.

Now just Where did I put that dad-burn Battery Charger? Rather windy but need a quick charge. OK so the "Jack D." is in the cabinet. Fly tomorrow!

Sport_Pilot

I am supposed to believe a study that doesn't know the correct meaning of oligarchy?

JohnShe

Interesting point. The news article, as I read it, does give a flawed definition at first. The fallacy is to presume that because a few people actually run the country then the country is corrupt. Obviosly, it is possible to have an excellent government run by a few or even one, although in practice it seldom happens. The news article does go on the describe the conclusion of the study correctly by acknowledging the an oligarchy is government run by a few. So I have nor read the scientific paper yet and cannot give an opinion on it, but I will say that the author of the news article made a mistake.

JohnShe

A number of Supreme Court decisions and actions by both state and federal legislatures are definitely leading away from an ideal democracy which we have never really had, but it was kinda close.

JohnShe

As I see it, one day you are in Yosemite Park three-fourths of the way up El Capitan, a wayward drone hits you hard square in the back, and startled and lose your grip. Just in the second before you splatter on the ground below, are you gonna think, "Gee I should have trusted the government"?