Krumpel

You advocate that law enforcement be stripped of firearms while the rest of the country can have them? Are you smoking Crack or just brain dead???

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Yep, that is what I said.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

See prior posts regarding the futility of discussing issues:

No, I do not, and I will not be convinced otherwise.

But I am not a gov. shill either I am sure we do not agree on the role of gov. in our lives, and that is not going to change. So I will not make an attempt to change your mind, as I am sure it is a waste of time.

So cops get no weapons, everyone else does. Makes perfect sense.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

What do they need weapons for? They can do their job without them. The British never armed their cops until recently. Maybe if they could be responsible with them, then they could get them back.

The cops do not have a right to be armed. The individual does.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Why are you trying to convince me? It's a preposterous notion that's completely illogical, unworkable, and unrealistic.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I am not trying to convince you. Who said I was even speaking to you? I am sure you are just some sort of government employee that I despise anyway.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Mkay, carry on.

Krumpel

VG must be brain dead. Even a Crack Head wouldn't say anything that stupid.

Does this forum have an "IGNORE" function? If it doesn't, it should...

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Naw...I think he's just having some fun.

The reality is most people who have such deep seeded hatred and distrust for local state and federal agencies and programs the first to avail themselves of the benefits of said agencies. And god help those agencies if something doesn't go right.

Krumpel

Yup, yup...

I think its called TROLLING. Posting outrageous drivel to get a reaction. Commonly someone with personal esteem issues attempting to attract attention.

Thus the old adage, "Please don't feed the TROLLS".

DeferredDefect

Ehh, England didn't arm their cops because firearm related crime is so low. If someone starts shooting, they still have their own "SWAT" team to bring in.

Obviously situations change depending on the country. The US has a pretty atrocious gun violence problem, so it would make sense to have armed police. Is that the solution? Obviously not, but it's the direction police forces are taking.

Much scarier is the auctioning of ex-military hardware to regular forces. Do we really need tanks patrolling the streets?

init4fun

Hello Gents , nice lil thread ya got goin on here ......

I'm a bit bewildered at the surprise that it would be local law enforcement , sent by the FAA , to enforce what they consider to be proper safety practices .

Even back in the stone age when I was young and our McCoys never had mufflers , we were run out of some local parks by our local police , called by "Mrs. Kravitz" types who were angry with the noise ! Of course it will be the police who show up if the FAA calls , the same police that respond to ol Mrs. Kravitz calls .

Why is that so surprising ? I highly doubt local officers will be sitting in trees waitin for ya to hit 405 feet to give ya a ticket . There just isn't the sort of regular problem , like automobile speeding , to warrant any kinds of full time primary enforcement of the rules of the air . Make some kind of menace of one's self , and yea , of course you'll be visited , just as I was all those years ago . One time in my youth , we were likewise visited when we had a kite up at around 1000 feet and unbeknownst to us (my flying buddy and me) the full scale were diverting around where our kite was . Again , just as with the noise complaints , the police came , told us why we couldn't do what we were doing , and so long as we stopped what we were doing , they left . We never saw the need to get mouthy with the officer , we understood that our mistake was to be near the full scale , and we didn't do it again . Now today , I'll bet an encounter would go just the same way , right up till the flyer begins asserting his "right" to be doing what he's doing , and oh yea I'll bet the fines and penalties will be applied in earnest .

Again , exactly HOW does any of this differ from 50 years ago being run outta my local park by the Law ???

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

absolutely on point...not really different than what used to happen. And most likely when and if it happens again, the person's reaction to the officer will be a key factor in how things are resolved. Listen to the LE, comply with the requests, and don't be argumentative. If the LE has done something wrong, report them.

cj_rumley

Well said, init4fun. The author of the article in Flying rambled on about a requirement for local LE to bone up on on FARs that is as wrong and ridiculous as his own transparent purpose to ridicule FAA's plan. Somebody in this thread decried an 'unfunded mandate' for local agencies to deal with. Participation by local LEs is voluntary, so not much of a mandate. I don't see any significant change from the familiar scenario you recalled, just an opportunity for the local cops to be better informed as to what is considered safe and responsible at the appropriate level (and what isn't) as they are required to deal with the situation when they respond to a call from a citizen that feels he/she is being 'menaced' by some infernal drone. Local cops cannot and are not expected by FAA to enforce laws that exist outside the bounds of the political subdivision they work for, and the FAA guidance document made that clear. It will benefit FAA in their pursuit of potential enforcement action against bad actors if the LE is informed of what info they need to follow up on matters that appear to be worth being referred to them. It will benefit us as modelers to have the bad actors dealt with rather than face losing our freedoms to blanket bans on our legitimate and responsible operations.

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

Great, we found someone that knows about this subject. Can you please send all of us photo, video or radar images of the close calls you stated as a fact that this accrued? With all the jetliners with video pointing forward you should have no problems with this if your statement was a fact

Could it be that you stated this false statement over a hate of UAVs. Here is my opinion, pilots that sees a streak in the sky for 12-71ms (depending od their speed) is being called a drone. Before drones they were called birds.

Crash99

JohnShe

You are trolling me aren't you? look it up yourself, it was in all of the real news outlets. I fly UAVs myself. I like to build them from balsa kits and fly them at my local AMA chartered club flying field.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

This isn't something that one or two people (even "haters") have fabricated out of thin air. If you haven't heard about sightings or near misses, you're either not a consumer of ANY news media, or you've heard it but just choose to ignore it. There are an equal about of "truthers" on the pro side of multi-rotors as there are opponents of them too. The Pirker case shed more light on the issue that pretty much anything else, but it's a legitimate concern for the hobby, and pilots. To not recognize that is to do the issue an injustice. The "show me proof or it didn't happen" approach won't work either.

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

Sure I have watched the news state a pilot stats he saw X. But physics mathematics and the capability of the human eye will state the reports and not completely true. Unless you state that physics and mathematics are not absolute. The human eye can perform above its capability. OK then, I am sure they think they see a drone in their minds even with only seeing a blur passing by.

Now video, photos and radar is another issue. I bet you did not know the airport radar can pick up a small bird. So a phatom would show up even better. Video on all the aircraft has nothing to show even with a capability greater than the human eye.
I guess if you through out all the science then you can …… but physics and mathematics are absolute.

So again, where is the video that shows the blur object passing the aircraft? If you don’t have that then your statements can not be seen a fact but faith in the new media. Me, I will put my faith in the absolute.

Crash99

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

phlpsfrnk

Crash,
Yes, bird activity shows up on primary radar as weak intermittent hits that never generate a track and they never show on secondary radar so I fail to see your point. Have you ever spent any time in the cockpit of an airborne aircraft? What experience do you possess that you can state it is impossible to see and identify another object in flight? Don't know what physics and math you are using but you need to do some more research before you make any more outrageous comments suggesting some kind of commercial/private pilot conspiracy.

Frank

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sport_Pilot

Those are to enforce state and city laws, not federal. They get funds to enforce state and city laws. They don't get funds to enforce Federal laws. So, yes it is an unfunded mandate. Or unfunded request perhaps.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

What federal law?

Sport_Pilot

Actuall it doesn't take much time to fire 11 rounds from an automatic pistol. And if a cops shoots someone, then the odds are usually that the person deserves it. I trust most local and state police. I don't trust federal agents.

ira d

I think local police shoot far more people than do federal agents I see no reason not to trust federal agents anymore than the local police.