dawning of the new days    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> dawning of the new days
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 5:54 AM   
mongo



Posts: 1850
Score: 130
Joined: 12/5/2001
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Midland, TX, USA
Status: offline 		some possible foreshadowing of what our possible future might be, included here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/drones-up-to-25-pounds-allowed-for-u-s-safety-agencies.html

interesting reading, anyway.


_____________________________

Bottom Feeder Brother #13
when they outlaw R/C, only outlaws will have R/C

Hide Signatures
       Post #: 1

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 8:50 AM   
TimJ



Posts: 352
Score: 105
Joined: 4/9/2004
Last Login: 5/12/2013
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: offline 		joy

Hide Signatures

(in reply to mongo)
       Post #: 2

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 10:36 AM   
phlpsfrnk



Posts: 500
Score: 101
Joined: 1/7/2009
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Spring Hill, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mongo

some possible foreshadowing of what our possible future might be, included here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/drones-up-to-25-pounds-allowed-for-u-s-safety-agencies.html

interesting reading, anyway.

What I find interesting is this;

"The rule announced today calls for agencies to first show they can operate a drone before getting an FAA permit. Drones must fly within 400 feet (122 meters) of the ground, remain in sight of the operator and stay clear of airports, the FAA said."

Sounds very much like the 30 year old AC 91-57;

"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify . . . ."

Regards
Frank

_____________________________

It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to mongo)
       Post #: 3

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 2:19 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12544
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline 		What will be interesting will be the court cases when people shoot them down!

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to phlpsfrnk)
       Post #: 4

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 2:46 PM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4799
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline 		This is consistent with what the ARC memo of 4/1/2009 presented for limits on civil and public agency sUAS. 400 max altitude, within visual line of sight.

There are certainly going to be court cases, more likely driven by privacy concerns.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 5

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 3:38 PM   
bradpaul



Posts: 665
Score: 138
Joined: 1/2/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Apopka, FL, USA
Status: offline 		 Court cases by landowners are a certantity.............................  the US Supreme Court decision in "US v Causby" recognised that a landowner has rights in the "lower reaches of the airspace":

"At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land".

Brad

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 6

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 4:19 PM   
JohnShe


 

Posts: 273
Score: 107
Joined: 11/19/2010
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Round Hill, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Well, the flying over part is an invasion of privacy if the intended purpose is surveillance.  I also worry about the drones crashing into my house and maybe injuring me or other occupants as well as the potential damage to my house.


Looks like the FAA is trying to evolve the drone rules from the model airplane guidelines.  I would have felt better if they had restricting overflights to safer locations.




Hide Signatures

(in reply to bradpaul)
       Post #: 7

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 4:29 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12544
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I suspect shooting down a police sUAV will land in court a lot faster than a civil case on privicy issues.  More motivation as well.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 8

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 4:31 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 4130
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: here
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnShe

Well, the flying over part is an invasion of privacy if the intended purpose is surveillance.  I also worry about the drones crashing into my house and maybe injuring me or other occupants as well as the potential damage to my house.


Looks like the FAA is trying to evolve the drone rules from the model airplane guidelines.  I would have felt better if they had restricting overflights to safer locations.




Wow! I would have thought the “I like big brother oversights” guys would be jubilant about such a development.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to JohnShe)
       Post #: 9

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 4:38 PM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4799
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I suspect shooting down a police sUAV will land in court a lot faster than a civil case on privicy issues.  More motivation as well.



I'm betting we see a privacy case before we see a shoot down. In fact there is a case right now involving the use of a Predator drone in North Dakota to catch some cattle thieves.

This article talks about the AND case

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/14/privacy-concerns-as-us-government-rolls-out-domestic-drone-rules/?test=latestnews

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 10

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 4:44 PM   
JohnShe


 

Posts: 273
Score: 107
Joined: 11/19/2010
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Round Hill, VA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

Wow! I would have thought the “I like big brother oversights” guys would be jubilant about such a development.


Really?  Who are they?  It is interesting though, that the use of drone surveillance and attacks evolved during the G. W. Bush administration.




Hide Signatures

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 11

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 6:21 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12544
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I suspect shooting down a police sUAV will land in court a lot faster than a civil case on privicy issues.  More motivation as well.



I'm betting we see a privacy case before we see a shoot down. In fact there is a case right now involving the use of a Predator drone in North Dakota to catch some cattle thieves.

This article talks about the AND case

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/14/privacy-concerns-as-us-government-rolls-out-domestic-drone-rules/?test=latestnews



But it started in criminal court did it not?  And is not over privacy per say, but use in police tactics.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 12

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 6:25 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12544
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Really? Who are they? It is interesting though, that the use of drone surveillance and attacks evolved during the G. W. Bush administration.


No it started in the Bush administration.  It evolved into a fine but deadly art under Obama.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to JohnShe)
       Post #: 13

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 10:45 PM   
RCKen



Posts: 24218
Score: 421
Joined: 7/10/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Status: online 		Ok guys, let's be careful here and not let this degrade into a political argument. If that happens I'll close down this thread. This not the place to discuss politics

Ken


_____________________________

The take off is optional, but the landing is MANDATORY!!
RCU Forum Manager
Ultra Sport Brother #1
www.gettingairborne.com

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 14

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/15/2012 11:54 PM   
JohnShe


 

Posts: 273
Score: 107
Joined: 11/19/2010
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Round Hill, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Whoops! Sorry, I was thinking historically.




Hide Signatures

(in reply to RCKen)
       Post #: 15

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 2:57 AM   
jamie


 

Posts: 267
Score: 105
Joined: 8/12/2002
Last Login: 5/9/2013
From: ballard, WV, USA
Status: offline 		can a land owner keep you from flying over there land or there house ? is ther a law on this ?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to JohnShe)
       Post #: 16

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 7:20 AM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4799
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jamie

can a land owner keep you from flying over there land or there house ? is ther a law on this ?



See post #6 above.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jamie)
       Post #: 17

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 3:22 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

can a land owner keep you from flying over there land or there house ? is ther a law on this ?


what does the law say about flying over somebodys south 40 of soybeans at 200 up'
(lets say 1000'+ from structure/people/vehicle)
in a cesna152?

The regs would take into play part C 'Sparse' minimum altitudes (aka No Minimum Alt),
and the civil case would evaluate just how high is reasonable 'AirProperty' use of Soy plants
... 200' tall soybeans? I dont think so. the property owner is clearly NOT using the airspace 200-350000 feet up and flying in that 200-350000' zone dont bother his use of his soybean crop land.

Now, the argument that just SEEING a contrail of a jumojet interferes with 'enjoyment' of their property
(or that just seeing a UAS:MA at 6000'up interferes with their enjoyment)
(or that just seeing a UAS:MA at 200'up & 1200'over interferes with their enjoyment)
well, that what crazy judges and jurys are for.
Heck, crazy courts see the term 'Shall Not Be Infringed' as meaning 'OK To Ban'... so who knows what different courts will rule in different states/countys regarding someone seeing an aircraft flying at a legal altitude somewhere over their land or over land NEAR their land.

The biggest cases are NOT going to be about some model (UAS:MA) in the countryside,
but about the Gov and the paparazzi ('Public'UAS and 'Civil'UAS) ops flying with the purpose of LOOKING AT YOU rather than flying with the purpose of recreational flying

The big gripe is that folks can SEE and HEAR a police heli, but they wont notice a drone spying on them,
which kinda makes OUR case that
our UAS:MA cant be that intrusive
if they say they cant see or hear it when the cops do it with UAS:Public

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 18

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 3:30 PM   
bradpaul



Posts: 665
Score: 138
Joined: 1/2/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Apopka, FL, USA
Status: offline 		If a government /police drone heli is hovering and looking in your bedroom window do you have the right to take action to knock it out of the air?

Do the police need a search warrant to do that type of survalence?

These are serious privacy issuse and I would believe the 4th Amendment issues.  Not asking if you WOULD DO IT, but if you HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT.

Brad


Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 19

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 3:33 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		If a government /police manned heli is hovering and looking in your bedroom window
do you have the right to take action to knock it out of the air?

as a constitutional issue
it dont matter if its manned or not, same constitutional right applies

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bradpaul)
       Post #: 20

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 5:46 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12544
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Looks like the police has the right at least to 400 feet above the property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

However this was partially based that overflights by helicopters at this height was not rare.  I would likely be rare for drones.  Also I believe this was a liberal court, it might be a differant issue for a conservative court, and might be differant for a privately owned drone taking, say for example, real estate photo's. 

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 21

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/16/2012 6:55 PM   
koastrc


 

Posts: 203
Score: 151
Joined: 5/7/2009
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: BILOXIMississippi, USA
Status: offline 		The police got a call from a old woman that the guy next door was exposing himself. The police did some checking. The old lady took the police into a room and said look out this window over there in his room. The cops looked and couldn't see much. They told the women they really could see no problem. She said stand on this box and take a look. Eyes can't trespass unless you position yourself to do so. Think about it. If you are looking under the cushion of a couch searching for drugs and find a murder weapon. That is the fruits of the a good search. If you look under the couch for a pickup truck and find the same murder weapon. Well, that is a bad search. If you are flying about looking for a missing child and see a bomb making operation. What do we have there?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 22

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/18/2012 3:39 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		from Sports wiki linki-
quote:

However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:

Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.

Also vital to the Court's ruling was the fact that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:

As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment


hmm, manned heli at 400' is considered not to be undue noise,
why are we fearing folks saying a 2500' UAV:MA interferes with their use of property by nuisance (aka Property Air Rights)?
Or flying that legal NAS use UAV:MA at the same 'legal' alt as the other NAS users... 'any member of the public'

again,
the privacy problem folks are now complaining about is NOT that police already watch us by air,
but that with UAV:Public they can watch us with craft that are too small to be seen or heard
... which, again, is great for us to hear them say
that our UAV:MA (legally operating in the NAS) are NOT obtrusive and nuisance interfering with their Property Air Rights
because they are far too quiet and unnoticeable when the ground pilots are G-men


We (ama) should be embracing the Privacy Issue,
and queuing up citations and quotes of all these 'respectable' sources
saying how hard it is to know there is a UAV near them
... so we can play that back when folks later want to whine about how noisy and visually obtrusive they are (re: Proerty Air Rights)

Hide Signatures

(in reply to koastrc)
       Post #: 23

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/19/2012 3:51 AM   
NorfolkSouthern


 

Posts: 1369
Score: 105
Joined: 7/17/2006
Last Login: 6/15/2013
From: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Here's another one I picked up: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11755639-mysterious-object-nearly-downed-plane-over-denver?lite

Sheriff said it could be a weather balloon. Could it have been one of his drones?

NS

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 24

RE: dawning of the new days - 5/19/2012 5:26 AM   
mongo



Posts: 1850
Score: 130
Joined: 12/5/2001
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Midland, TX, USA
Status: offline 		well, for sure, better one of his drones, than any of our stuff.
really hoping that this does not turn out to be something a modeler/hobbyist did.


_____________________________

Bottom Feeder Brother #13
when they outlaw R/C, only outlaws will have R/C

Hide Signatures

(in reply to NorfolkSouthern)
       Post #: 25

Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>  
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> dawning of the new days
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  




Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


0.500RCU1