I would have to agree with you. But why was 14.91.119 introduced into the conversation (by KE) if it doesn't apply ?
Please explain how any of this topic is related to the AMA ?
oh, I can answer that.
I mean, I can answer that YET AGAIN-
post15:
Someone wanted to bring up the Causby deal,
ok, lets play the Causby game-
//snip//
So thats the deal with Causby,
folks cannot say at the same time that they are so obtrusive that property cant be enjoyed
while claiming they are so unnoticeable that folks cant tell if they are being spied on.
post18
I thought I was pretty clear
pointing out how my post was about the Causby situation that someone brought up in this thread.
Thank you Kbob for helping me shoot down their Causby concerns by pointing out
its NOT about the stuff Causby was about,
but that it is about PRIVACY from being spied on invading ones privacy
post25
Privacy? what privacy, aint no expectation of privacy from regular air traffic (aka within FARs and not violating min alt FAR distance in part c). The court saw a problem with the closness of the heli to the barn, not that they cant look inside when at Minimum FAR Alts
now, just who is it in post 26 that wants to open an examination of the extents of min FAR alts on models
post26, by T A B
Would a private FPV model/drone also be considered a danger/threat for flying within 500' of people/structures ?
post29 T A B
Presumably, at the (AMA) club , you would have CBO exemption. But when you fly FPV elsewhere, you would not.
It seemed that you presented a case in which a court decided that hovering over a pot growers barn was a threat because the vehicle was too close, (closer than FAA guidlelines). Why wouldn't the same COURT keep me from hovering my FPV heli over the pot growers barn? IS too close for a manned vehicle the same as too close for an unmanned vehicle ? (not speaking about FAA's opinion of things or FAR's)
..... aaand that how we got to where TAB
1) suddenly agreed that KE has been right in saying the thread is about warrants and privacy
2) yet TAB wants to steer the conversation to dwelling on the can of worms of MA being unregulated yet having
(some mystery)regulation
YOU brought up a future cbo exemption to current MA regulation after I warned you its a can of worm folks dont want kicked.
And it seems now you agree with me there too: Youkicked the worm can and now find you didnt want to.
As for the member org AMA, and how the OP in post one considered it to be related to this thread on government warrants,
ask him, not me.
Its a bill to require the government to get a warrant for using unmanned craft,
nothing abnout NON-Gov craft... it only will regulate Public caft it completely ignores Civil and Hobby craft,
and nothing about it being about ByLOS vs FPV/Autonomous vs WithinLOS- it said autonomous or by remote pilot
(btw, we fly by remote control at AMA clubs but we aint gov 'Public' users)