Originally Posted by
tomfiorentino
I agree on the behavior problem comment; and that is exactly what laws are made for (good or bad). Gun violence is a behavior problem as well; perfect example, and probably all of us know what is going on legislatively on that front (good or bad). Defining a drone is analogous to defining an "assault rifle" in their respective arguments.
To define a drone though a good starting point might be to look at anything that has VTOL capability and then find a way to carve out the traditional helicopter guys. I bet 95% of the behavior issues lie with devices that a VTOL definition captures.
It's not like anyone is going to have a tail mounted camera on a 100cc Yak and hover over their neighbors pool.
As I said in post 204, I'd like to see fixed wing separated, but that will not happen, or at least I seriously doubt it. I'm going to stick my neck out here, but the FAA's definition of a "Drone", as much as I hate to admit it, makes perfect sense if you look at it from a perspective outside the modeling world. Oh, and that 100cc does have the capability to have tail mounted camera and it likely has a very real capability of hovering and you never know, there might be some perverted clown out there that is up to the challenge of hovering it over a pool to get a shot of a couple of gals sunbathing. By virtue of that and many other reasons the FAA will hang onto that definition like a tigers tail.