RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

You're wrong about private ownership of full auto weapons. There is no special license to own one, what there is in the way of 'licensure' is a $200 tax stamp on a Form 4 transfer form, AFTER you have either obtained permission from you local chief law enforcement officer or set up a Coporation or Trust that would 'own' the weapon instead of you as an individual.

Machinegun posession IS illegal, the way the law is worded is that having approved transfer forms is a legal defense to prosecution. I have owned a machine gun for a few years, the process is the same as purchasing a sound suppressor, short barreled shotgun or rifle, destructive device etc. The difference between a machine gun and the other items I listed is that in 1986, the .gov banned the manufacture or creation of new machine guns in 1986 (thankyou, Congress) forever. That means there is an ever increasing demand for a shrinking supply because you can't buy a new one or convert a semi-auto without risking prison time. Essentially, what they do is tell you that in order to avoid becoming a felon, that you have to pay a $200 tax, but they won't accept the tax if you try to pay it. The reason for this is that when the law was originally written in 1934, $200 would have almost bought a new car-the Supreme Court told them they couldn't ban the weapons, only tax and regulate. So they did. What we have today is unconsititional and will be challenged before too long. Many things have changed since the Heller vs. DC case-for the first time in US history, the Second Amendment has the same weight as the right to Free Speech.

Now, as far as Drone/UAV's are concerned there are serious Militia implications that need to be addressed. We should be able to fly missions for Militia purposes, same as they do to us.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Well, if the mission is to shoot down low-flying spy drones in your neighborhood there's one law that demands respect like no other, and that's why I favor using a shotgun over Joe's rifle:

"What goes up must come down"

Sheesh...........most every modeler has been punished under that law, even if they belong to AMA.

cj

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

It's kinda easy to spot a full sized aircraft and fly down and away from it.

Note I said safely. Flying a plane so far away that it is a dot is not safe. Not just because of radio range, but also because it is very difficult to see the planes orentation and distance.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

I dont own a shot gun ,just the rifle and a 44 super black hawk for home protection .[&o] OH ! and my trusty baseball bat for smaller varments . :D

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Well, in the interest of safely dealing with spy drones you should buy one.
Then..... I have some doubt that you are really concerned with safety, Joe. It's that pic of your 'sikle that gave me a clue..........I do some off-road riding, but was always skeptical about doing it on streets and highways.
It's like, "tough biker" is aka "organ donor." [&o]

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

I started out hill climbing on a built and stretched bulltaco 250 at strip mines 20 miles south of me at 15 then built and raced a shovster at the dragstrip ( shovel heads sporster bottom half) Gave the broken bones when my kids came along but they are grown and gone now so the company i work for bought me the 97 roadking as a bonus in 98 . I ride it in the country on weekends when hardly no traffic is out and drive other toys during the week. No not worried about drone flyers saftey but dont want them hovering around my house either ,or causing trouble for my hobby.Not worried about a thief's saftey either if he is stupid enough to put his foot in my front door. :D joe

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Link to interesting article. In Texas, earlier this year a kid (student) landing this full size aircraft did hit a drone.

http://www.aopa.org/training/article...&cmp=ePlt:RdMr

Sent today by the AOPA. It had a lucky ending, but it could also not been hat happy...

Gerry

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

A drone sport utility vehicle??? Wonder what's next..........

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Looked like a Volvo to me...I always knew them Volvos were dangerous!!!

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

a little better video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BcwITaUDw0

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

You must be older than me. Didn't provoke thoughts of danger............. my first mental image was of backseat sports without having to get off the highway.;)

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Well, honestly, it was a poor attempt to make a joke, since the acronyms are so close:-)

It really might have been a devious Volvo, they are nasty in the wild. Good thing it was not a convertible. You have to admit, the timing was impeccable:-)

Gerry

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Well you made me look. :)

From the pic of the Cessna's mangled prop, first thought was "that must have been one big honkin' drone."

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Since I haven't read through the entire 13 pages of this thread, I believe there needs to be a clarification as to what actually and technically constitutes a drone and how the FAA along with the AMA arrive at a proper answer to this matter. Then proceed with matters involved.
As I see it a drone is an aircraft operated remotely at either close or extreme range, past line of sight, for purposes other than hobby or commercial. This would also include autonomous operation as well. Colleges and universities use drones for a variety of scientific related issues. For instance, up here in Northern Michigan, one of the colleges was using a drone to track water depth and quality as well as other related issues. This was not a flight drone but a surface running version. They might also use drones for collecting air quality data or solar monitoring; wildlife monitoring or any other biological, geophysical observation.
We know how the military uses drones but what do we know about the intents and purposes of the use of drones by law enforcement? To this point, states and municipalities are beginning to realize the effect it will have on privacy and are now in the process of hammering out bills to either put limitations on their use or outright bans.
So when does a typical RC plane become a drone? Is it because it has a camera or because it is remotely piloted through the use of virtual monitoring past line-of-sight? Installing a camera, whether still or video does not necessarily make it a drone but it seems that when you add the technology to enable to fly it over horizon with the aid of GPS and or computer or direct video feed for any purpose even just for grins and giggles, then one would have to take the view that the vehicle being flown is a drone.
The fact is the government plans to place as many as thirty thousand drones into the airspace above the nation should raise alarms to all of us who value freedom and liberty. Drones will become a major industry soon and of course along with it are the sweetheart deals with the government. One further scenario that has been cropping up in the alternate media is the possibility of fully armed drones being used within our own borders. Before anyone says B.S., let me remind you of how far things have gone in the past ten years, how fast the acceleration towards a full out, no holds barred police state has taken place in our face.
We are, for the time being, still able to fly our model planes without harassment from either the government or local law enforcement but does that mean it will stay this way in the future? Make no mistake about it: whistle blowers from various federal agencies including the FBI, NSA and CIA all have stated that Martial Law is coming to America, whether you want to believe it or not, whether you are willing to accept it or not, it is coming. When that happens, then you can kiss your right to fly RC planes goodbye. Don't forget, in the old Soviet Union, radio controlled model planes were banned outright. I hate to sound alarmist but people need to wake up and look around them and consider all that has happened.
So enjoy this hobby while you still can and don't get all worked up about the use of drones within our hobby.....it's not that important in the grand scheme of things and if you really have a use for such then I guess you will have to work with those that control the airspace above us, just as any private, commercial or military pilot would have to do.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

That was an SUV (Auto) not a UAV (Drone) that was hit. The SUV was crossing in front of the threshold without stopping for approaching traffic, probably on her cell phone texting.

Regards
Frank

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

It was a woman driving? That means it was a drone (unMANned vehicle.):D

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Duplicate (Stupid server error)[:@]

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Regards
Frank

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Nothing wrong here. Move along good citizens...<div></div><div>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...t-jfk/1964311/

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Unmanned-Aircraft-John-F-Kennedy-Airport-New-York-FAA-Investigating-195125251.html</div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Two comments from the article, the pilot was at 1500 ft when he saw the drone and the comment that some have seen "kids flying model planes in the area".

Brad<br type="_moz" />

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Interesting that the city of Charlottesville, VA has now become drone free:

(Bolding is my emphasis)

Do a google search for Charlottesville, VA drone free and you will see all sorts of goodies.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

The description appears to be of a four rotor heli about three feet in diameter.<div>
</div><div>So some idiot was flying hiw quadcopter at 1500 feet in the landing approach to JFK............... We are our own worst enemy.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/05/fbi-investigating-report-of-possible-drone-spotted-near-jfk/</span></div><div><span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Brad</span></div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Unless this is a restricted area the pilot of an RC aircraft would be legit. This was5 or6 miles from the airport. The pilot said it was 3 feet wide, though I do not understand why he can accurately describe the size of a small model or other UAV.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

He would be legit according to AMA but not FAA.

This could become the test case where we learn that when an AC has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material, compliance with its restrictions is no longer voluntary.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Incorparated by reference does not make the AC non voluntary, except to the extent that regulation or policy has done so. To my knowledge the only way that was done was toward sUAV's so it only applies to sUAV's. Which would apply here if this is a sUAV and not a model airplane. A sUAV may not be as capable to see and avoid as a model airplane. Of course this could be restricted airspace which is all over NYC. I believe there is a model flying site at an abandoned NAS not for from JFK but may be further than 5 or 6 miles. I believe this is Bennent Field?