Anyone can be killed by anything. I have no issues with FPV as long as it's done legally. Pushing the distance is all fine and good but bottom line is if your not following the rules your breaking them. When that occurs your endangering MY RIGHT ( by the next round of unnecessary regulation ) caused these " cutting edge" people to fly and enjoy my toy airplanes. It's just that simple. The rules are clear and they need to adhere to them.. A far a the "speed" thing have no interest nor plan too pursue it. They have their own safety rules in effect and since I don't hear a while lot and "incidents" I'm guessing they have a pretty good handle on it.

Mike

Yep , rail , whine , stomp & kick your feet all you want to , but society has decided to accept the risk of speeders for the convenience of being able to have the rest of society travel by car . All drivers assume the risk of speeders as a condition of that particular mode of transportation , and since there is nothing "in it for them" for the greater public to assume the risk of being hit by your out of control BLOS model aircraft , I HIGHLY doubt your much beloved BLOS hobby "allowance" will be granted anytime soon .

Any other foolish "Apples VS Oranges" comparisons you need shot down today ?

The latest in this continuing saga:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/01/...em-for-drones/

:) Thank You SunDevilPilot and Brian Ray for the links , interesting reading for sure .

:( Of course , SunDevilPilot's link is exactly the kind of bad press our hobby don't need ....

Another drone idiot!
 

What an idiot, a really big fine and jail time!

Yes, this man and others who do stupid things like this need to be fined heavily and arrested under EXISTING laws. That may send a message to others. Plus, we don't need any new laws to combat this.

Need new laws or not, we've got them and they are being made by Congress, at the urging of the drone CBO. What could be worse punishment than being regulated by Congress? There is some collateral damage though, as all the rest of us are punished along with troglodytes like this guy.

Read this
 

Another idiot,,,,,,,,,,,Drone operator near wildfire facing felony charges | Fox News

Yeah that was all over the local news here....I'd like to see them set a pretty nice fine......and maybe THAT will spread like the wildfires have around here.

The latest issue of AMA Today appeared in my email inbox today. The answer to the question "what we really need to ensure safety of our skies" is revealed. That answer...ta da!...is every model aircraft operator should be required belong to a CBO such as AMA. Who would have guessed?

I'm certain no member of a CBO would have done that!

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A SOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like the transponder shown in the link flyinwalenda posted. If that works, it would be easy for law enforcement to track down a violator and slap them with a ticket, just like a cop with a radar gun does on the freeway

I would agree with using ADS-B. But not with ID. Why? Because nobody would use that and very few would have it.

It's a Witch hunt.......

wrong thread

This Drone-Maker Armed a Quadcopter with a Sniper Rifle

lhttps://www.defensetech.org/2017/08/...C=eb_170821.nl

Really Dude ? If this is in some how some way earth shattering news to you , and I figure it must be as indicated by the gigantic font , well where in the Hell have you been ???? FYI the Military has been flying weaponized drones for at least the past 6 or 7 years and taking out suspected terrorists with them over in Iraq and Afghanistan , does it really matter if the "drone" looks more like a traditional airplane or more like a Quad ? Obviously our military has decided the use of robotic weapons to neutralize suspected terrorists is an acceptable use of this technology , so tell me Mr. Mike , how DOES it make any difference if this remote controlled death is carried out with two wings or four rotors ? I'd say the net result would be pretty much equal to the intended target ......

Init don't hav a cow.

Wrong. We weaponized drones during the Bush era (A decade or so ago). And it was a brilliant idea. At that time you could fly out the drone and see the bad guys. Somebody said, since we are there looking at them, why not load a weapon (the drones had the capacity to carry them) and just on the spot eradicate the problem, and joint these characters with their designated virgins? The rest is history.

Gerry

Gee Gerry nice attempt at trying to find fault with what I posted , but I do believe the "FOR AT LEAST" part makes my statement factually correct .

Maybe you'd like to look again and see if maybe some punctuation or other trivial correction "needs" to be made ?

Course , I don't expect any answer from you , I know your the guy who does the "drive by threadcrapping" , like you did here , but don't have the moxie to admit when mistaken .

PS , Hound , I have some nice tasty Cow (or Steer , to get the correction in before any of the English Majors , well , have a Cow :) ) at least twice a week , Steak & Cheese Burgers , Yum ! ;)

No, you are wrong, I was correcting a mistake. You know, we all commit mistakes and as grownups, when pointed out, we thank the person, make a mental note (learn), and move on.
You were actually far from the mark. I remembered Bush was our president, but really did not remember the date. So since this seems to be important to you, I can tell you now that the year was 2001 (November), But do not just take my word. Rad about it here: A history of the armed drone.
It was a gigantic leap for the military.
I do not care about punctuation on forums as I type fast, and never re-read before sending. While I do not fly drones, I was (am) involved with the big ones from time to time. I fly giant scale fixed wing models. In my experience in this hobby IF you are not having fun you are not doing it right, and IF you are having fun and it is legal GREAT, no matter what you fly or run or navigate...

Happy landings

Gerry

;) Well Gerry , Thank You for the response and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here , I believe my use of "at least" means it was just that , the textbook definition of the term "at least" being at least that amount of time but with the actual amount of time likely being somewhat longer .

Now , as to the actual subject discussion of weaponizing drones , the military is already SO past that question in terms of ethics that the presently looming question is not one of putting weapons on human operated drones , but one of putting weapons on fully autonomous robots that will kill with no real time human guidance/intervention in their missions . At least with a weaponized drone the human operator is still in control of what and when the drone kills VS having a robot make the call , and yes this technology has been being developed "for at least" the past few years also ......

Ethics in war? I visited a museum in Colorado, and under a B-1 they had A bombs mock ups from the cold war, and current cruise missiles with same power A load. What they call city loads. They can wipe a city. So, if we do not have the expense of having to send a crew and expensive hardware (B-1) to deliver a weapon, and instead send a Cruise Missile ( or a ICBM), people are OK.

But when drones started to be used people were against it. I do not get it. It is a weapon like any other. Designed with very specialized purposes. Non of which are life-sustaining...
The drone armed with a sniper rifle or a grenade launcher in my opinion is a good idea (would like to know how they would neutralize the recoil). If it is inexpensive and save our guys life (or limbs) I am all for it.

When the Argentinean fought the Falkland wars (what, like 30 years ago?) They use Exocet missiles fired of Super Etendard french airplanes. They flew very low, and the aircraft fired the missile far away from the ship. The airplane computer directed the missile, to the point where the missile would "see" the target, compare it with the on-board database pictures, recognize, target and fly into the ship. The last minute hit no hit decision was made by the missile on board computer.

I am all in favor of helping our military guys to keep their lives, and limbs, and sanity. And if it means using a smart autonomous electric car loaded w/explosives (example) and it is practical, I am for it. Remember these things are used in areas where there basically are no good people, and everybody wants you dead, male, female, seniors and kids...

As far a autonomous self thinking cyborgs, we will cross that bridge when we get there. Now I have to find a way to not receive messages from the board. Somehow long time ago I must have messed up something and I get a e-mail with messages every time someone posts...

Gerry I agree 100% with the idea of saving the life & limb of our military personnel and I also agree that future wars will be fought by "cyborgs" as you mentioned .

Now , as to the Email thing , if you go to the "User CP" at the top of the page (located in the blue bar) and click on that it will take you to a screen where you can chose which of your settings to modify . Go to the "Email notifications" tab and there you will be able to turn off the notifications . When they (RCU) changed to this new (old) format it set everyone's preferences to "default" , which in this case means that all notifications are enabled untill you go and disable them .