Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 11 months ago
    Are there any known incidents of a plane being damaged from 'drone' impact, or any crashes attributed to 'drone strikes'?
    I sure haven't heard of one yet. But it seems that anything new, the bureaucracy does a mad search to find a reason to regulate, license, and get fees. I just don't know how I've managed to remain alive all the years I have without gov't taking full control of my life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 11 months ago
      I do not see where the government has hurt these contraptions. I heard from pilots that THEY not some government employee is seeing them while they are landing or taking off, not good. We can't control birds getting in the flight path but we can and should control man made flying contraptions getting into flight paths. Unfortunately many humans educated in our government schools which means they have almost no education will abuse the use of these contraptions. The fact that one has yet to meet an aircraft at 2000 or 5000 feet so far does NOT mean it will never happen. It is just a matter of time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 11 months ago
        As commented on last night's news...the people who are intent upon causing havoc in the skies won't register their drones, anyway.

        Just like gun registration, you only affect the law abiding citizens...not the ones causing the problem.

        Finally, what is the government going to do with their $5 registration fee? I bet it won't have much to do with drone regulation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fosterj717 8 years, 11 months ago
          Right! and just like guns, they will be regulated, taxed and ultimately controlled from the check out counter on........Can't miss a chance to "bureaucratize" anything in order to justify one's reason for being!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years, 11 months ago
            I suspect the $5 "fee" is the tip of a future iceberg... because once you have crossed the slippery slope from free and unregulated" to "Regulated and licensed" it's a VERY short step to "Mandatory Requirements, pollution mitigation fees, FAA airspace regulation fees, ground-air recovery fees, the federal military drone support tax, etc. etc. etc... Proof you decommissioned said aircraft, a fee to de-register, Radio Licensing fees...

            I bet that $5 will stay $5 for just about as long as it takes to put riders in various and sundry congressional votes on assorted omnibus riders to boost the graft, er, looting, er, "necessary reimbursement" for all these things these evil drone owners are costing the dotgov......

            And once the feds do it... Betcha the states will rapidly (and greedily) follow suit...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
              Only if you ride in airplanes and TSA has made that a non-starter. There are choices. Suppose you want to go from Spain to some place in the US. Fly to Mexico or Canada and rent a car from the nearest point. You have just cut your odds and facing terrorism face to face 100%
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 11 months ago
        Well, golly gee then. Lets just sit right down and regulate everything in the air that a pilot might be scared of. How about kites, balloons, fire works, private car-planes, gov't rockets, gov't drones, back pack hover craft, UFOs--it's just a matter of time. And gov't bureaucrats have such a great record of non-corruption and expertise, I just know they'll make everything better and safer.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
        Yes the pilots union wants only pilots to be able to fly drones and they want them in the loop the whole time Luddites
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 11 months ago
          I have now knowledge of the pilots union being involved. I do know that there are many who do not know the meaning of common sense use of these things. There are some who will use them as a weapon. Pilots have enough to be concerned about when landing and taking off that they really do not need further distractions. How about all the loonies with their lasers. why not fly kits in open areas near airports? The technology is not being hurt but improper use can hurt.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
            Most landings and take offs are hands off. The pilots union magazine I think it's ALPA had an article a decade or so ago asking the pilots to make one hands on landing and one hands on take off a month to not lose their skills.

            After that i was always amazed at the number of people who applauded a partcularly good landing. Rolled my eyes one time and commented. "You realize you are applauding a computer?"

            They have been Luddites for longer than you might have supposed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BradA 8 years, 11 months ago
      I recall a drone strike being reported a few months back on a Piper flying out of Livermore, CA.
      www.ktvu.com/news/2-investigates/2384...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
        Not exactly what i would call strong evidence

        “We think it’s a drone,” Franklin said. “I’m very concerned about it. It’s could’ve been a catastrophic event.”
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
          the new Aces will be sitting in a comfortable control room, hopefully not outsourced, doing pinpoint JSOWS attacks with pinpoint satellite eyes. Cargo delivery is a snap by comparison. The upside is no more Hanoi Hilton's. The down side is to get real combat time the Air Farce is going to have to reinstate A10's. For those who are afraid of flying without a pilot why aren't you bitching about the seats not facing to the rear?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 8 years, 11 months ago
    Just a thought; RC's (remote controlled) are not new. The first RC planes became a hobby about the mid 60's and really picked up through the 70's. The only thing that has changed is the shape and that the military finally caught on to the idea that they could be weaponized (after spending billions in development when they could have simply gone down to the local Heathkit store).

    After 50 years, our investigative reporters are now making people aware that they exist, so obviously there are more sightings. Since all news is owned and controlled by large corporations; my guess is that someone wants them regulated because they are afraid of them, justified or not. People are often afraid of what they don't understand and who understands Geeks and Engineers, but other Geeks and Engineers. FYI: the British released a Intelligence Report last week citing that Technical people, Engineers, and certain Hobby activities are the "Greatest Terror Threat We Face Today".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 11 months ago
    If every possible danger were alleviated by the government, we'd all be prisoners in solitary confinement. It would be a boring, miserable, uneventful, unproductive life, but we'd be safe. It's called reductio ad absurdum. Take a concept, string it out to the nth degree and see what you come up with. It often shows the absurdities of government actions as in this case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 11 months ago
    Wait!
    Aren't drones included as arms under the 2nd amendment?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
      Interesting point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
        Are cameras considered weapons. In the intelligence and target gathering sense that might be the case but would that imply a connection to a firing mechanism and firing authority?

        As an observation tool does that spill over to camera angles so flying not overhead but using the camera as a SLA or Side Looking Airborne system enter the picture in both the 2nd amendment and as a potential civil privacy issue?
        Just to add some flavor to the mix of questions.

        I can just see Obeyme saying 'fundamentally the Court hasn't visited that area yet. "
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 11 months ago
    I forgot to ask the question...when will the government begin registering laser pointers?

    It seems that there have been many more instances of laser strikes than of drone avoidances.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetmec 8 years, 11 months ago
    I once invented a replacement for the supercharger and the turbo for cars and trucks, The prototype worked quite well and also gave a good fuel saving on the car I tried it on, Needless to say I could not get it on the market mainly to the attitude of "We've done it this way for fifty years why should we change?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
      It is particularly difficult to invent in areas with big entrenched players. You would have needed to sell it as an aftermarket product to get any traction
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jetmec 8 years, 11 months ago
        I took on a partner who had contacts or so he said! to do this after all the documents were signed to share profits no contacts turned up but he still wanted money! He didn't get it! I've worked on the design to improve it but I've no idea who to see to get any movement on it
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years, 11 months ago
    13 year olds are considered emancipated adults in the eyes of this law? (Parents are liable for those UNDER 13)... I can see it now...

    Sorry, Mr. & Mrs Jones, we're fining your 13 year old Johnny $250,000 and putting him in the care and custody of the State for the criminal act of not controlling his drone for 3 years, flying it into little Susie Smith (whose dad is a DHS agent) and doing her grievous harm. That's OK, he'll LIKE living in an Obamayouth Kamp, they'll mold him into the ideal subject! Oh, his fine? We'lll just postpone it - we may need to hold it over his head... someday...

    And while we're at it? How dare you raise such a criminal? You both must be terrorists. We're putting you on a federal watch list, and revoking your rights. Um Hmmm...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 11 months ago
    Flying a drone anywhere near a busy airport is recklessly stupid. There I can understand restrictions but not the paying of fees.
    Due to ongoing terrorist activity and that of international spies, I can understand why military bases can dislike civilian drones flying around.
    Messing with Area 51 may be fun, though getting caught droning the place definitely would not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
    Basically the government wants us to sit in our houses and never leave and never do anything- UNTIL they approve.

    Prior approval is the watchword of federal regulations. They did it with medical devices in 1976, long before that with transportation of all types. long before that even with our food, and lately with our medical care.

    Getting time to make enough resources to be able to "shrug" without living in a cold, dark tent.

    Its very depressing
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 11 months ago
    I don't see this as any more problematic than registering full size aircraft. As you say it won't affect the guy who intends to cause harm (unless we make it open season on drones without a tail number), but it will improve accountability and deter mischief by those whose craft are registered.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago
    I have 4 audio speakers in the living room which have
    beryllium-domed mid-range and high-frequency drivers.
    they aren't produced any more. . wonder why? -- j

    p.s. these antiques do sound super!
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ohiocrossroads 8 years, 11 months ago
      Berylliosis would be my guess. Beryllium is one of my favorite metals, but if you breathe in Beryllium dust, you'll get a nasty lung disease. It's toxic. But Beryllium alloyed with Aluminum yields a material that is 1/3 lighter than Aluminum, with higher thermal conductivity, that has the same modulus of elasticity as steel. They were making pistons for Formula 1 engines from it about 10-15 years ago, but it was outlawed in the name of cost control. How exotic is a material if F1 outlaws it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
    We've had a number of incidents where firefighting planes have stopped dropping water because there were drones in the area.

    I wonder how dangerous drones are to aircraft?

    The word 'drone' covers everything from the 2 oz drone charging on my USB port to military drones weighing in excess of a ton.

    .55 pounds is pretty light. I'm sure hitting birds is more dangerous. Are they freaking out over nothing or is there a real danger -- and at what weight?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 11 months ago
      Lots of factors in that question. Ingesting a drone into a jet intake is not a desirable thing. It doesn't take much to imbalance blades and the engine self destructs at that point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
        The US Airways Flight 1549 that landed in the Hudson took up 'multiple birds' in both engines. The Canadian Geese weigh 5-10 lbs each.

        According to the CNN article "The plane's CFM56-5B/P turbofan engines were certified in 1996 as being able to withstand bird ingestion of 4 pounds."

        http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/huds...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 11 months ago
          Which brought it down.

          Flesh and hollow bone is going to be easier for the engine to survive than metal pieces of a drone.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
            The problem is with the whole thought process from the beginning. We assume that there will be a problem based on some hypothetical, then the answer is for the government create a big bureaucracy to track every one involved.

            Not only is this philosophically inconsistent with a free country it is inconsistent with sound science. On top of this all, the money wasted on the big bureaucracy could be spent much better on technical solutions and on proper understanding of the property rights involved
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 11 months ago
              Agreed.

              Drones can present a hazard, that is my only point.

              As to the FAA, all they can do is put out useless rules and regs. Useless because they are not able to enforce them effectively even if it wasn't against property rights.

              The problem with the drones lies with the operators of course. The FAA can't regulate and supply them sense or intelligence.

              Technical solution would be jamming the controls frequencies to keep them out.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
              So what is the appropriate solution to keep a drone from bringing down the next airline you are flying on? Drones are typically used in manners that ignore private property. Do we say that you may only use a drone in airspace over your own property?

              What technological solution keeps drones out of the flight path of airplanes that are landing and taking off -- or swooping low to drop fire retardant?

              Admittedly this is still a theoretical problem, but we have had times in So. Cal. when airborne firefighting was brought to a halt because of the presence of drones.

              Of course, government registration is a useless form of revenue enhancement.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 11 months ago
                I'm certain that someone could build a software app that would automatically keep a drone away from another flying object by, say, 500 feet (or 1000 feet). Problem solved.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
                  That might be fairly tricky and involve a significant number of sensors and expense in the construction of the drone. Do we move from requiring registration to requiring minimum safety equipment on all drones? All drones over a certain weight?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
                Well, Southwest airlines never asked me about flying over my house. They just DO it. So why cant I fly a drone up there too?

                Common sense could prevail most of the time. Our legal system could prevail the rest of the time when some idiot flies his drone into the engine of a commercial jet. 99% of the time people dont want to let the drones get out of sight anyway as they are expensive and prone to never coming back...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
                  The "If you break it you have to pay for it" is certainly a solution that works for some things. I'm not sure that it works for bringing down an airliner because you wanted to get some cool video of it approaching landing from head on and didn't get out of the way.

                  Of course that may be one of the reasons for registration so that they can figure out who did it. If you do something dreadful you might just be willing to let it go.

                  Southwest airlines jumps through an amazing number of governmental hoops to get to fly over your house. Once again, I don't think that D.B. was advocating that. Actually, come to think of it, I don't know how he would manage Southwest Airlines airspace usage.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
                    Terrorists might use drones to fly into the engines of commercial jets. Locking them up or executing them after the fact might just be what they wanted to get to see ALLAH. That might be hard to control. They arent going to register, and so what if they did- they dont care about property rights or individual rights anyway.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
                You do not own the air above your land ( greater than about 100ft), because you have done nothing to make it productive. Not surprisingly you have the simplistic attitudes toward property espoused by the Austrians
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
                  I'm not entirely sure what I can do to make air 'productive' at any height -- although planting a tree or building a radio tower might do so.

                  Nevertheless, my point was not that I own a wedge of the universe pointed to by my property but that people who own drones generally get bored flying them over their own property at any height and start flying them over someone else's.

                  So, setting aside the simplistic Austrians, what is an appropriate objectivist solution to the fact that drones can endanger aircraft?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
                    Are you really that incapable of logic and using concepts? Or are you just playing us?

                    Here is a hint does crop duster leave his own property when he flies around?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
                      A crop duster needs a pilot license, his plane needs FAA registration and he needs to follow FAA regulations when doing crop dusting. That didn't seem to be the paradigm that you were advocating.

                      In fact, you didn't advocate a paradigm at all, simply said that government registration was how to "kill inventions".

                      Apparently I'm incapable of mind reading as well since I don't know what you propose as the approach that should be taken.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
                        The point is that you seem incapable of understanding that staying over one's property is irrelevant. As is all the nonsense of the FAA regulations - a tangent you want to bring in.

                        You seem incapable of thinking in conceptual terms.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
                          I don't think it's irrelevant in this venue. Most of us would agree that flying a drone over your own property under some height limit (100' is fine) should be your own damned business. Objectivists feel pretty strongly about property rights. I brought in the FAA because you brought in crop dusting as a paradigm.

                          It's how a society should manage things like flying drones outside of your own property that's an interesting question. And I will state that I don't really have a solution and would love to see some ideas instead of insults.

                          While you've repeatedly called me simplistic and incapable of understanding, you've not actually suggested how the danger should be handled other than by saying registration will "kill invention". Perhaps that's your way of saying you don't have a solution either.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by libertylad 8 years, 11 months ago
      Or are they registering, as they wish to register all firearms, a potential challenge to the supremacy of the unconstitutional federal police by future defenders of individual liberty?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo