And Yes. There is a registry of people with nothing to hide. It is called the phone book. If you think you are hiding by posting info on this pubic forum you are kidding your self.
The next time some idiot sends a drone in restricted air space you need to track them down.
Drones are like guns these days. Any idiot can buy one. Guns/Drones don't kill.. It is the operator.
There are many articles on the web about drones in Emergency or Restricted Air Space.
Very true, even if you sign up 99.9 prcent of the of the law abiding, like gun's, the tool's are available to anyone who wants to cause trouble, it's a conundrum.
Registration of the drones is to protect us. Yes You and Me.
Examples:
Someone 2 miles a way buys a drone and directs it to your house to take pictures of you.
Some idiot controls a drone and brings down a Helicopter or Airplane Killing XXX number of people.
Pick your battles people... Privacy or Security. You cannot have both.
I kinda doubt anyone doing things you mentioned would put their registration number on their "drone".
I simply can't fathom the mindset of people who think by passing a law that 12yo Johnny's "drone" needs a registration number means that anything is now 'safer'. The dangers are the same, the compliance rate will be abysmal. The only thing that changes is a new revenue stream is opened for the FAA. This is as ludicrous as requiring a licence plate on RC cars and then claiming that mitigates the risk of someone driving that into a highway and causing an accident.
Drones are like guns these days. Any idiot can buy one. Guns/Drones don't kill.. It is the operator.
There are many articles on the web about drones in Emergency or Restricted Air Space.
That really is a specious argument. Not having a drone or gun registry allows the mentally unstable and those with a criminal record to easily purchase them. No different than having to obtain a drivers license to drive a vehicle on public roads.
I have been reading this kind of statement all over the net for years. At first I was a bit shocked by the callous stupidity of it, but I could not quite put my finger on why that was.
I have come to the conclusion it is just false.
I would probably have a lot of trouble trying to kill someone with my bare hands. Give me a gun and I can take out dozens of people with ease.
Ergo, guns kill people.
The evidence of this can be found in the atrocities that crop up on the news in the USA and increasingly the rest of the western world.
We also suffer from, "perfect being the enemy of good" in these kinds of regulatory discussions. Doing nothing leaves the problems out there. Making "it's not perfect" arguments continues to leave the problem out there, while also absolving advocates of any real ownership of said problem.
To me, this is unacceptable.
We can do stuff, we can get data, and we can improve. So then, let's do that, even if it's not perfect, it can be better.
Finally, regulation happens along these four axis: money and markets, law, norms, physics.
Frequently, we use law without actually recognizing the potency of the other forces. Norms, such as education and awareness, can do a lot that law either cannot, or does very poorly. In the context of drones and guns, it's my belief that a whole lot more education is needed, and that said education should be mandatory. It's not really possible to separate the dangerous tech from the society in which it exists. This means the problems are actually *our* problems, whether or not we see ourselves as likely contributors to said problems.
Apparently, this is an extremely hard sell. Our loss.
You can find out more on the axis of regulation by reading Lessig, "Code" where there is a chapter on this I found extremely enlightening when it comes to discussions where the law, technology and society intersect.
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I believe that what the FAA wants to do is reach out to the clueless - those who spend the $$ to buy a RTF machine and do stupid things; the intent is to educate them. But how do you target them without burdening the rest of us?
Those of us who are responsible already have identifying info on our aircraft, and we endeavor to fly them responsibly. Do I regard the FAA mandate as a burden? Perhaps. I'm already a member of the AMA, so now I have another for of ID that I must put on my aircraft. But on the other hand, $5 will hardly break my budget. And no, I don't subscribe to the notion that the federal govt. is maintaining a database that will ultimately cause me to have my drones taken away or be subject to some other nefarious schemes. Sorry, but I'll leave those notions to those who support political figure here (sorry for turning this into a political discussion, but I couldn't resist!)....
Basically, it comes down to this: You have a choice - register or not. It only matters if you do something stupid and get caught, and even then I hardly doubt that you will have to pay the large fine - depends on how stupid you are, I suppose. If you fly out in the country with little/no chance of crashing into someone's barn or house, then whose to know? Of course, someone (an ex?) could snitch on you, but then would the FAA bother to chase you down and confiscate your drone? Hardly.
So, I did register - on the first day, so I didn't cost me anything. I live in a retirement community, so it's not clear what my neighbors think - I'm probably a nut case, but they know that I did register. Am I a sheeple? Depends on your political perspective. But I'm not worried - I have both my contact info and my FAA ID on my Elev-8's (and soon, on my Tarot FY680 Pro).
.
I think it is pre-programmed. Like a big Amazon drone you ride in. Would be a very ripe target for hackers, much hilarity could ensue.
.
Would be an interesting ride at an amusement park near you.
Insurance would kill you, Been there, done that, with ground based Hovercraft rides.
.
I would think that the certification process for this will be outrageous. Imagine the headlines when one blindly flies into a building or heads out over the ocean or climbs straight up to 10,000 feet until its batteries run out. Yikes.
.
OK, after a gross of comments on this thread that just won't die, can whomever is able *please* remove the apostrophe from the title ?!? Thank you.
I don't understand your problem, if it has something to do with the longevity or popularity of this thread, you certainly don't have to follow it. As far as I know this has been your only constructive input on the subject.
How about an explanation of why someone is apostrophe sensitive, and where the little bugger in question was, and how something as trivial as a punctuation mark, should require such drastic action as sensorship by administrator's.
The apostrophe reflected my expression at the time this thread was created. Just beause this subject has evolved into required registration, doesn't diminish from this discussions original intent, to make the reader awhere that, big changes in the way someone practices their hobby, were looming in the near future.
Comments
There are many articles on the web about drones in Emergency or Restricted Air Space.
So we have a registry of people with nothing to hide, that stops those WITH something to hide how exactly?
C.W.
Example: If Registered with good info... Ignore Unless in restricted air space.
Can you imagine the amount of CPU power required to track all the drones in the air right now? Your tax dollars pay for that.
The next time some idiot sends a drone in restricted air space you need to track them down.
Very true, even if you sign up 99.9 prcent of the of the law abiding, like gun's, the tool's are available to anyone who wants to cause trouble, it's a conundrum.
I simply can't fathom the mindset of people who think by passing a law that 12yo Johnny's "drone" needs a registration number means that anything is now 'safer'. The dangers are the same, the compliance rate will be abysmal. The only thing that changes is a new revenue stream is opened for the FAA. This is as ludicrous as requiring a licence plate on RC cars and then claiming that mitigates the risk of someone driving that into a highway and causing an accident.
That really is a specious argument. Not having a drone or gun registry allows the mentally unstable and those with a criminal record to easily purchase them. No different than having to obtain a drivers license to drive a vehicle on public roads.
I have come to the conclusion it is just false.
I would probably have a lot of trouble trying to kill someone with my bare hands. Give me a gun and I can take out dozens of people with ease.
Ergo, guns kill people.
The evidence of this can be found in the atrocities that crop up on the news in the USA and increasingly the rest of the western world.
We also suffer from, "perfect being the enemy of good" in these kinds of regulatory discussions. Doing nothing leaves the problems out there. Making "it's not perfect" arguments continues to leave the problem out there, while also absolving advocates of any real ownership of said problem.
To me, this is unacceptable.
We can do stuff, we can get data, and we can improve. So then, let's do that, even if it's not perfect, it can be better.
Finally, regulation happens along these four axis: money and markets, law, norms, physics.
Frequently, we use law without actually recognizing the potency of the other forces. Norms, such as education and awareness, can do a lot that law either cannot, or does very poorly. In the context of drones and guns, it's my belief that a whole lot more education is needed, and that said education should be mandatory. It's not really possible to separate the dangerous tech from the society in which it exists. This means the problems are actually *our* problems, whether or not we see ourselves as likely contributors to said problems.
Apparently, this is an extremely hard sell. Our loss.
You can find out more on the axis of regulation by reading Lessig, "Code" where there is a chapter on this I found extremely enlightening when it comes to discussions where the law, technology and society intersect.
Please keep discussion within appropriate bounds for this forum.
For example, discussions of weapons and politics are not closely aligned with the intention of this forum.
Let's not derail
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/airbus-introduces-a-system-to-jam-drones-out-of-the-sky/ar-AAguLhO
Comments?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-goes-down-at-a-vegas-drone-rodeo/ar-AAguaZI
Comments?
Those of us who are responsible already have identifying info on our aircraft, and we endeavor to fly them responsibly. Do I regard the FAA mandate as a burden? Perhaps. I'm already a member of the AMA, so now I have another for of ID that I must put on my aircraft. But on the other hand, $5 will hardly break my budget. And no, I don't subscribe to the notion that the federal govt. is maintaining a database that will ultimately cause me to have my drones taken away or be subject to some other nefarious schemes. Sorry, but I'll leave those notions to those who support political figure here (sorry for turning this into a political discussion, but I couldn't resist!)....
Basically, it comes down to this: You have a choice - register or not. It only matters if you do something stupid and get caught, and even then I hardly doubt that you will have to pay the large fine - depends on how stupid you are, I suppose. If you fly out in the country with little/no chance of crashing into someone's barn or house, then whose to know? Of course, someone (an ex?) could snitch on you, but then would the FAA bother to chase you down and confiscate your drone? Hardly.
So, I did register - on the first day, so I didn't cost me anything. I live in a retirement community, so it's not clear what my neighbors think - I'm probably a nut case, but they know that I did register. Am I a sheeple? Depends on your political perspective. But I'm not worried - I have both my contact info and my FAA ID on my Elev-8's (and soon, on my Tarot FY680 Pro).
Sorry GlassKNees, VonSzarvas did warn people not to bring up politics here.
http://mobile.geek.com/latest/258992-this-quadcopter-drone-can-fly-you-to-work
I think it is pre-programmed. Like a big Amazon drone you ride in. Would be a very ripe target for hackers, much hilarity could ensue.
.
Would be an interesting ride at an amusement park near you.
Insurance would kill you, Been there, done that, with ground based Hovercraft rides.
I wouldn't feel to comfortable with the thing unless the blades were well above neck high to the occupant.
I would think that the certification process for this will be outrageous. Imagine the headlines when one blindly flies into a building or heads out over the ocean or climbs straight up to 10,000 feet until its batteries run out. Yikes.
.
I don't understand your problem, if it has something to do with the longevity or popularity of this thread, you certainly don't have to follow it. As far as I know this has been your only constructive input on the subject.