View Full Version : Drone Delays Air Ambulance From Landing!
http://www.12newsnow.com/story/26385252/drone-delays-medical-helicopter-landing-at-oh-hospital
An unexpected drone in the area around Dayton, Ohio's Miami Valley Hospital prevented a CareFlight helicopter from landing, with a "significantly hurt" patient onboard.
"Picture yourself driving down the highway and something flies in front of you. That's the same for us It's very very difficult," says CareFlight pilot John Berthy.
Berthy wasn't in the cockpit Monday night, but he knows what it's like to have something blocking his path.
"We already contend with birds and bird strikes and other civil aircraft operating out there," he explains. "So, drones add another dimension to an already complex set of rules and regulations in air space."
Beth Calcidise, the Program Manager of CareFlight, said there was an extra sense of urgency Monday night when a drone got in the way.
"One of our flight nurses spotted it, and said 'Hey there's an object flying out here, I don't think it's a bird.' Then they saw it take off and they knew it was something other than a bird."
Calcidise called Dayton police, and MVH campus police to find the person flying the drone, before the helicopter could land.
This crap must be reined in, its just inconceivably poor judgement to allow these things to be possessed by just anyone...
LOL. How can we spy on our neighbors without them though???
First it was people lasering cockpits, now some idiot with an radio controlled toy...
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-28-14, 16:16
The problem is what is a drone and what is a model airplane. I dabble in RC- the advances in electronics has brought done the price and increased the performance, but this advance is what is causing the issues. The 'AS3X' technology is amazing.
You can basically make a GPS guided cruise missile for under a grand. First Person Video (FPV) is pretty cool, LiPo and and motors get rid of the combustion engine issues.
Complaining that 'anyone can have one' is the same line of thought used by anti-gunners; why do you need it, only the govt should have those. All the while a few ass-hats ruin it for the rest of us.
You can have my quadcopter when you pry my Dx6i from my cold dead hands; well actually my thumb and forefinger...
I've thought about evolving the 'helicopter parent' to the 'quadcopter parent' and have a quad or flying wing fly overwatch on my kids as they walk to school or practice. Kamikaze it into a perp if they get too close.
I dont know the rules of RC airplanes, but generally around here people fly them at the RC fields. I think there are at least 4 that i know of in the St. Louis area.
The other problem is below 500 ft, the FAA basically has no say in what operates in Class G airspace. Very few rules, no radio required, no transponder, etc... and basically stay out of the clouds(I think the official rule is 1 mile visibility, clear of clouds, but I havent flown GA in a LONG time). I dont know if hospital heli-pads are charted or not, if they are, there could be some legal mumbo jumbo about them, if they are not charted, I dont even know if the FAA can do a damn thing about them.
I think the drone thing(while not my cup of tee) can be pretty cool, but people need to be aware of whats out there and stay the **** out of the way of things just like all pilots are required to do given certain airspace restrictions.
The problem is what is a drone and what is a model airplane. I dabble in RC- the advances in electronics has brought done the price and increased the performance, but this advance is what is causing the issues. The 'AS3X' technology is amazing.
You can basically make a GPS guided cruise missile for under a grand. First Person Video (FPV) is pretty cool, LiPo and and motors get rid of the combustion engine issues.
Complaining that 'anyone can have one' is the same line of thought used by anti-gunners; why do you need it, only the govt should have those. All the while a few ass-hats ruin it for the rest of us.
You can have my quadcopter when you pry my Dx6i from my cold dead hands; well actually my thumb and forefinger...
I've thought about evolving the 'helicopter parent' to the 'quadcopter parent' and have a quad or flying wing fly overwatch on my kids as they walk to school or practice. Kamikaze it into a perp if they get too close.
You've raised a very interesting point, one that I have long been curious, that being the concept of turning these things into precision guided weapons! I'm not talking about the battle field drone type of weapon either, but rather an "IED" of the air! I have little difficulty envisioning one of these sophisticated devices geared up with a load of C4, or some such highly explosive fuel, and then walked in effortless upon some unsuspecting target, whether they be a politician, a hard target, of just a gangland hit! And no, its not anti-gun in any way, that is ridiculous on its face....
Alpha Sierra
08-28-14, 16:51
Today was the last day of the Ohio UAS convention and expo at the Dayton Convention Center. There were several exhibitors with many little mini RC helicopter drones or whatever the name du jour is.
I wonder if someone got bored and flew one out of downtown after the show......MVH is not that far south from the convention center.
alienb1212
08-28-14, 17:37
You've raised a very interesting point, one that I have long been curious, that being the concept of turning these things into precision guided weapons! I'm not talking about the battle field drone type of weapon either, but rather an "IED" of the air! I have little difficulty envisioning one of these sophisticated devices geared up with a load of C4, or some such highly explosive fuel, and then walked in effortless upon some unsuspecting target, whether they be a politician, a hard target, of just a gangland hit! And no, its not anti-gun in any way, that is ridiculous on its face....
You'd need some pretty high-grade explosive to make it worth it, I think. Most of these things don't have much of a cargo carrying capacity. A hand grenade might work well, and wouldn't be hard to lift or actuate. Most are pretty noisy, though, and are likely to attract attention.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-28-14, 18:26
I'm sure there are some people here with more direct knowledge of the large scale UAV type 'drones' but a few pounds is all I think most would carry. Metal cased bombs or grenades I think would be a stretch. Pretty much anything you could do would be done better by a Cessna 150 or some of the ultralights. So if you willing to log one more take off than landing there are much more effective ways. Fly some C4 into a NFL stadium, it would be possible, not effective - but it could be a 'terror' weapon.
Way more useful at gathering intel, maybe chase a helo away by going after its rear rotor.
Check out the 'Flitetest' youtube channel, some truly wicked RC projects.
You'd need some pretty high-grade explosive to make it worth it, I think. Most of these things don't have much of a cargo carrying capacity. A hand grenade might work well, and wouldn't be hard to lift or actuate. Most are pretty noisy, though, and are likely to attract attention.
I would imagine that a half pound of Semtex would do the job nicely, more then enough to destroy an aircraft, or large automobile/truck, such would be more then adequate for taking out a human target(s).
Why are people calling for restrictions on the possession of material things when its the actions surrounding their usage that's the problem?
Alpha Sierra
08-28-14, 20:22
Why are people calling for restrictions on the possession of material things when its the actions surrounding their usage that's the problem?
The height of irony, isn't it?
The height of irony, isn't it?
Is there more than one definition of liberty in the dictionary that I'm not aware of?
MorphCross
08-28-14, 20:43
My answer, mount a nose gun on the air ambulances. :sarcastic:
Or you set up an area with RF trackers that will let them track the controller signal back to the source so they can unleash LEOs on the dumb asses flying their drones in a zone with commercial or private aircraft.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-28-14, 21:33
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/PFnnnpokvZY
MountainRaven
08-28-14, 21:38
My answer, mount a nose gun on the air ambulances. :sarcastic:
This was my thought. Might be better to equip them with some sort of radio jammer or an anti-drone taser-gun-thing or maybe a net gun or something.
Or just set up a couple of Bofors around every hospital's helicopter landing pad....
MorphCross
08-29-14, 01:39
Or just set up a couple of Bofors around every hospital's helicopter landing pad....
A little hardcore. Radio signal seeking surface to air missiles. Or paired Phalanx CIWS.
Though this story did remind me of SilencerCO's promo for their new shotgun silencers.
Or you set up an area with RF trackers that will let them track the controller signal back to the source so they can unleash LEOs on the dumb asses flying their drones in a zone with commercial or private aircraft.
You track precisely nothing if it's using GPS.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-29-14, 01:51
There are some youtube videos about shooting RC planes at machine gun shoots.
Alpha Sierra
08-29-14, 06:51
Is there more than one definition of liberty in the dictionary that I'm not aware of?
I was agreeing with you that it is the height of irony to have firearm users/enthusiasts calling for across the board restrictions on ownership inanimate objects/tools because of misuse by a few.
The_War_Wagon
08-29-14, 06:56
10 years cracking rocks @ Leavenworth oughta get the point across. :mad:
I was agreeing with you that it is the height of irony to have firearm users/enthusiasts calling for across the board restrictions on ownership inanimate objects/tools because of misuse by a few.
No I got the point you were making lol. I was just being facetious.
You'd need some pretty high-grade explosive to make it worth it, I think. Most of these things don't have much of a cargo carrying capacity. A hand grenade might work well, and wouldn't be hard to lift or actuate. Most are pretty noisy, though, and are likely to attract attention.
So someone flies one with a pair of M18s on it down into a football stadium and lands it next to the teams as they line up.........
Or - at halftime when the marching band is there! Folks might take it as part of the show.
john
As an aside my father fly's RC helicopters, the real ones though. I'm talking multi-horse motors and 4ft OAL rotor blades that would take your arm off. Are we going to start regulating these and demand people obtain licensure to own and operate and then limited use permits in order to fly them?
MorphCross
08-29-14, 21:25
As an aside my father fly's RC helicopters, the real ones though. I'm talking multi-horse motors and 4ft OAL rotor blades that would take your arm off. Are we going to start regulating these and demand people obtain licensure to own and operate and then limited use permits in order to fly them?
Nope, as with all things use common sense on where you or your father flies them. Air space around airports and helipads should not be free for all. Or would you rather see an air ambulance containing your father crash to the ground because some JA flew their RC drone across it's path.
As I suggested earlier, the answer is technological in nature. Naval warships are going to be testing an anti-drone LASER system. Hopefully miniaturization will allow helicopters to incorporate such a system to fry the POS from the air.
Alpha Sierra
08-29-14, 21:33
Air space around airports and helipads should not be free for all.
You do realize that the airspace around the overwhelming majority of airfields in this country is uncontrolled, don't you?
Do you have an FAA Airman's Certificate? If not, I suggest you not make statements like that because you would be way out of your lane.
MorphCross
08-29-14, 21:50
Do you have an FAA Airman's Certificate? If not, I suggest you not make statements like that because you would be way out of your lane.
Nope. I did spend a few years of my youth in Civil Air Patrol. Doesn't make me an expert on something that should be common sense. Even before that I would fire off model rockets with my dad at a city park. We would always observe wind direction to determine where we launched from to avoid landing the rocket in private property. Common sense trumps a sense of personal entitlement to airways that personal or commercial aircraft use to take off and land.
Nope, as with all things use common sense on where you or your father flies them. Air space around airports and helipads should not be free for all. Or would you rather see an air ambulance containing your father crash to the ground because some JA flew their RC drone across it's path.
As I suggested earlier, the answer is technological in nature. Naval warships are going to be testing an anti-drone LASER system. Hopefully miniaturization will allow helicopters to incorporate such a system to fry the POS from the air.
What's your point then? Its already illegal to do stupid things. And adding more laws, restrictions, regulations, is not going to stop people from doing stupid things with benign inanimate objects. You can assign consequences to specific activities or behavior but you can't actually stop them beforehand.
MorphCross
08-29-14, 22:56
What's your point then? Its already illegal to do stupid things. And adding more laws, restrictions, regulations, is not going to stop people from doing stupid things with benign inanimate objects. You can assign consequences to specific activities or behavior but you can't actually stop them beforehand.
I've never advocated creating laws to require permits to operate RC aircraft, solid fuel rockets, or even GPS controlled drones. Nor am I opposed to LEOs being allowed to ticket a person as a nuisance when they fly or allow these craft to fly around piloted craft.
In this case you would be placing a person in danger in their aircraft while you are safely on the ground. No different from shining a laser in a pilots eyes.
Alpha Sierra
08-30-14, 04:11
Nope. I did spend a few years of my youth in Civil Air Patrol.
Yes sir.....
MorphCross
08-30-14, 15:36
Yes sir.....
Good times those, Pre 9/11 and flew up in a C130 out of St. Joseph, MO. Winter SAR School. Spring Bivouac with Air National Guard landing Chinook helicopters outside our Squadron HQ.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-30-14, 18:50
Just got back from the park with my 9 year old son and his friend. They both flew my 'Champ' three-channel plane for the first time. Great fun, with some emergency pass-back of the controller. The wind was picking up enough that we could get the Champ to 'hover'. That has zero stability electronics, but a pretty good dihedral on the wing.
They also had a hoot flying one of the micro quads. That does have stability on it for sticks off leveling. Much more fun for kids than the older quads.
Fun hobby, and I think the electronics will get more capable and cheaper. I don't think it will get much more popular, but the models will get more capable.
Yes sir.....
Nice display of unwarranted disparaging arrogance. Whoever your enemy is today it isn't he so why not end the drama?
This crap must be reined in, its just inconceivably poor judgement to allow these things to be possessed by just anyone...
RC aircraft have been legal for ages. Why should they suddenly be illegal just because we call them drones instead.
We were strapping cameras to them ages ago.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-31-14, 00:54
RC aircraft have been legal for ages. Why should they suddenly be illegal just because we call them drones instead.
We were strapping cameras to them ages ago.
Electronics have changed in both sophistication and price point. Battery's got more powerful and cheap. You can now program an Arduino board to control a quad copter, guided by GPS on a 30 minute guided tour. You have FPV head guided cameras.
I'm not saying that to mean that we need new legal controls- a lot of this stuff you could hobble together off the shelf from other purposes. The technology has changed though, that's just a fact.
A Cessna 150 is still way more dangerous and capable, though you could do things like create a drone that would chase a helicopter autonomously. They could provide real-time intel.
Alpha Sierra
08-31-14, 08:42
Nice display of unwarranted disparaging arrogance. Whoever your enemy is today it isn't he so why not end the drama?
Why sure, drama isn't created when some know-nothing goes around screaming that airspace around airports shouldn't be a free for all, and that this is all guided by common sense. Then trots out his membership in the CAP as his source of knowledge when questioned.
This place is heavy on people staying in their lanes. He's way out of his and I told him so.
If someone wants to understand the realities of airspace utilization and rights of way around airports in US airspace, membership in the CAP does not qualify. He might want to actually operate aircraft in those airspaces, as I happen to have done.
Lanes = Good
Snark = Bad
Please adjust fire accordingly, or take it to PM.
Why sure, drama isn't created when some know-nothing goes around screaming that airspace around airports shouldn't be a free for all, and that this is all guided by common sense. Then trots out his membership in the CAP as his source of knowledge when questioned.
This place is heavy on people staying in their lanes. He's way out of his and I told him so.
If someone wants to understand the realities of airspace utilization and rights of way around airports in US airspace, membership in the CAP does not qualify. He might want to actually operate aircraft in those airspaces, as I happen to have done.
That's a fine analysis, but we're glossing over the fact that you chose to portray him as some kind of gung-ho endorser of additional laws instead of what he really is, which is someone who advocates safety and recognizes that new technologies often bring about new challenges that can't always just be ignored.
As an aside my father fly's RC helicopters, the real ones though. I'm talking multi-horse motors and 4ft OAL rotor blades that would take your arm off. Are we going to start regulating these and demand people obtain licensure to own and operate and then limited use permits in order to fly them?
You have made a point, the problem is that as this technology continues to evolve, it expands its potential for mayhem, intentional or not! At one time, we did not require a license to operate motor vehicles, it only became necessary once the new technology became sophisticated and reliable enough for mass production! Its one thing for a man or women to take the kid(s)up to the local park and work with an air, sea, or land RC craft, and an entirely different thing for them to be operating freely throughout the entire airspace of any given metro, performing sophisticated tasks, perfectly capable of interfering with commercial aviation, or being put to nefarious uses!
These things are no longer novelties, they are becoming so sophisticated that they are available for the battlefield in micro-sized mechanisms, capable of virtually silent operation, and of engaging in highly sophisticated snooping, and very obviously of being converted into remote weapons systems. So your point though relevant is also moot, these things have become far to sophisticated to allow just anyone to zip on over to the hobby shop and obtain them.
I suggest that they be licensed according to class, the greater the sophistication and ability of particular a mechanism, the more stringent licensing requirements necessary to both obtain and operate one!
You have made a point, the problem is that as this technology continues to evolve, it expands its potential for mayhem, intentional or not! At one time, we did not require a license to operate motor vehicles, it only became necessary once the new technology became sophisticated and reliable enough for mass production! Its one thing for a man or women to take the kid(s)up to the local park and work with an air, sea, or land RC craft, and an entirely different thing for them to be operating freely throughout the entire airspace of any given metro, performing sophisticated tasks, perfectly capable of interfering with commercial aviation, or being put to nefarious uses!
These things are no longer novelties, they are becoming so sophisticated that they are available for the battlefield in micro-sized mechanisms, capable of virtually silent operation, and of engaging in highly sophisticated snooping, and very obviously of being converted into remote weapons systems. So your point though relevant is also moot, these things have become far to sophisticated to allow just anyone to zip on over to the hobby shop and obtain them.
I suggest that they be licensed according to class, the greater the sophistication and ability of particular a mechanism, the more stringent licensing requirements necessary to both obtain and operate one!
The thing is that this is the exact argument used by the Anti Gun crowd. I don't feel it works here anymore than it does for them.
Alpha Sierra
08-31-14, 15:57
You have made a point, the problem is that as this technology continues to evolve, it expands its potential for mayhem, intentional or not! At one time, we did not require a license to operate motor vehicles, it only became necessary once the new technology became sophisticated and reliable enough for mass production! Its one thing for a man or women to take the kid(s)up to the local park and work with an air, sea, or land RC craft, and an entirely different thing for them to be operating freely throughout the entire airspace of any given metro, performing sophisticated tasks, perfectly capable of interfering with commercial aviation, or being put to nefarious uses!
These things are no longer novelties, they are becoming so sophisticated that they are available for the battlefield in micro-sized mechanisms, capable of virtually silent operation, and of engaging in highly sophisticated snooping, and very obviously of being converted into remote weapons systems. So your point though relevant is also moot, these things have become far to sophisticated to allow just anyone to zip on over to the hobby shop and obtain them.
I suggest that they be licensed according to class, the greater the sophistication and ability of particular a mechanism, the more stringent licensing requirements necessary to both obtain and operate one!
You do realize that your talking points are straight out of VPC/HCI/Moms demand whatever/Everytown for gun safety/etc?
Right?
I have a hard time believing you are serious, and find it extremely disturbing that you might be.
The thing is that this is the exact argument used by the Anti Gun crowd. I don't feel it works here anymore than it does for them.
So be it, that it may or may not be periodically employed by the anti-gun left is of no relevance, and not in and of itself rationality for dispensing with such a tactical argument altogether, the problem with the gun control argument that you have noted, has never been the tactical argument itself, it is where it has been directed! Drones of a certain sophistication need to be heavily regulated, and access restricted to properly trained and licensed individuals. We need to know exactly where they are, and who is operating them, just as we do with automobiles and piloted aircraft, its a no-brainer...
So be it, that it may or may not be periodically employed by the anti-gun left is of no relevance, and not in and of itself rationality for dispensing with such a tactical argument altogether, the problem with the gun control argument that you have noted, has never been the tactical argument itself, it is where it has been directed! Drones of a certain sophistication need to be heavily regulated, and access restricted to properly trained and licensed individuals. We need to know exactly where they are, and who is operating them, just as we do with automobiles and piloted aircraft, its a no-brainer...
We are not going to agree on this one.
Banning, registering and restricting inanimate objects because someone might choose to illegally misuse them is exactly their argument. I'm not on board with that, and never will be.
Dealing with this new potential threat is no different than dealing with potential gun threats. So we should invite and encourage government to tell us what we can and can't do, even more than they already do, because some dummy might fly their toy in the wrong place at the wrong time? Do you also advocate that the government should license, register and restrict your projectile firing toys because YOU might discharge them at the wrong time in the wrong place with potentially disastrous consequences? I don't.
There are landing strips that do not have control towers, but there are still rules in place when operating around them or other parts of the sky, just like there are rules of the road. If you're going to fly, either in manned aircraft, UAS or RC model aircraft, you need to familiarize yourself with those rules. I don't know the specifics, but I do know they exist.
It's not true that the FAA does not control airspace below 500 feet. From the FAA website
Myth #3: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet
Fact—The FAA is responsible for air safety from the ground up. Under 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2), the FAA has broad authority to prescribe regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and to prevent collisions between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. Consistent with its authority, the FAA presently has regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(For the entire article- http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=76381)
Note the last part- It is prohibited to operate any aircraft in such a way that endangers life. The drone pilot of the article was in violation 14 CFR Section 91.13 and probably other regulations as well. If you think the FAA has no authority when it comes to drones or hobby RC aircraft, I suggest you search the CFRs more thoroughly. They are accessible through http://www.faa.gov/
We are not going to agree on this one.
Banning, registering and restricting inanimate objects because someone might choose to illegally misuse them is exactly their argument. I'm not on board with that, and never will be.
Dealing with this new potential threat is no different than dealing with potential gun threats. So we should invite and encourage government to tell us what we can and can't do, even more than they already do, because some dummy might fly their toy in the wrong place at the wrong time? Do you also advocate that the government should license, register and restrict your projectile firing toys because YOU might discharge them at the wrong time in the wrong place with potentially disastrous consequences? I don't.
Another one dimensional argument. Man can we confound ourselves at times. Do you not believe in the concept of sensible limits within an organized society? Are you one of those folks who feels adamantly that we don't need red lights or traffic enforcement?
You can't go to the 7-11 to buy dynamite and that's a good thing. Not because of me, not because of you, not because of your grandma, but because of the handful of potential evildoers out there who will kill as many of us as possible whether it be over a traffic ticket they're mad at city hall about or because the neighbor keeps letting his dog crap on your lawn.
Can we say the same of an AR-15 with a 30 rd magazine? Yes we can, but only to a tolerable extent. Why is it tolerable? Because the primary functions of these are not to destroy like that of dynamite, but rather to help sustain life.
Sustain life you say? A gun?? Yes, because while they are often used to criminally kill the vast majority of us use them to protect ourselves and our families from harm. We also use them to obtain life giving food, just as humanity has for eons in some form or another. Then of course there is the very genuine sporting and training aspect of owning a firearm.
No different with a highly advanced drone within context. Weigh the good and bad and then formulate a plan accordingly.
Another one dimensional argument. Man can we confound ourselves at times. Do you not believe in the concept of sensible limits within an organized society? Are you one of those precious folks who feels adamantly that we don't need red lights or traffic enforcement?
I hear the Obama administration asking...bleating...the same questions about guns. Using almost exactly those same words.
Who gets to decide what "sensible limits" are?
I hear the Obama administration asking...bleating...the same questions about guns. Using almost exactly those same words.
Who gets to decide what "sensible limits" are?
Read the rest again and then we'll talk. You're response is all too predictable but you are a smarter man than that.
We are not going to agree on this one.
Banning, registering and restricting inanimate objects because someone might choose to illegally misuse them is exactly their argument. I'm not on board with that, and never will be.
Dealing with this new potential threat is no different than dealing with potential gun threats. So we should invite and encourage government to tell us what we can and can't do, even more than they already do, because some dummy might fly their toy in the wrong place at the wrong time? Do you also advocate that the government should license, register and restrict your projectile firing toys because YOU might discharge them at the wrong time in the wrong place with potentially disastrous consequences? I don't.
http://kxan.com/2014/08/31/ut-police-investigating-drone-use-over-dkr/
UTPD spokeswoman Cindy Posey released the following statement to KXAN Sunday:
“UTPD observed an unauthorized drone in and around the Darrell K. Royal – Texas Memorial Stadium and watched as it maneuvered and landed on San Jacinto. Officers located the operator, a UT student, who was detained and transported to the police station. The drone was seized, the student identified, questioned and released pending further investigation.
Our top priority is the safety our students, employees, fans and visitors. UTPD Chief David Carter stresses that we are concerned about the use of drones and are investigating the incident thoroughly. The university continually works with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to maintain the highest levels of safety on our campus.”
An increasing number of people are using drones for commercial and recreational purposes. The laws surrounding drone use are still evolving.
Well as it happens, half of America's battle strategy is courtesy of the Nazi's, we've gone as far as copying "exactly" their battle hats, does that make us Nazis? These drones need to be tightly regulated, the above being yet another freebie courtesy of "good bloody fortune!" These things are rapidly becoming a menace, one day soon we will be treated to a tragedy or an attack, the above scenario demonstrates just how easily these things can be deployed and where, the only ingredient absent being malice...
Read the rest again and then we'll talk. You're response is all too predictable but you are a smarter man than that.
So, you get to decide? Your disclaimer is impractical and your opinions about "sensible limits" are not universally shared. Half the country has a major disconnect between what represents sensible limits and what infringes on our liberty.
Don't get me wrong, in the case of gun control I'm ok with you making the decisions, because I agree with you. I also do agree that there have to be limits on freedom in an organized society. Where we differ, where most of us as a society differ, is where the line is drawn. On issue by divisive issue. Limits on drones is just one tiny piece of the fabric.
Even if there were no gun laws, it would be illegal to take a firearm into a bar and shoot the place up. There do need to be common sense laws in place but to be common sense, the laws need to hold people responsible and accountable for their actions. Banning the UAS or a 30 round magazine is not a common sense law. Laws that hold users accountable for willfully violating aircraft separation or shooting a place up that they may be arrested and fined and/or imprisoned on conviction are common sense laws
montanadave
09-01-14, 14:32
Don't fly the little boogers is Yellowstone National Park. The park service has lost patience with folks buzzing the animals and crashing them into geysers and thermal springs. More power to the park service, as far as I'm concerned.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/yellowstone-cracking-down-use-of-aerial-camera-drones/article_19507d7f-d52b-5c54-b20f-43acd0dbf45b.html
Don't fly the little boogers is Yellowstone National Park. The park service has lost patience with folks buzzing the animals and crashing them into geysers and thermal springs. More power to the park service, as far as I'm concerned.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/yellowstone-cracking-down-use-of-aerial-camera-drones/article_19507d7f-d52b-5c54-b20f-43acd0dbf45b.html
Absolutely 100% agree, and if I had my way, ATV's and many versions of water craft would be just as tightly regulated, their licensing prohibitively expensive. I am a wildlife photographer, it is a grotesque obscenity to hike into remote areas of wilderness only to be met by a mob of ATV mounted adults & teens, free of almost all restraint, always intoxicated, as they tear up the ecosystem. In my view such devices should only be available for use upon private lands, completely barred from county, state, or national forest lands! With the continued evolution of this drone technology the wildlife will have no respite whatsoever from the intrusions of humans, most of whom have zero respect or understanding of what damage it is that they do, nor does it appear that they would care even if they did understand! Not content with just harassing the wildlife from the back of ATV's, now they cn swoop down upon it from above, courtesy of these drones....
Dafuq???
How does the term hypocritical not applicable in this case?? There is a big difference between regulating the possession of objects and the manner in which their utilized.
alienb1212
09-01-14, 20:36
Absolutely 100% agree, and if I had my way, ATV's and many versions of water craft would be just as tightly regulated, their licensing prohibitively expensive. I am a wildlife photographer, it is a grotesque obscenity to hike into remote areas of wilderness only to be met by a mob of ATV mounted adults & teens, free of almost all restraint, always intoxicated, as they tear up the ecosystem. In my view such devices should only be available for use upon private lands, completely barred from county, state, or national forest lands! With the continued evolution of this drone technology the wildlife will have no respite whatsoever from the intrusions of humans, most of whom have zero respect or understanding of what damage it is that they do, nor does it appear that they would care even if they did understand! Not content with just harassing the wildlife from the back of ATV's, now they cn swoop down upon it from above, courtesy of these drones....
Totally blown away by this and posts just like it. This is just as arrogant and anti-liberty as the rabid gun-grabbing folks out there. Just because you don't like something means it should be regulated out of existence? Holy shit. Maybe I don't like you photographing wildlife. Camera licenses are going to be about $180k now, hope you've got deep enough pockets to enjoy your "liberty"
Absolutely absurd. I really hope this is a bad joke on your part.
MountainRaven
09-01-14, 21:10
Totally blown away by this and posts just like it. This is just as arrogant and anti-liberty as the rabid gun-grabbing folks out there. Just because you don't like something means it should be regulated out of existence? Holy shit. Maybe I don't like you photographing wildlife. Camera licenses are going to be about $180k now, hope you've got deep enough pockets to enjoy your "liberty"
Absolutely absurd. I really hope this is a bad joke on your part.
In what way, shape, or form is the impact on wildlife and ecosystems of a camera similar or identical to an ATV?
He's not saying you can't drive your ATVs. He's saying that you shouldn't be able to drive them on public lands. Which I think is fair, given that motorized vehicles are already banned in some areas by local, state, and federal authorities.
Driving an ATV through the Bob Marshall Wilderness - and then claiming that it's your right to do so - is no different than taking an uncensored Eminem CD and an enormous boom box into a public library, turning up the volume to 11, and then letting the tunes roll - and then complaining that the librarians have no right to ask you to take your toys and go home.
How do you feel about having brothels and crackhouses located next to the school your kids attend?
alienb1212
09-01-14, 21:16
In what way, shape, or form is the impact on wildlife and ecosystems of a camera similar or identical to an ATV?
He's not saying you can't drive your ATVs. He's saying that you shouldn't be able to drive them on public lands. Which I think is fair, given that motorized vehicles are already banned in some areas by local, state, and federal authorities.
Driving an ATV through the Bob Marshall Wilderness - and then claiming that it's your right to do so - is no different than taking an uncensored Eminem CD and an enormous boom box into a public library, turning up the volume to 11, and then letting the tunes roll - and then complaining that the librarians have no right to ask you to take your toys and go home.
How do you feel about having brothels and crackhouses located next to the school your kids attend?
So apparently "If I had my way, ATV's and many versions of water craft would be just as tightly regulated, their licensing prohibitively expensive." doesn't mean what I think it means.
I don't have kids. Drawing parallels between some shit rap CD and that are completely stupid.
I'm not saying he's never run into some drunk hillbilly ass who doesn't belong on an ATV, but public lands are PUBLIC. Intended for everyone to use. If a particular municipality really wants to get rid of ATV riders on their parkland, they can. I've seen plenty of respectful ATV riders and families just out having a good time.
Anyway my point is more to his ridiculously hypocritical attitude, not really what he's saying he dislikes. Funny a bunch of pro-gun people can have these types of attitudes. Makes them no better than that Watts nutjob.
I'm not saying he's never run into some drunk hillbilly ass who doesn't belong on an ATV, but public lands are PUBLIC. Intended for everyone to use. If a particular municipality really wants to get rid of ATV riders on their parkland, they can.
So to clarify, if an individual sees them as a frequent hazard on public land and wishes something done by the government he's an idiot, but if the government restricts them for the very same reasons it's ok. You're so eager to make someone look foolish you missed your own blatant contradiction.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of some of his proposed restrictions it doesn't mean doing nothing in the face of a recurring problem is always best either.
alienb1212
09-01-14, 21:50
So to clarify, if an individual sees them as a frequent hazard on public land and wishes something done by the government he's an idiot, but if the government restricts them for the very same reasons it's ok. You're so eager to make someone look foolish you missed your own blatant contradiction.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of some of his proposed restrictions it doesn't mean doing nothing in the face of a recurring problem is always best either.
Big difference between a federal law banning the use or possession of ATVs and a local town disallowing use of a public park area because the ATV riders there can't be responsible. But hey.
MorphCross
09-01-14, 21:51
Operation of "motor vehicles" on Public Roads require Licensing, Registration, and Insurance. Are you sure you want to use Public Land as your argument? Private land is private, meaning the land owner within reason can allow activities that the government that controls, maintains, and holds Public Lands in trust for all Citizens in the US can't allow because it is disruptive, damaging, and/or devaluing in nature.
Private landowners can't farm marijuana on their property, manufacture drugs, commit murder, rape and things of that nature. But if you have the space you can let your 12 year old son drive your F-350 across your land and on the roads you maintain as the private landowner. The second he hits a public road and gets caught though...
Edit to Add: I kayak on public use lakes that don't require licensing for Kayaks. There are also some public use lakes in my area that do require licensing. While Kayaking to many has a low incidence of disrupting public use, I can assure you that Lake Herons, Fish, and Canada's in those lakes find it very disturbing when a torso floating on 17' white plastic "log" enter their nesting areas, perches, and waterways. The point i'm trying to make is that each of us has an idea of what "fair use" of a Public resource entails.
Big difference between a federal law banning the use or possession of ATVs and a local town disallowing use of a public park area because the ATV riders there can't be responsible. But hey.
Some difference yes, but government telling you what you can and can't do in a specific location or scenario is still government telling you what you can and can't do.
Also I think we tend to assume we are entitled to certain things such as these high tech drones, yet I don't recall them being protected via the likes of a second amendment. Therefore if idiots want to keep pushing the envelope for their own satisfaction I'd suggest dealing with them rather than the those who are being negatively affected by such negligent selfishness.
Totally blown away by this and posts just like it. This is just as arrogant and anti-liberty as the rabid gun-grabbing folks out there. Just because you don't like something means it should be regulated out of existence? Holy shit. Maybe I don't like you photographing wildlife. Camera licenses are going to be about $180k now, hope you've got deep enough pockets to enjoy your "liberty"
Absolutely absurd. I really hope this is a bad joke on your part.
I'm sorry you feel that way, most cops up here feel differently about things, I won't even begin to tell you what landowners such as myself think, suffice it to say that, "we are not as patriotic as you seem to be..."
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/committees/study/2006/trail/files/waalen_atv_facts.pdf
"I have no personal opinion as to whether an ATV trail system or corridor should be developed in Vilas
County, however, having observed other forms of recreational vehicle use (dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and
water craft) in Vilas County in the past, I think your committee should be aware of enforcement concerns.
Enclosed along with this letter please find statistics from the last three years involving snowmobile, water
craft, and ATV complaints. Typically these complaints involve such matters as accidents, trespass,
damage to property, speed, noise, littering, road right-of-way violations, underage operators, unregistered
Sample of photos from the internet. All photos supposedly taken in northern Wisconsin. This is not a sampling of
the worst. There are hundreds if not thousands of pictures of this sort of ATV riding occurring in Wisconsin. 6
vehicles, and intoxicated operators to name a few...The point of this letter is to allow everyone involved
with the ATV discussions to consider enforcement obligations and subsequent funding concerns...If the
need arises for increased patrol because of serious or ongoing violations, some type of funding will be
needed to address that additional workload." (Sheriff John A. Neibuhr, Vilas County Sheriff, excerpt from
a letter addressed to county board member Doyen, May 2, 2003.)
"[Burnett County Sheriff Dean Roland] made it clear to [the Burnett County Board] if his department
doesn't have the manpower to properly police county-owned ATV trails with a Forestry officer, his solution
is simple, 'If that position is eliminated, my suggestion will be to close the trails. We simply don't have the
people to patrol them.'" (‘Sheriff says without deputies to patrol them, no ATV trails at all'. Burnett County
Sentinel. October 15, 2003.)
"[ATV riders] come up here and think they can just go anywhere they want and do anything they want to
do. If we don't curtail it now, I don't know how we'll ever curtail it. The northern tier of counties in
Wisconsin are really getting hammered." (Steve Chistner, Burnett County Recreation Officer, quoted in
Burnett County Sentinel, July 14, 2004.)
"[Douglas County Recreation Officer, Steve Olson] described the Namekagon Barrens region of northeast
Burnett County as a 'zoo,' saying ATV drivers are tearing up the terrain in that area." ('County needs
woods patrol', Burnett County Sentinel,July 14, 2004.)
“The growth has just exploded on ATVs and there’s no enforcement,” Meyers said. “That has just
reinforced their idea – basically they know – that whatever they do, they can act with impunity.” (Roberta
Scruggs, Landowner Relations,Presented by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Main with financial support from
The Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, Date unknown.)
I have every reason to believe that as drones continue to evolve and be marketed, they will generally be operated in exactly the same fashion as the ATV's, and by exactly the same people! Where I live, we don't want either, its not about freedom or liberty, its about personal responsibility, and you'll just have to take me at my word on this, we ain't buying into the BS anymore, we have seen first hand how responsible these folks are, I want these vehicles and UAV's heavily regulated, and their operation restricted, as do most of the cops up here...Believe it!
alienb1212
09-01-14, 22:01
Some difference yes, but government telling you what you can and can't do in a specific location or scenario is still government telling you what you can and can't do.
Also I think we tend to assume we are entitled to certain things such as these high tech drones, yet I don't recall them being protected via the likes of a second amendment. Therefore if idiots want to keep pushing the envelope for their own satisfaction I'd suggest dealing with them rather than the those who are being negatively affected by their negligent selfishness.
Ok, fine, point taken.
What are your suggestions for specific, drone-related regulations that seem reasonable and accountable to YOU?
I think approaching some kind of ham-radio licensing structure would be a start. Perhaps differing levels of licensing for altitude allowances, with anything over 100ft requiring a radio to be monitored and an IFF or something? Dunno.
I would really hate to see these things regulated into worthlessness. There's too many positive uses for these things out there in civilian hands.
alienb1212
09-01-14, 22:05
I'm sorry you feel that way, most cops up here feel differently about things, I won't even begin to tell you what landowners such as myself think, suffice it to say that, "we are not as patriotic as you seem to be..."
I have every reason to believe that as drones continue to evolve and be marketed, they will generally be operated in exactly the same fashion as the ATV's, and by exactly the same people! Where I live, we don't want either, its not about freedom or liberty, its about personal responsibility, and you'll just have to take me at my word on this, we ain't buying into the BS anymore, we have seen first hand how responsible these folks are, I want these vehicles and UAV's heavily regulated, and their operation restricted, as do most of the cops up here...Believe it!
I understand your point. I'm sorry it has reached a level where you feel this kind of thing is needed. I think there's a good middle ground somewhere, I'm just not sure where that is.
I think there's a good middle ground somewhere, I'm just not sure where that is.
And that my friend sums it up perfectly.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-14, 01:00
At what level of coms/connectivity complexity are you supposed to get a HAM radio license? Just say that mentioned as a plus for the newer smaller FPV sets that are coming out, no needing a ham license.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.