As a rule, I don’t listen to talk radio. I prefer something with pictures.
Currently, little Susie’s RC plane would be restricted to the area over the local RC fields. I would have no problem restricting drones to the same area.
How do they differentiate small, toy drones from larger, camera and package-carrying drones? Are they all called “drones”?
Cite?
This issue has been discussed several times in this very thread. Perhaps you ought to look through the posts that reference model aircraft. There are quite a few of those posts with cites attached to them.
If you looked thru the thread then you know that I had referred to three local RC airfields.
The video says I have to sign in, which I’m not going to do.
While the video has some strange jumps and cuts, possibly indicating it was edited, the pilot, David Boggs, said it was not.
I thought the video was lost? Was it lost, or just misplaced?
The video was made private on Youtube, and isn’t currently viewable. I saw it before it was restricted, and the drone is traveling in my estimation (based on the drone manufacturer’s camera specs, trigonometry, and some guestimation of house sizes) between 150-200’ altitude. It moves in stages across maybe a quarter mile, hovering briefly before moving again. It had been hovering slightly longer, maybe about 10 seconds, when it was shot.
That doesn’t mean that RC airplanes can only use preselected airfields. You’re just wrong about that.
Check out The Little Red Hen.
I prefer the sequal…The Little Red Hen and the Big Brown Cock.
You are correct.
So if a drone is close enough to bring downby throwing a T-shirt at it, is it too close?
The drone operators in this story would soon be committing a crime in California.
Again, states have no jurisdiction over use of airspace. I agree that flying very low over someone is reckless and ought to have consequences, but California is simply on the wrong side of the law by passing that bill.
And Im sure you know more about the law than the lawyers who wrote and passed the bill. :dubious:
I’ve cited the laws a couple times in this thread. Yes, it is clear that the California legislature doesn’t know what the fuck it is doing.
They probably know that they’re out of their jurisdiction, but they’re willing to push the boundaries, possibly just for PR, possibly as a first step in lobbying Congress.
My thoughts exactly.
RM also thought that states and localities couldnt mandate insurance for pilots. :rolleyes:
The bill unanimously passed the legislature. Im pretty sure it wasnt a publicity stunt. It would be easier to get cats and dogs to work together.
Everyone loves to pass something their voters want even if it does nothing. And privacy rights are not something you want to be voting against in California right now.
And this does do something … it prods the Federal level to get on with it already. Whatever the Feds say however will trump whatever the States say, unless the Feds say let the States decide.
Don’t distort what I said.