[Normal]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

What makes 51 feet okay, but 49 feet unsafe, in YOUR opinion? What evidence do you have to support this, or what studies have been done that support YOUR opinion? It's not like the 21-foot knife fighting rule, which has been studied, tested, and court-approved.

Zero feet is best. Remember physics when you dropped objects from different heights and measure impact velocity? Just don’t fly over my home. Nothing is OK when you increase endangering those on my land. Fly over your own space, but not mine. Not even airplanes are reliable 100 percent of the time, of course drones remotely flown have less control during malfunctions. No one has a right to endanger you or me.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Ahh, I understand now. It's an irrational fear of random things dropping out of the sky onto your head that causes your perspective, not common sense nor researched studies nor practical experience.

Were you this frightened when SkyLab or any other satellite has fallen from space the last few years? How about chunks of blue ice or loose rivets from airplanes? Bird crap?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just wish you were upfront with the basis for your statement and opinion from the get-go.

No, it’s more like going through reliable rationality. Why increase risk? Why should some idiot with a drone toy be permitted to encroach and use myself for risk for their own benefit? Keep your ball in your own yard, if it lands in mine I’m keeping it. So play safe. It’s all about enterprising egocentric individuals deciding they have rights to broadcast their peeping skills for profit on YouTube. Let the narcissistic toy drone flyers stay over their own land.

There is certainly nothing wrong with defending myself with SAFE technology that blocks or disables people like that. Does your sky is falling theory only to apply to kids like the one hospitalized thanks to the January drone incident? Privacy is important too.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

No, it’s more like going through reliable rationality. Why increase risk? Why should some idiot with a drone toy be permitted to encroach and use myself for risk for their own benefit? Keep your ball in your own yard, if it lands in mine I’m keeping it. So play safe. It’s all about enterprising egocentric individuals deciding they have rights to broadcast their peeping skills for profit on YouTube. Let the narcissistic toy drone flyers stay over their own land.

There is certainly nothing wrong with defending myself with SAFE technology that blocks or disables people like that. Does your sky is falling theory only to apply to kids like the one hospitalized thanks to the January drone incident? Privacy is important too.

Yeah, I can see how that might worry you, if not for:
- The accident was in December, not January (okay, doesn't matter too much)
- If you had 25,000 people in your yard then it would illegal for a drone to hover overhead
- The drone involved in this accident was likely over the water and NOT over the crowd.
- Flying dozens (hundreds?) of drones above the 25,000 people in your yard would certainly be illegal
- But yeah, this is JUST LIKE a single drone flying over empty land while viewing a construction area

Define "wrong." To me, using an illegal device is wrong. It is highly questionable to define a device which is intended to interfere with the controlled flight of a drone as SAFE. There are several things wrong with using an illegal device that interferes with the safe flight of a drone is.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Yeah, I can see how that might worry you, if not for:
- The accident was in December, not January (okay, doesn't matter too much)
- If you had 25,000 people in your yard then it would illegal for a drone to hover overhead
- The drone involved in this accident was likely over the water and NOT over the crowd.
- Flying dozens (hundreds?) of drones above the 25,000 people in your yard would certainly be illegal
- But yeah, this is JUST LIKE a single drone flying over empty land while viewing a construction area

Define "wrong." To me, using an illegal device is wrong. It is highly questionable to define a device which is intended to interfere with the controlled flight of a drone as SAFE. There are several things wrong with using an illegal device that interferes with the safe flight of a drone is.

You are entitled to fly a drone in your OWN territory. If you are the drone pilot, you are also well aware the drone is in the air and well advised of its route. I’m just saying no one has the right to fly over someone else’s territory while they aren’t warned and unaware of the possible issues. You can’t remove their rights.

No one has the right to remove security or privacy from an individual. In addition, the said property owner certainly has the right to defend security and privacy. There is zero doubt on that.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

You are entitled to fly a drone in your OWN territory. If you are the drone pilot, you are also well aware the drone is in the air and well advised of its route. I’m just saying no one has the right to fly over someone else’s territory while they aren’t warned and unaware of the possible issues. You can’t remove their rights.

No one has the right to remove security or privacy from an individual. In addition, the said property owner certainly has the right to defend security and privacy. There is zero doubt on that.

Both those statements might be true in your mind but the law (FAA) says otherwise.

It is clear that you WANT things to be this way but stating them as fact on ToTV in no way changes the fact that things are NOT this way.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

Yeah, I agree. Lets remove all the walls around homes, all the window coverings, and such on all the homes. Privacy is overrated, amirite?

If you want to remove walls, one wouldn’t need window coverings.

I have to say when they found the 3yo miles from his home in 40 degree temps, with night vision drone, you would probably be the first to file a privacy suit…after all fear someone flys over your home far important than saving a child.

Then again I don’t have anything to worry if a drone flys over our house, I worry more about how many med choppers have fallen out of the sky lately. Drone won’t find anything illegal, chopper, falls no roof or walls left.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Both those statements might be true in your mind but the law (FAA) says otherwise.

It is clear that you WANT things to be this way but stating them as fact on ToTV in no way changes the fact that things are NOT this way.

Nor does it change the fact that the legislation will be signed into law.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Nor does it change the fact that the legislation will be signed into law.

Ahh, back to the topic.

1. The House version does not contain the "reasonable means" language
2. The Senate analysis notes technical deficiencies with that language
3. The two version will need to be reconciled
4. My (rather faulty) crystal ball says it will be easiest to remove the faulty language
5. EVEN IF IT PASSES with the language intact, it will STILL be illegal to shoot at a drone (FAA, Florida) or to jam an RF signal (FCC)

So sure, what you said.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Ahh, back to the topic.

1. The House version does not contain the "reasonable means" language
2. The Senate analysis notes technical deficiencies with that language
3. The two version will need to be reconciled
4. My (rather faulty) crystal ball says it will be easiest to remove the faulty language
5. EVEN IF IT PASSES with the language intact, it will STILL be illegal to shoot at a drone (FAA, Florida) or to jam an RF signal (FCC)

So sure, what you said.

The senate bill was tabled, the house bill was voted on by both houses and passed and is now awaiting the Governor's signature.

As stated above the house bill does not include the ill-conceived section on 934.50 that would have allowed the undefined "reasonable force". The remaining sections of the bill(s) are very good and further define weaponizing a sUAS (FS330.411), provide additional clarifications on "critical infrastructure", and criminalize the intentional disabling Remote ID functions and knowingly operating sUAS with Remote ID disabled (FS330.41).

While Remote ID as currently implemented is buggy, problematic, and ineffective on a good day and dangerous to the operators safety when it actually is working, it is the law that the vast majority of drone pilots (myself included) are following.