Recent content by petersachs

While it is true that the drone operator registry will be public (it is not yet), and will be searchable, it will be searchable by unique registration number only. This video, and the database search tool it refers to, relates to the database that contains information pertaining to Section 333...

Actually it does. I'm just stating the law, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

Actually, it's a right. See: 49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace, specifically paragraph (a)(2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace..." Citation: 49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

Same here.

Only one flight so far. Indoors. It seems "okay," but I need to give it some more time to reach a conclusion.

Ah. That makes sense. Now that I look at it it does look like headphones. Where did you find that?

Just got mine today. Any idea what the X'd out icon at the top center of the display means? I see no reference to it in the manual. Thx, Peter

The FAA has no jurisdiction over indoor flight, so the commercial use "ban" and recklessness (FAR 91.13) don't apply, and FAA could never initiate an enforcement action here. Regular old state tort law applies.

They can only report it to the FAA, as any citizen could do. They cannot themselves enforce it.

The portions pertaining to the State's regulation of its agencies drones is okay, because a state has jurisdiction over that. But Section 837.380 purports to claim that landowners own the airspace up to 400' above their property, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's 1946 Causby decision and...

I learned the same thing in EMT school. I don't recall the formula either. Someone will likely chime in with it. I think we agree in the manner you describe as well. Agreed.

At 4 ounces, less that 2 inches wide and plastic, I personally don't think any of that would be physically possible with this craft, but perhaps someone should fly one full speed into a pane of glass to see what happens. Yes, the NTSB (which is an Administrative Court not an Article III Court)...

Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be...

I would say if that were the case, no, it would not be acceptable. They are manned, full-size aircraft and could not possibly fly non-recklessly in the manner of this flight. Size (in my opinion) should matter. An Estes Proto-X (below) weighs in at 4 oz. The NTSB ruling applies to this tiny...

The hobbyist really has nothing to worry about (unless a hobbyist were to fly "recklessly). I'm bringing it up (in response to other postings) because of the legal aspects only. (I'm an attorney and that's what we do.) You are correct that in a court of law things are supposed to be judged by...