New law may pass that ...

[Fat Albert]

Let’s the feds shoot down your personal drone [emoji30]
Civil Liberties Groups Are Concerned About Proposed Law to Shoot Down Private Drones

 

[BigAl07]

Let’s the feds shoot down your personal drone [emoji30]
Civil Liberties Groups Are Concerned About Proposed Law to Shoot Down Private Drones

That's a fairly broad brush you're trying to paint with.

In most of those instances the sUAS SHOULD be shot down/disabled. I don't think anyone (not even journalists) should get a free pass to go/fly/see whatever they want. Some things needs to stay private and controlled.

 

[microlinux]

Don't do stupid things with a drone and your chances of losing it go down exponentially.

 

[Fly Dawg]

Agreed with BigAl107.....Think about it. The federal government no matter what the proposed legislation may say, do not have the resources to enforce such for "hobby operations". It would be virtually impossible to "Police" such. The way I see this would be airspace violations over "secure" areas such as near Military bases, practice ranges, etc..etc... So for the general public who generally fly in open spaces away from "controlled" area's, this is a non-issue. And just in my opinion the ACLU is another organization that I personally have issues with at times. I won't go in to the reasoning of that.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Let’s the feds shoot down your personal drone [emoji30]
Civil Liberties Groups Are Concerned About Proposed Law to Shoot Down Private Drones

I sure hope they fix that lickitysplit or we gonna have some problems eh?

 

[tcope]

Can't see this passing as it really has no purpose. It would be the same as shooting a camera that someone is holding if they _think_ the person was taking an illegal photo.

"“Commercially available drones can be employed by terrorists and criminals to drop explosive payloads, deliver harmful substances, disrupt communications, and conduct illicit surveillance"

You know what can also be used for these purposes.... everything! Drones _will_ be used for all of these purposes. There is no question about that. But that makes them no greater risk than anything else in this world. This simply the case of another idiot lawmaker who think that they can save the world by making more stupid laws.

Ever seen someone try to shoot a drone at distance? It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Fat Albert]

That's a fairly broad brush you're trying to paint with.

In most of those instances the sUAS SHOULD be shot down/disabled. I don't think anyone (not even journalists) should get a free pass to go/fly/see whatever they want. Some things needs to stay private and controlled.

Don’t shoot the messenger,I didn’t write the article I only provided the link..

 

[BigAl07]

Don’t shoot the messenger,I didn’t write the article I only provided the link..

Said messenger penned the thread title

 

[dirkclod]

I sure hope they fix that lickitysplit or we gonna have some problems eh?

 

[Fat Albert]

View attachment 103757

[emoji51]

 

[With The Birds]

Can't see this passing as it really has no purpose. It would be the same as shooting a camera that someone is holding if they _think_ the person was taking an illegal photo.

"“Commercially available drones can be employed by terrorists and criminals to drop explosive payloads, deliver harmful substances, disrupt communications, and conduct illicit surveillance"

You know what can also be used for these purposes.... everything! Drones _will_ be used for all of these purposes. There is no question about that. But that makes them no greater risk than anything else in this world. This simply the case of another idiot lawmaker who think that they can save the world by making more stupid laws.

Ever seen someone try to shoot a drone at distance? It ain't gonna happen.

No need to panic- it is only proposed to apply to flights that potentially threaten a “covered” facility so clearly identified restricted area.

The way DJI is geofencing none of their products will have a chance of flying in the wrong place anyway.

 

[Osmosis]

That's a fairly broad brush you're trying to paint with.

In most of those instances the sUAS SHOULD be shot down/disabled. I don't think anyone (not even journalists) should get a free pass to go/fly/see whatever they want. Some things needs to stay private and controlled.

They (the government) are attempting to pass a law that allows them to shoot down private commercial drones that they deem a “threat.” THAT is a fairly broad brush.

 

[With The Birds]

They (the government) are attempting to pass a law that allows them to shoot down private commercial drones that they deem a “threat.” THAT is a fairly broad brush.

It may seem broad if narrowly interpreted without context.

 

[Osmosis]

It may seem broad if narrowly interpreted without context.

Exactly what will happen! Anything deemed a “threat” - its open season.

 

[Dpanetta]

If anyone knows of an incident where a drone which was flying safely was shot down, and the crashing drone (or projectile that was used to shoot down the drone) injured someone, please be sure to share it. I would LOVE to see the news coverage that followed such an incident!

I think that there is far more danger to the public in shooting down drones that there ever could be by allowing them to fly safely. After all, passenger and unmanned commercial aircraft fly over populated areas all the time. Occasionally you hear of one of them going down in populated areas too.

 

[Offroader]

If anyone knows of an incident where a drone which was flying safely was shot down, and the crashing drone (or projectile that was used to shoot down the drone) injured someone, please be sure to share it. I would LOVE to see the news coverage that followed such an incident!

I think that there is far more danger to the public in shooting down drones that there ever could be by allowing them to fly safely. After all, passenger and unmanned commercial aircraft fly over populated areas all the time. Occasionally you hear of one of them going down in populated areas too.

I don't think by "shoot down" they mean by using projectiles. Even our stupid government employees know that is less safe than the potential of nefarious use of drones. They would use signal jamming technology. The falling UAS would be my concern. Down a drone over a crowd and part of that crowd is subject to injury. Down it over property and there is sure to be damage.

 

[BigAl07]

They (the government) are attempting to pass a law that allows them to shoot down private commercial drones that they deem a “threat.” THAT is a fairly broad brush.

Come on man... the sky isn't falling and that's a grossly broad brush you're trying to paint with. If you aren't doing something wrong then this law won't pertain to you. If you are doing something wrong why should your sUAS not be disabled? No different than the PIT MANEUVER to stop a fleeing suspect of (you insert the name of crime).

After all, passenger and unmanned commercial aircraft fly over populated areas all the time. Occasionally you hear of one of them going down in populated areas too.

So you're comparing our hobby grade aircraft with almost zero redundancies (on many different systems BTW) to Certified Aircraft with multiple levels of redundancies and that have been rigorously tested for years?

Also you're comparing operators who have passed the most basic BOOK test and have demonstrated absolutely ZERO flying, judgement, safety skills to pilots that have hundreds of hours IN aircraft, experienced a very in-depth in person testing phase, and performed a Flight Demonstration to demonstrate technique, judgement, decision making skills and so much more?

Now toss into the fold hobby operators who often times don't have a clue what they are flying or it's capabilities/limitations until after there is a problem.

Let me just say.... you're comparing apples to kangaroos across the board.

 

[With The Birds]

I don't think by "shoot down" they mean by using projectiles. Even our stupid government employees know that is less safe than the potential of nefarious use of drones. They would use signal jamming technology. The falling UAS would be my concern. Down a drone over a crowd and part of that crowd is subject to injury. Down it over property and there is sure to be damage.

Unlikely jamming might cause the AC to fall. The intent would be to disrupt the AC control link forcing the AC to initiate return to home. Great method to potentially find where the person was operating the AC from.

 

[The Drone Professor]

Remember that wording comes from political writers reacting to pressure from various sources, including law enforcement, military and others. They would say, don't fly where you don't belong. ....But the same people might say "if you don't do anything wrong, why worry about us reading all your emails?"

If you fly 3 miles out with that great a "range extender" how do you know you are not over a prison, landing pattern, nuclear or military facility? Drones are used to drop bad things into prisons and over borders all the time. How can we tell the "nice" drones from the "bad" ones that are flying where they don't belong? (Obvious answer: don't fly where you don't belong) One thing is certain, your drone will NEVER be shot down at an AMA club field.

A DJI Matrice 600, loaded with explosives, recently blew up over or near a political rally in South America (Maduro in Venezuala). If you were to try to take aerial photos of a Trump rally, what would you expect from the Secret Service?

I like upholding the Federal law that says "don't shoot down any aircraft" (18 U.S.C. §32), but how would YOU solve the problem?

 

[The Drone Professor]

Unlikely jamming might cause the AC to fall. The intent would be to disrupt the AC control link forcing the AC to initiate return to home. Great method to potentially find where the person was operating the AC from.

To your point, according to the FAA “regardless of the situation, shooting at any aircraft — including unmanned aircraft — poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. ”