Recent content by TomMcW

And you don't see this as a problem? Prohibiting people from enjoying their hobby at a public park is just wrong.

The police specified that the no-drone request is for safety of helicopters, not terrorism. (They may be thinking that, but the that's not what they said.) It's obviously a situation where the local police and the faa are not in sync. The notam sounds like they are expecting drones and have this...

I agree that would be a best case scenario, but there are a few things you aren't taking into about. The biggest one is the sheer expense of equipping your aircraft with new gear. Everything that is to go into an airplane has to be certified in twenty different ways, so they are very expensive...

They may find an inexpensive way to integrate some type of transponder (like a simplified version of ads-b) to make them visible to atc and possibly aircraft equipped with tcas. But there are two problems. One is simply battery power. The other is that at the low altitudes drones are really...

That's an entirely doable thing. And one the FAA would probably welcome. The only problem is that most drone flyers simply don't want to be boxed into a certain area or time. That's part of what makes the MP so nice is that it fits into a small bag you can carry around easily. That gives you...

I agree that the enforceability of the laws in this case are questionable. In defense of the FAA in this case, though, I believe that they are trying to do precisely what you are saying. They're doing their best not to make up a crapload of strict rules that you have to be an expert to follow...

They definitely didn't do us any favors by not specifying what exactly comprises a CBO and not naming any particular ones. It's a laissez faire action on the part of the FAA and they've done it successfully in other areas. I'm not quite sure it will in this case. In some places in the legal...

I don't agree with this. The way the laws are written is terribly unclear and the recent lawsuit that eliminated the registration requirement is a good indication that the regs are not at all settled right now. But currently the Special Rule for Model Aircraft is what is in effect. It does not...

It will matter more than ever! If that act passes it would make drone use intolerably complicated. The only thing saving it would be laws like this passed at the state level to keep things from getting ridiculous.

All I can say about that bill is, "Holy Crap! We're about to get screwed!" If that thing gets passed you might as well hang up your remote.

That's exactly what it's saying. The "subdivision" can make rules for itself. The interpretation makes sense if you consider what I said in my earlier response about local governments having to self-regulate.

The act renders local ordinances unenforceable. Of course, as with all things, law enforcement officers are often not aware of the laws for niche industries like hobby aircraft. You can attempt to "educate" a LEO about the law, but in my experience LEO's don't like to be "educated" about their...

When is the aircraft "rebooted?" When you turn it off and back on? When you change batteries? When you connect the remote?

No, the second part says use "by the subdivision," so it means they can make internal rules for city/county employees, basically. For example they can set rules for the fire service or police or city/county maintenance personnel that may use drones for different reasons. They probably made that...

That is odd. "It might have been repealed?"