When will someone make an Anti-RID transmission module you can put on your drone?

[hank970]

Elise Stefanik is interested in learning about any other silly conspiracy theories applicable to drones. Do they emit invisible chem-trails? Do some immigrants use them to spot and track unwitting dogs and cats? Do drone propellors generate harmonic vibrations at precise frequencies to activate and energize the chips that Bill Gates inserted in our Covid vaccines? C'mon folks, give her a helping hand. There must be other concerns you have about our freedoms (or is it freedumbs?) that you haven't shared with us.

 

[Striperking59]

In America, where we have freedom, companies are free to make whatever they want and last I checked, there was no law against making a device that jams RID signals. It might be illegal to jam the signal but it wouldn't be illegal to buy, sell, and/or possess the device unless a law was passed stopping retailers. In America, we have lots of companies that make jamming devices for all types of equipment, some legal, some illegal. Very few of them pay the price. You have to be jamming something pretty significant like cellphones or radios to get their attention.

But here is an example of one: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-10th-circuit/1281349.html

If you don’t think drones have got their attention, you have not been watching the news. I don’t know why anybody has a problem with RID. I say leave it alone before they ruin it for everybody.

 

[Cafguy]

That's laughable. The USA is no more the land of the free than many other countries.

I loved some of the "little freedoms" I enjoyed while living in Germany, mind you nothing major but each country has its pros and cons. I was in the Army so I got to enjoy Most of these things without having to pay the HUGE taxes that the German people pay.
I remember Bar hopping with the squad stumbling thru Downtown Mannheim having a great time and when the polizei would stop us they would make sure everyone was OK and send us stumbling on our way. Here in the U.S. My buddies and I would be spending the night in the pokey for "P.I." and if one of our friends forgot to pay a ticket, even more. If thats good or bad is all up to your perspective I suppose.
I will say the U.S. is a type of freedom I am used to I was born here and I'm a proud Veteran but I would live in any country where people enjoy "freedom".
I had the luxury of being able to "visit" Riyadh and partake of some of the "freedoms" enjoyed there....Lets just say God bless the U.S.A.

 

[Army Vet]

Nope.



Yep.

The reason why it won't work is you have to stop the RID signal from being received at the receiver – the RC.

Even a 100W transmitter riding on the drone won't make any difference 1000ft away at the RC location... The drone is still transmitting RID at something like ½W, and the RC is going to be able to pluck that signal out, no problem.

The 100W jammer on the drone very well might keep the drone from receiving the control signals from your RC, however, making it unflyable. Maybe even unable to connect to the RC.

Anything can be jammed. Does not even have to be on the same frequency. If you saturate the receiver with a strong enough signal it will not be able to "hear" anything. Ask the Air Force.
Not saying that this would apply to drone RID. BUT if you had a 100 watt jammer against something in the milliwatt range. The receiver is overdriven and deaf to the world.

 

[mavic3usa]

No one has ever been arrested for flying their drone at 450' AGL.

Agreed, at least not that I am aware of. That's why I said there is a "possibility" but I would appreciate it if you support a bill that prohibits any state or local law enforcement from arresting or confiscating a drone found to violate FAA drone regulations (or state's that illegal enact drone laws that mimic federal regulations) that way we can keep that number at zero; agreed? Ever can mean today *and* tomorrow, ok?

 

[Myetkt]

Agreed, at least not that I am aware of. That's why I said there is a "possibility" but I would appreciate it if you support a bill that prohibits any state or local law enforcement from arresting or confiscating a drone found to violate FAA drone regulations (or state's that illegal enact drone laws that mimic federal regulations) that way we can keep that number at zero; agreed? Ever can mean today *and* tomorrow, ok?

So you want a law keeping law enforcement from doing their job.. makes perfect sense.

 

[MS Coast]

Agreed, at least not that I am aware of. That's why I said there is a "possibility" but I would appreciate it if you support a bill that prohibits any state or local law enforcement from arresting or confiscating a drone found to violate FAA drone regulations (or state's that illegal enact drone laws that mimic federal regulations) that way we can keep that number at zero; agreed? Ever can mean today *and* tomorrow, ok?

It's absolutely inconceivable that such a law would even be considered by Congress.

I believe strongly that the federal, state, and local law enforcement should definitely have the power to arrest and confiscate drones for egregious violations of FAA regulations.

An extreme instance - flying a drone carrying a grenade down Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. on Inauguration Day.

Less severe instances - repeatedly buzzing the crowd during an NFL game, hovering at 250 over the airport fence on the approach to runway 8L at Atlanta-Hartsfield Airport, shooting overhead video of an Ohio-class nuclear submarine arriving at the dock in Kings Bay in Georgia.

 

[mavic3usa]

So you want a law keeping law enforcement from doing their job.. makes perfect sense.

It's not the job of local (state, city, county) law enforcement to enforce FAA drone regulations.

So I have to ask, if a city police officer catches you flying your drone at 450 ft AGL, tell me what you think should happen?

 

[KB9Radio]

Why? What are doing that you're afraid of someone knowing about.

 

[mavic3usa]

It's absolutely inconceivable that such a law would even be considered by Congress.

All I am asking is if you would support such a law. It would be included along with the section that talks about the maximum penalties, where it says $50,000 or whatever. Just add one more statement to it, no arrests. Ok?

I believe strongly that the federal, state, and local law enforcement should definitely have the power to arrest and confiscate drones for egregious violations of FAA regulations.

That's what I thought. You probably also believe the city police and the state troopers and all the deputies across the country should enforce FAA regulations upon drone flyers, currently they cannot, but it sounds like you would support a state law that would allow it, correct?

For the non-egregrious violations of FAA regulations (such as flying over 400 feet AGL or flying beyond VLOS), would you support a "no arrest" clause?

An extreme instance - flying a drone carrying a grenade down Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. on Inauguration Day.

Less severe instances - repeatedly buzzing the crowd during an NFL game, hovering at 250 over the airport fence on the approach to runway 8L at Atlanta-Hartsfield Airport, shooting overhead video of an Ohio-class nuclear submarine arriving at the dock in Kings Bay in Georgia.

Those are crimes covered by federal (non-FAA), state, and local laws and if you do these things, you probably should be arrested. I'm asking a different question about drone rules and regulations but I get that you are trying to avoid the question I asked, nice dodge. It's a simple yes or no:

"..... you support a bill that prohibits any state or local law enforcement from arresting or confiscating a drone found to violate FAA drone regulations (or state's that illegal enact drone laws that mimic federal regulations) that way we can keep that number at zero; agreed?

 

[mavic3usa]

Why? What are doing that you're afraid of someone knowing about.

It's just a question; it's not about me.

 

[MS Coast]

All I am asking is if you would support such a law. It would be included along with the section that talks about the maximum penalties, where it says $50,000 or whatever. Just add one more statement to it, no arrests. Ok?

That's what I thought. You probably also believe the city police and the state troopers and all the deputies across the country should enforce FAA regulations upon drone flyers, currently they cannot, but it sounds like you would support a state law that would allow it, correct?

For the non-egregrious violations of FAA regulations (such as flying over 400 feet AGL or flying beyond VLOS), would you support a "no arrest" clause?


Those are crimes covered by federal (non-FAA), state, and local laws and if you do these things, you probably should be arrested. I'm asking a different question about drone rules and regulations but I get that you are trying to avoid the question I asked, nice dodge. It's a simple yes or no:

No, thanks. Better things to do.

 

[mavic3usa]

No, thanks. Better things to do.

No problem. Have a good weekend doing better things.

 

[Myetkt]

It's not the job of local (state, city, county) law enforcement to enforce FAA drone regulations.

So I have to ask, if a city police officer catches you flying your drone at 450 ft AGL, tell me what you think should happen?

A report would be written and forward to the FFA. Same as if someone tries to pass a counterfeit bill, the report is forwarded to the secret service. That said I don’t know an officer out there who gives a rats behind about your drone flying above 400 feet. But more people than I can count have talked themselves into trouble because they were a know it all who told an officer their job, but I guess you already knew that.

 

[hiflyer201]

Just interfere with the RID transmitter. Has anyone heard of such a device?

I’m sure glad you’re not a real pilot

 

[Myetkt]

All I am asking is if you would support such a law. It would be included along with the section that talks about the maximum penalties, where it says $50,000 or whatever. Just add one more statement to it, no arrests. Ok?

No

That's what I thought. You probably also believe the city police and the state troopers and all the deputies across the country should enforce FAA regulations upon drone flyers, currently they cannot, but it sounds like you would support a state law that would allow it, correct?

For the non-egregrious violations of FAA regulations (such as flying over 400 feet AGL or flying beyond VLOS), would you support a "no arrest" clause?

Those are crimes covered by federal (non-FAA), state, and local laws and if you do these things, you probably should be arrested. I'm asking a different question about drone rules and regulations but I get that you are trying to avoid the question I asked, nice dodge. It's a simple yes or no:

By the way, since when is it illegal for states to create and enforce or not enforce laws that are different than the federal government?

 

[mavic3usa]

A report would be written and forward to the FFA. Same as if someone tries to pass a counterfeit bill, the report is forwarded to the secret service. That said I don’t know an officer out there who gives a rats behind about your drone flying above 400 feet. But more people than I can count have talked themselves into trouble because they were a know it all who told an officer their job, but I guess you already knew that.

Excellent. I am absolutely ok with the details being sent to the FAA and they will make the determination and do the enforcement (including the penalties, etc). I understand you run the risk when you misbehave when dealing with law enforcement but at the same time, I understand you run similar risks even when you don't misbehave and I'm trying to deal with that aspect the best I know how. One way I propose(d) is limiting their arrest powers when it comes to drone violations, I just don't understand if they don't give a "rats behind" then why the pushback on even a simple statement from the FAA that says "do not arrest the drone pilot, do not confiscate his drone, just forward the information to us?" But I think you already know what problems that will cause.

 

[mavic3usa]

No

I may be way off base here but in my short experience, I have found that anytime someone claims they would never do something but they push back on a law that would prohibit them from doing it, then it's likely they plan to do it not today but one day in the future or they want to keep their options open just in case they run into a scenario where it will be useful for them to do it or condone someone else who does it. Just saying.

By the way, since when is it illegal for states to create and enforce or not enforce laws that are different than the federal government?

Perfectly ok. Not ok the other way around i.e. not ok for the federal government to create and enforce laws they have no business in. At the same time, it's not ok for the state and local government to create laws that are different from the federal laws only in those areas they have been "excluded" from and that include drone rules and regulations or more narrowly, special drone rules and regulation that pertain to the operation and safety of drone flight in the FAA airspace.

If you want to pass a law that says it illegal to pile drive a drone into the roof of your neighbor's car, go for it; not a problem. I think we already have laws against that but honestly, state and local government aren't really interested in that sort of thing. What they are interested in is prohibiting drone from flying in places they don't approve of. Like over the police station parking lot, city hall, traffic accidents, hospitals, train station, county park. I get it some places make sense like jails, airports, nuclear plants but someone always finds a "safety concern" why you can't fly in these other places and before you know it, you can't fly anywhere because the list grows, not shrinks.

 

[sawman]

Why do all these threads go down the same rabbit hole? One would think that by now people in this hobby would have let go of the useless banter, lest it no longer is an enjoyable hobby. And those in it as a business, play the game, write off the costs and still make money.
Much ado about nothing.

 

[anotherlab]

In America, where we have freedom, companies are free to make whatever they want and last I checked, there was no law against making a device that jams RID signals. It might be illegal to jam the signal but it wouldn't be illegal to buy, sell, and/or possess the device unless a law was passed stopping retailers.

Not "might", it is illegal. 10 seconds with Google comes up with the following

Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment that interferes with authorized radio communications, including cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, and Global Positioning Systems (GPS).

Source