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

[Droning on and on...]

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

Any Steamrollers around?

 

[Droning on and on...]

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.

Dont need to. You've simply repeated what I was saying. Do you understand how RID works?

Explain the Consumer electronics that can jam every reciever in a moving 1 mile radius around the flying drone.

Dont hold back... I have an EE degree and have been working in the IT industry for over 35 years until I retired. You can't get too technical.

I truly am interested how you can "saturate the receiver with a strong enough signal it will not be able to 'hear' anything" when the reciever can be a cell phone several kilometers away and you have no idea where it is.

Remember, the discussion is about jamming the RID signal over a large area so that no one can identify the drone.

This is not military.

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.

Again, exactly what I said above, in different words.

It's not possible to strap a 100W transmitter to everyone's cell phone, government RID scanner, etc., within (to be practical about RID range) a mile radius of the drone.

The point I was making, and you too, is to jam you have to pour tons of RF power into the reciever. Hard to do if you don't know where the receivers are.

Air Force? Well DUH. In that scenario you know where the reciever is (missile, enemy jet), and you can aim a tight, very high-power directional beam at it, and track it.

 

[Droning on and on...]

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?

Ache Eee Double Hockeysticks NO!

It depends entirely on the offense. There are plenty of absolutely egregious, dangerous violations posted to YT for which confiscation is not only appropriate, but a period of prohibition flying drones at all for the soccer hooligan would also be called for.

 

[Droning on and on...]

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

Says who? You?

I say it is. How about we do a poll? You are a strong supporter of democracy, right?

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?

First time? Written warning that goes on the record. Second time a citation that results in a fine. Third time permanent confiscation of drone. Fourth, confiscation and three days in jail.

 

[mavic3usa]

First time? Written warning that goes on the record. Second time a citation that results in a fine. Third time permanent confiscation of drone. Fourth, confiscation and three days in jail.

From the FAA, ok that's fair...can we get that in writing?

From the city government, "Ache Eee Double Hockeysticks NO!"

 

[anotherlab]

From the FAA, ok that's fair...can we get that in writing?

The use or marketing of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

That's from the FCC, not the FAA. Same source (FCC) as my last post,

 

[mavic3usa]

I say it is. How about we do a poll? You are a strong supporter of democracy, right?

Yes big supporter of democracy. If you want to do a poll to get a good read on people's opinions, fine let do it. I would hope that the drone community would vote for less not more enforcement. However, if you are trying to inappropriately insert "democracy" into a discussion about the Constitution then give it shot, you won't be able change it even if you get a 99% vote from a poll. In that case you'll need to follow the democratic "process." State and local law enforcement shall not enforce Federal laws (in most cases but there are exceptions; drones are not one of them). Yeah, let see the poll and it should be US only because in other countries, absolutely the police enforce drone laws. But I get it, Cali is more like "other countries" than the US.

BTW, in case anyone is going to nitpick the above, I'll make it clear:
No; LEO should not ignore it and just look the other way while you break the law
No; you can't do whatever you want just because the Feds are not looking
No; I'm not trying fix the laws so I can easily break them because there isn't enough Fed LEO on the ground to handle it

Suggestion: If you want to control the drones, create a Task Force that consists of FAA Fed LEO and a bunch of police and deputies and go out and crack down on all those dangerous, inappropriate YT video flyers; call it a national crisis. I would actually prefer (and support) they create a Task Force to fix the three biggest safety problems IMO we have with drones which is drones at airports, drones at wildfires, and drones at emergency services incidents but I guess we all know nobody cares enough about solving the real problem that actually claims lives and property; much rather go after the people having fun and making money and perhaps hurting a few feeling. It's the same tired story (go after the harmless innocent citizen and ignore or leave the criminal alone to go about their day and continue to commit more crimes). Let me be clear, we *have* to stop or control these drones from encroaching on wildfires or else we won't have a hobby.

 

[mavic3usa]

The use or marketing of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

That's from the FCC, not the FAA. Same source (FCC) as my last post,

I asked for it in writing and he was talking about penalties for breaking drone rules (not using a jammer), I agreed but we'd have to get something a little bit better than "violators can be fined up to $50,000 per occurrence."

As for jamming, I think my post #7 says mostly what I need to say about it. Whoever makes this (and we have some smart people in 2024) will find a way to do it legally. I'm not getting caught up on the word "jamming" we can call it masking or distorting or redirecting or whatever we need call and do what needs to be done to make it legal and effective.

I think it would be short-sigted to insist that you are committing a federal crime if you block the signal coming from your own cellphone or you wifi router....or your own drone. But we all know how drones excite people and step up the game and the seriousness and the ferocity.....

 

[Droning on and on...]

A report would be written and forward to the FFA.

And the Future Farmers of America will round-file it like all the others, and the FFA President, Billy Joe Bob Hatfield, will complain to the FAA again to correct the typo on their .gov website.

Again.

 

[Droning on and on...]

State and local law enforcement shall not enforce Federal laws (in most cases but there are exceptions; drones are not one of them).

The situation is the exact opposite: with some narrow exceptions, state and local LEOs can enforce Federal Law if they choose to do so. They are not obligated to do so.

See Printz v. United States.

Here's a good legal analysis of the subject from the Notre Dame Law Review.

 

[Droning on and on...]

From the FAA, ok that's fair...can we get that in writing?

Good Lord...

You're basically an anarchist, and reject our form of democracy, correct?

My answer to your hypothetical was a hypothetical. To "get it in writing" discuss it with Congress, not the FAA.

 

[MARK (LI)]

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.

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

How did you come to find this out?....Was it a scientifically based study?...I am not being confrontational, but I find that claim to be preposterous...why do you have to do this in every thread in which you post?....I can't believe how many controversial, wild scenarios you come up with that just do nothing constructive.You hijack every thread where you participate with this nonsense.

 

[Cafguy]

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?

As far as I know the Police do not have the equipment NOR the Mathematical skills required to judge the altitude of a Drone . If you break a local code or law while operating your Drone the local police Dept. may at their discretion forward that report to the FAA. If you cause injury or Damage to property they are required too. The only reason the police should be involved in your Drone flight is maybe a complaint and then they won't be there long if you are legal.
I will bet StevenBrodsky looks at his post now with the same otherworldly amazement Capt. Kirk had as he looked upon Viger for the first time. lol I am enjoying it tho...
You can own such a device BUT if you turn it on that's gonna be a problem for you if you get caught.
Not only will the FAA be standing in line to get your money but The FCC is there too.

 

[mavic3usa]

The situation is the exact opposite: with some narrow exceptions, state and local LEOs can enforce Federal Law if they choose to do so. They are not obligated to do so.

See Printz v. United States.

Here's a good legal analysis of the subject from the Notre Dame Law Review.

Of course they are not obligated to do so, you got that right: State Troopers are not obligated to enforce Federal laws. Just so you know, I really like it when you mention something that we both agree on; I think it shows we are not 100% directly opposed on all topics. I think I've made it clear from the very beginning that not only do I believe the deputies and officers shouldn't be forced but also they couldn't do it even if they wanted to. For example, if the Federal government prohibits marijuana and the state legalizes it, I think we all know what the state and local police need to do. Honestly there are so many more, way more federal laws than state laws, not sure why anyone in this country would want their local law enforcement to get trained on and enforce and send those particular people they arrest to federal court.*

As I often mention, there are examples of limited exceptions where agreements have been made, task forces have been assembled, hot topics like immigration, temporary stuff, etc. Ultimately there are so many ways around this (because there is significant relative overlap), state and local law enforcement honestly don't need it to do their jobs; they have everything covered in the state/local laws that they need to concerns themselves with. I'm fight hard to keep drone rules out of the mix....and it appears you're working hard to *add* drone rules to the circus. Nice.

I read your cases and your analysis examples and you should probably go over them with your lawyers since they don't mean what you think they do.

*They don't.

 

[mavic3usa]

Good Lord...

You're basically an anarchist, and reject our form of democracy, correct?

My answer to your hypothetical was a hypothetical. To "get it in writing" discuss it with Congress, not the FAA.

In writing like a fee or fine schedule; similar to the one at your municipal court.

That's all I am asking for, not anarchist about that. Are you really trying to derail this conversation with that? Bet, that's what I suggesting for Congress to do in the future, I'm just asking you if you support it not. Why can't you say "No I am against such a fee schedule. I prefer the fines for drone pilot violations to all be subject to up to $50,000." I've already explained why I think this is a good idea going forward but mainly, I would prefer wording along the lines of prohibiting warrantless arrest and seizure as I mentioned before. Look we don't have to implement this now, we can actually wait until innocent people start getting hurt and then work on it from behind the curve like we usually do, if that's ok with you?

 

[mavic3usa]

why do you have to do this in every thread in which you post?.

Do what? Express my opinion?

 

[Cafguy]

Local police CANNOT enforce ANY federal law !! They MUST be deputized by an officer of the Federal Government. Local law enforcement officers work in conjunction with federal officers NOT As federal officers- unless they have been deputized............Its the LAW.

 

[mavic3usa]

As far as I know the Police do not have the equipment NOR the Mathematical skills required to judge the altitude of a Drone.

Agreed so why anyone would oppose the thought of prohibiting them from properly enforce it, I don't understand that. We all know that if a police officer doesn't have a speed measuring device or has any training on judging speed, they'll still pull over speeders from time to time. I don't want that for the drone world.

 

[Cafguy]

Agreed so why anyone would oppose the thought of prohibiting them from properly enforce it, I don't understand that.

The FAA asked the national Police officers association about that a few years ago those officers gave them a Load and clear answer of HECK NO. They havnt the funds to police their own cities and the FAA want them to go around wasting time and my local tax dollars on a person with a Drone!? The most a local officer will do is ask for your Trust card if you don't have that they will simply tell you to go home until you take the test.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Do what? Express my opinion?

When you start off with " 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."
That is not an opinion ...and, as in this case, where I asked you a question ( how did you find this out) you answer with a question and / or a volley of made up scenarios that stray from the topic at hand