Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   FAA to drone operators playing with their toys within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: GTFO   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Washington, D.C., model aircraft, Arlington County, Virginia, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Air traffic control, Reagan National Airport, Washington Metropolitan Area, Capital Area Soaring  
•       •       •

3226 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2016 at 8:13 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2016-01-01 07:27:29 AM  
You're pissed about hobbyists flying their drones and aircraft at their club, sixteen miles from the nearest airport, Subby?
 
2016-01-01 08:21:20 AM  

Curate's Keg: You're pissed about hobbyists flying their drones and aircraft at their club, sixteen miles from the nearest airport, Subby?


FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it.  The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

8.7/10, could have spelled out GTFO, but should get some bites.
 
2016-01-01 08:22:00 AM  
The only safe place left to fly is the Michigan State secondary.
 
2016-01-01 08:30:45 AM  

baronbloodbath: FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it. The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.


Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?
 
2016-01-01 08:32:13 AM  

GoldSpider: baronbloodbath: FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it. The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?


Do drones work by mind control or by radio frequencies?
 
2016-01-01 08:34:20 AM  

GoldSpider: Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?


We have to keep the sky safe for hijacked aircraft approaching the Pentagon at low altitude?
 
2016-01-01 08:37:33 AM  
Reagan sleepy
img.fark.net
 
2016-01-01 08:38:06 AM  

rebelyell2006: Do drones work by mind control or by radio frequencies?


Not my expertise by any stretch, but are the controllers really powerful enough to get a signal up several thousand feet?
 
2016-01-01 08:43:57 AM  
Stop aiding the enemy.  Pretty soon they will be able to buy a state of the art Air Force for $50K and state of the art pilots for a case of Red Bull.

\dnrtfa
\\make good decisions
 
2016-01-01 08:45:46 AM  
Yagi antennas make line-of-site control possible at ranges of up to 50 miles.  Google FPV Airplane if you don't believe me.  These things have features that make my little cox .075 four channel look like a relic.
 
2016-01-01 08:50:06 AM  
cdn.wikimg.net
 
2016-01-01 08:50:16 AM  

GoldSpider: rebelyell2006: Do drones work by mind control or by radio frequencies?

Not my expertise by any stretch, but are the controllers really powerful enough to get a signal up several thousand feet?


I have no idea, but I suspect the more expensive drones do have decent radio range and strength.
 
2016-01-01 08:50:40 AM  

A10Mechanic: Yagi antennas make line-of-site control possible at ranges of up to 50 miles.  Google FPV Airplane if you don't believe me.  These things have features that make my little cox .075 four channel look like a relic.


img.fark.net
 
2016-01-01 08:51:01 AM  
10 or 20 of those with a Semtex or C4 payload could really, really, really make a mess of the White House.  That is why they can't have nice things, because turrrists.  'Merica.
 
2016-01-01 08:52:22 AM  
It seems to me the FAA had the 30 mile rule because of how quickly a manned aircraft could reach downtown. It would make sense to have a separate rule for unmanned aircraft that can't move that fast.
 
2016-01-01 08:54:23 AM  
"Airspace restrictions were put into place in the Washington area shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the ensuing years, model aircraft were prohibited from flying within 15 miles of Reagan National Airport."

If only they had thought of this prior to 9-11, then the horrible events of that day would have never transpired.
 
2016-01-01 09:00:54 AM  

GoldSpider: baronbloodbath: FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it. The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?


They're not.  This whole hysteria reminds me of the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 80s.

And now they're going after the stodgy old RC plane fliers who follow every FAA and FCC rule like Moses brought it down from the mountain and have been doing so for decades with no problem.  They just poked the nerdy bear.
 
2016-01-01 09:02:01 AM  
They could just find a park 30 miles outside of DC. I don't know why they don't do that anyway, so they could enjoy a nice relaxing two hour drive through the countryside on their way to fly drones.
 
2016-01-01 09:11:40 AM  
I sort of dig the drone hate.  Sort of takes away from the bicyclist hate.

/one can only hate on so much at one time
//cyclist and quadcopter owner
 
2016-01-01 09:20:23 AM  
KITE OWNER

been there


adjusts onion
 
2016-01-01 09:21:25 AM  
I own a couple of quadcopters. I however, don't own a "cyclist". I do cycling, may be considered a cyclist, yet do not own one.
 
2016-01-01 09:25:13 AM  
EVIL DRONES COMIN FOR YOUR CHILDREN
 
2016-01-01 09:26:05 AM  
img.fark.net

MS paint skills
 
2016-01-01 09:28:27 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It seems to me the FAA had the 30 mile rule because of how quickly a manned aircraft could reach downtown. It would make sense to have a separate rule for unmanned aircraft that can't move that fast.


Maybe since congress is a big dumpster fire, so new legislation isn't an option, they could only adapt the existing legislation with executive power.
 
2016-01-01 09:31:20 AM  
As long as they're indoors...

Isn't there a famous indoor parking garage they could race drones in?
Any blimp hangars in the area?
 
2016-01-01 09:33:30 AM  
My turtle is more of a threat .


i65.photobucket.com


/ don't really have a turtle
// or a drone
 
2016-01-01 09:34:55 AM  
So the FAA's completely unenforceable  drone rules are useless they've decided to go after the R/C crowd which has nothing to do with the drone issue? Sounds like the FAA.
 
2016-01-01 09:39:16 AM  

dstrick44: Incidentally, can a commercial jet really be commandeered by a quad copter's remote?
This hysterical derangement about the quad copters is really getting out of hand.


My understanding is that that's not the problem. The concern is of one of these things being sucked (or rammed) into a jet engine. At least that's what I hear from my father, who keeps his finger on the pulse of many FW:FW:FW:fw:FW:fw:fw emails (by receiving and believing them) and could give the average Fark Independent fairly stiff competition.
 
2016-01-01 09:53:28 AM  

baronbloodbath: Curate's Keg: You're pissed about hobbyists flying their drones and aircraft at their club, sixteen miles from the nearest airport, Subby?

FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it.  The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

8.7/10, could have spelled out GTFO, but should get some bites.


Getting an "until further notice" message from the government is functionally equivalent to GTFO.  Further notice never comes.  It's effectively a permanent ban.
 
2016-01-01 10:03:01 AM  

baronbloodbath: 10 or 20 of those with a Semtex or C4 payload could really, really, really make a mess of the White House.  That is why they can't have nice things, because turrrists.  'Merica.


It would be like crossing a blood bug with a super mutant suicider - hard to hit, and dangerous when close!

/Too much Fallout 4 lately...
 
2016-01-01 10:07:10 AM  

dstrick44: jtown: GoldSpider: baronbloodbath: FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it. The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?

They're not.  This whole hysteria reminds me of the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 80s.

And now they're going after the stodgy old RC plane fliers who follow every FAA and FCC rule like Moses brought it down from the mountain and have been doing so for decades with no problem.  They just poked the nerdy bear.

This.
Incidentally, can a commercial jet really be commandeered by a quad copter's remote?
This hysterical derangement about the quad copters is really getting out of hand.


^^^^This
 
2016-01-01 10:13:03 AM  
DCA will always be Washington National to me
 
2016-01-01 10:16:10 AM  

GoldSpider: baronbloodbath: FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it. The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?


The article didn't go into detail about it, but essentially all airspace within around 30 miles of DCA is de facto restricted airspace and effectively has been since 12 September 2001.  You actually have to call ahead to get permission to fly into the "Washington flight zone", must continuously monitor emergency comms, and technically you can't fly ANYTHING into the zone without a working transponder--and this is to the point even model rockets and model planes including quadcopters are technically illegal to fly within 30 miles of DCA:

ADDITIONS TO OPERATING IN THE DC FRZ 14 CFR SECTION 93.341. ALL OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE FRZ (INCLUDING TRANSIT) UNLESS OUTLINED BELOW: A. THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT, PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING, BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.

Technically even air ambulances and LifeFlight helicopters have to call ahead for clearance before flying in this area.

(And if you knew what was around DCA, you'd kind of understand why.  I've flown into DCA twice--you buzz the Pentagon on the landing path and some of the takeoff paths.  NSA is also pretty close by, not to mention the National Mall, the White House, Congress...)
 
2016-01-01 10:19:33 AM  

edmo: So the FAA's completely unenforceable  drone rules are useless they've decided to go after the R/C crowd which has nothing to do with the drone issue? Sounds like the FAA.


Did you have any help typing that complete nonsense?

/too early
 
2016-01-01 10:35:59 AM  

jtown: GoldSpider: baronbloodbath: FAA to drone operators engaging in their hobby within 30 miles of Reagan National Airport: Cease and Desist until further notice doesn't have the same, trolltastic ring to it. The GTFO was a nice touch and indicates callous unthoughtfulness inconsistent with the article.

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but why would a drone that only goes up a few hundred feet be a threat to an approaching/departing aircraft that far out?

They're not.  This whole hysteria reminds me of the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 80s.

And now they're going after the stodgy old RC plane fliers who follow every FAA and FCC rule like Moses brought it down from the mountain and have been doing so for decades with no problem.  They just poked the nerdy bear.


The "nerdy bear" technically has been operating in a wee bit of a grey area of the law.

This, interestingly, is NOT related to the FAA "register your damn quadcopters" rule, but is more enforcement of a NOTAM that they've had in place over the area in some form or another since 12 September 2001.  If you see the post above (or in the present FAA NOTAMs on their website around page 284 or so) you'll see there's been a de facto ban on model aircraft operation (that explicitly calls out "model aircraft are not allowed") ever since at least 1 October 2010 (which is the last time it was explicitly updated) and is pretty explicitly defined as a permanent "nothing short of a bird or MAYBE a kite shall be allowed to fly here unless we can track it on a frickin' radar, get it pre-cleared first, and make sure the pilot understands there WILL be vehicular sodomy with whatever new shiny toys USAF has access to if they stray one iota from the instructions because we are NOT going to have some Wahhabist asshole fly another goddamn plane into the Pentagon" rule.

Technically, any model aircraft clubs in DC should have been moving their operations to Virginia, West-By-God Virginia, or Maryland around, oh, August of 2010.  The "No Drone Zone" has been there for five years, it's just now getting enforced because idiots with quadcopters are gently reminding the FAA that there IS, in fact, a No Drone Zone over the DC metro area and that there has been for some 5 years.
 
2016-01-01 10:37:37 AM  
So guns are still okay, right?
 
2016-01-01 10:44:19 AM  

Nocrash: edmo: So the FAA's completely unenforceable  drone rules are useless they've decided to go after the R/C crowd which has nothing to do with the drone issue? Sounds like the FAA.

Did you have any help typing that complete nonsense?

/too early


This.  Technically the FAA has had a "no drone zone" in that area since the 11 September attacks (and model aircraft are just ONE thing that's banned--can't do model rockets, can't technically do ultralights or hang gliders or even hot-air balloon ops (tethered or otherwise).  KITES are legally dubious under the rules; basically the entire DC metro area airspace is under roughly the same rules as, say, that over an active military base.

(And merely banning anything save for aircraft with transponders and kites is actually more permissive than what was originally proposed in the period after 11 September 2001. There was very serious talk of banning general aviation traffic altogether in the DC metro area (requiring non-commercial aviation to fly out to Baltimore); it took a LOT of lobbying from AOPA to even get the "you must file a flightplan first and contact the Washington ARTCC for preapproval and you must have a working transponder" rules in.)
 
2016-01-01 10:45:23 AM  

bighairyguy: So guns are still okay, right?


Unless you throw it into the air.
 
2016-01-01 10:48:20 AM  
So I guess this years kite festival at the smithsonian is off?
 
2016-01-01 10:50:53 AM  
Of course, those liberal elites are just exempting themselves again.
 
2016-01-01 10:58:51 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: Nocrash: edmo: So the FAA's completely unenforceable  drone rules are useless they've decided to go after the R/C crowd which has nothing to do with the drone issue? Sounds like the FAA.

Did you have any help typing that complete nonsense?

/too early

This.  Technically the FAA has had a "no drone zone" in that area since the 11 September attacks (and model aircraft are just ONE thing that's banned--can't do model rockets, can't technically do ultralights or hang gliders or even hot-air balloon ops (tethered or otherwise).  KITES are legally dubious under the rules; basically the entire DC metro area airspace is under roughly the same rules as, say, that over an active military base.

(And merely banning anything save for aircraft with transponders and kites is actually more permissive than what was originally proposed in the period after 11 September 2001. There was very serious talk of banning general aviation traffic altogether in the DC metro area (requiring non-commercial aviation to fly out to Baltimore); it took a LOT of lobbying from AOPA to even get the "you must file a flightplan first and contact the Washington ARTCC for preapproval and you must have a working transponder" rules in.)


But what is the threat from RC toys? 30 miles? Just that it has been in place since 2001 doesn't mean it makes any sense. Anymore, when I hear of "such-and-such regulation, in place since 9/11," I find myself reflexively dubious of its foundation in reality. There is too much theatre and idiocy.
 
2016-01-01 10:58:58 AM  

Crabs_Can_Polevault: dstrick44: Incidentally, can a commercial jet really be commandeered by a quad copter's remote?
This hysterical derangement about the quad copters is really getting out of hand.

My understanding is that that's not the problem. The concern is of one of these things being sucked (or rammed) into a jet engine. At least that's what I hear from my father, who keeps his finger on the pulse of many FW:FW:FW:fw:FW:fw:fw emails (by receiving and believing them) and could give the average Fark Independent fairly stiff competition.


More "rammed", and possibly also a dose of "Doing aerial recon over areas we'd not want"--as I've noted in my past three posts, DC metro has been under roughly the same flight restrictions as an active military base since 12 September 2001.  At best RC clubs in the area has been in a grey area for the past decade and a half or so (this is roughly how long the DC metro area has been restricted airspace)--and since at least October 2010 they've been in roughly the same legal area as CB operators with "export" rigs or who are using linears on CB frequencies (both of which are technically illegal as hell, amateur license or otherwise, but generally the FCC doesn't go out of their way to bust someone with a CB that's "peaked and tuned and has additional frequency bands A-F" unless they either get a lot of complaints from amateur radio operators or they do something really dumb like try to broadcast on the government frequency bands outside of CB allocation.)

Because you now have people who ARE pretty much doing the model-aircraft equivalent of gleefully throwing out 100W PEP on their Galaxy rig on 25 MHz in the middle of the farking National Radio Quiet Zone (aka quadcopter operators who don't know that with great power comes great responsibility and gleefully droning the farking White House), the FAA's looked at their rules and required registration--and realized (when they look at areas where they can issue drone licenses) that, hey, there's an area where all model aircraft ops are prohibited thanks to stupid religionationalist dicks some fifteen years back...and so the FAA is noting "Hey guise,  you DO realize you're in the 'National No-Model-Aircraft Zone' and you should even technically be flying this shiat here, right?"  They're not even raiding the stores that sell them (whereas the FCC WILL happily raid CB stores selling illegal export radios if they get too many complaints from a certain area).

/ham radio operator
//also a bit of an aerogeek even if the bum eye means I can't fly the sky boats
 
2016-01-01 11:05:09 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: Nocrash: edmo: So the FAA's completely unenforceable  drone rules are useless they've decided to go after the R/C crowd which has nothing to do with the drone issue? Sounds like the FAA.

Did you have any help typing that complete nonsense?

/too early

This.  Technically the FAA has had a "no drone zone" in that area since the 11 September attacks (and model aircraft are just ONE thing that's banned--can't do model rockets, can't technically do ultralights or hang gliders or even hot-air balloon ops (tethered or otherwise).  KITES are legally dubious under the rules; basically the entire DC metro area airspace is under roughly the same rules as, say, that over an active military base.

(And merely banning anything save for aircraft with transponders and kites is actually more permissive than what was originally proposed in the period after 11 September 2001. There was very serious talk of banning general aviation traffic altogether in the DC metro area (requiring non-commercial aviation to fly out to Baltimore); it took a LOT of lobbying from AOPA to even get the "you must file a flightplan first and contact the Washington ARTCC for preapproval and you must have a working transponder" rules in.)


I think you two are part of the reason America is so farked today. This is how you fight terrorism? You ban model airplanes?

Perhaps that's unfair. To be fair, I'd have to recognize the large number of people killed by airplane hobbyists. I'd also be obligated to acknowledge the number of aircraft downed by toys that weigh about the same as birds. And certainly not least, the dozens of times Americans in small planes attacked DC before the magical FAA rules went into place. A fair accounting of risk-based regulation would tell us much, no?

Just keep giving up all your little freedoms but be sure to come back and biatch when when they take your guns.
 
2016-01-01 11:07:16 AM  

gilatrout: So I guess this years kite festival at the smithsonian is off?


Kites are just about the only thing (besides aircraft with a pilot and a transponder) that AREN'T banned, and that's just because (thankfully) someone has not yet figured out how to do mischief with a kite.  (The fact that the Smithsonian Institution is supervising also helps a bit.)

That said--technically there are restrictions on the larger kites near airports and in prohibited/restricted flight zones--technically you wouldn't be able to fly any kite which weighed over 5 pounds in DC (due to FAA regs that prohibit flying a kite of that size or larger in a restricted area and because the National Mall is less than 5 miles from DCA) and I'd be willing to bet the Smithsonian explicitly coordinates with DCA just to be on the safe side.
 
2016-01-01 11:08:19 AM  

GoldSpider: rebelyell2006: Do drones work by mind control or by radio frequencies?

Not my expertise by any stretch, but are the controllers really powerful enough to get a signal up several thousand feet?


Besides, that would seem to be the FCC's problem, not the FAA.
 
2016-01-01 11:26:34 AM  

b0rg9: I sort of dig the drone hate.  Sort of takes away from the bicyclist hate.

/one can only hate on so much at one time
//cyclist and quadcopter owner


Get off the road (and out of the airspace around DCA), hippy!
 
2016-01-01 11:40:21 AM  

edmo: Great Porn Dragon: Nocrash: edmo: So the FAA's completely unenforceable  drone rules are useless they've decided to go after the R/C crowd which has nothing to do with the drone issue? Sounds like the FAA.

Did you have any help typing that complete nonsense?

/too early

This.  Technically the FAA has had a "no drone zone" in that area since the 11 September attacks (and model aircraft are just ONE thing that's banned--can't do model rockets, can't technically do ultralights or hang gliders or even hot-air balloon ops (tethered or otherwise).  KITES are legally dubious under the rules; basically the entire DC metro area airspace is under roughly the same rules as, say, that over an active military base.

(And merely banning anything save for aircraft with transponders and kites is actually more permissive than what was originally proposed in the period after 11 September 2001. There was very serious talk of banning general aviation traffic altogether in the DC metro area (requiring non-commercial aviation to fly out to Baltimore); it took a LOT of lobbying from AOPA to even get the "you must file a flightplan first and contact the Washington ARTCC for preapproval and you must have a working transponder" rules in.)

I think you two are part of the reason America is so farked today. This is how you fight terrorism? You ban model airplanes?

Perhaps that's unfair. To be fair, I'd have to recognize the large number of people killed by airplane hobbyists. I'd also be obligated to acknowledge the number of aircraft downed by toys that weigh about the same as birds. And certainly not least, the dozens of times Americans in small planes attacked DC before the magical FAA rules went into place. A fair accounting of risk-based regulation would tell us much, no?

Just keep giving up all your little freedoms but be sure to come back and biatch when when they take your guns.


Firstly--I didn't say it was a GOOD idea.  (I will be the first to note a lot of the response to 11 September was, to put it bluntly, Farking Dumb.  Wrecking Meigs Field in Chicago being one of those Dumb Things--yes, one of the main GA airports in Chicago that a developer wanted in a land grab was deliberately destroyed in the middle of the night in March 2003 with the 11 September attacks being used as the excuse.  The entire existence of Thousands Standing Around and their security theatre would be another prime example.)

What I am saying is that--most model airplane clubs DO keep up with NOTAMs, and they SHOULD have been aware of this possibility (oh, back when there was talk about banning actual full-sized Beechcraft and Cessnas from flying into DC at all) and started making a Plan B for a flight area outside of the DC FRZ.  (The DC FRZ has ONLY been on the books in some form for the past decade and a half.  There have been smaller restricted flight zones near the airports and the government buildings for far longer, like Cuban Missile Crisis levels of "longer ago".)

Secondly, you may be talking to one of the wrong persons re the whole "gun grabbing" argument; whilst I do consider myself a Second Amendment Progressive, I also tend to think the NRA is guanopsychotic and I am a strong advocate of actual regulation of the militia (people always forget that "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment--which we did do a good job of in past, but have slacked off on since the Civil War or so) in that I do think that mandatory weapons training and physical and mental health checks should be required as a condition of being allowed to be part of the gun-owning unorganized militia (basically I think you should be required to do a hunter safety course every two years for long-guns, CCW/handgun safety and marksmanship training ever 2 years for handguns, equivalent training every 2 years for "tacticals"; I also do think involuntary committment for a suicide watch or violent psychiatric event and mental impairment to the point someone is declared legally incompetent should mean you are not allowed to carry, along with physical impairments that prohibit one from safely using a gun even with adaptive devices).  I do think that there should be legal requirements that weapons be stored in a safe manner (in a gun case or with a trigger lock or otherwise peacebound in such a way that a three-year-old is NOT going to be able to allow it to be fired) when not used or carried.  I also think there should be a single national mandatory standard whereby hunter safety course certification and CCW courses/handgun safety courses should meet a minimal standard and all states should accept other states' documents as long as they meet the minimal federal standard.  I also do believe you should NOT be allowed to purchase a gun or ammo unless you have that little card in your hand showing that you've been to a hunter safety course or handgun safety course in the past two  years. :D

(And just to keep things interesting--if by some black miracle I could get a "Regulation of the Militia Amendment" in, I'd even encourage public-private partnerships for the training.  I'm sure the NRA could make some nice bank offering hunter safety courses, handgun marksmanship/training courses, and even "tactical arms training certification" courses; they might even find it a profitable business.  You know...what the NRA USED to do before they went full guanopsychotic.)

You know...the general requirements that are in place in Switzerland, which is the country which the Founding Fathers modeled the Second Amendment concepts off of (it's rather more explicitly clear in the Articles of Confederation where each state had to maintain a state armory and disperse weapons to men who would not be considered 4-F, and where all men were required to show up every six months for muster training).  In Switzerland, all men are considered part of the canton guard unless they are too physically or mentally disabled to serve; all men must report once a year for mandatory muster training; you ARE given a weapon...and a very limited amount of ammo, which MUST be stored in a government-supplied gun safe outside of muster training or a national emergency.  If you are declared physically or mentally unfit to serve, you have to surrender your weapon (you do get to keep it after age 45).  You require a specific license to buy ammo in Switzerland, and you are only allowed to buy specific types and only a specific amount yearly.  Self-loading equipment is essentially prohibited for obvious reasons.

(Yes, very few people realize that whilst Switzerland is relatively free as far as gun ownership...it's under very strict conditions and they are REALLY horrendously strict on the things you need to make a gun actually USEFUL.)
 
2016-01-01 11:46:45 AM  
So RC enthusiasts have become the gun nuts of the nerd community?
 
2016-01-01 11:53:18 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: GoldSpider: rebelyell2006: Do drones work by mind control or by radio frequencies?

Not my expertise by any stretch, but are the controllers really powerful enough to get a signal up several thousand feet?

Besides, that would seem to be the FCC's problem, not the FAA.


Some Sufficiently Advanced Quadcopters can in fact go without radio control in that you can preprogram them to go along a specific flight route (which they find via GPS) and which can autonavigate around obstacles.

That said...it's kind of irrelevent because technically you've not been able to fly any "hobby flying thing" other than a small kite in DC since 2001.  It's because stupid people were being stupid with quadcopters (and specifically someone was being stupid because they droned the White House with their quadcopter) that led to both the Drone Registration Act and the FAA enforcing "no drone zones" (including that one in DC metro that's been there since stupid religionationalists flew a rather larger plane into the Pentagon).

/hell, pretty much most of my metro area is technically a "no drone zone" thanks to TWO airports
//at least our local RC aircraft club was CLUEFUL re FAA regs, and so has a very nice little RC airport in a state park outside the metro "no drone zone" and everyone is happy
///still fails to get why the DC RC clubs did not plan ahead back in 2001-2002 when the "no drone zone" was first put into place and work out a similar partnership with a Virginia or Maryland area park, which would have been the sensible solution
 
2016-01-01 11:55:29 AM  
Airspace within a pretty large radius of the capital is very tightly controlled.  In most other spots in the country, you can fly VFR (visual flight rules) below 18,000 ft.  You squawk 1200 (transmit the code 1 2 0 0 from the aircraft's transponder), and you don't have to talk to ATC/you are not actively controlled in where you fly.  Those rules  don't apply in a huge area surrounding the capital for security reasons; every aircraft is actively controlled.

This story is a bit extreme, but not really surprising.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report