« POSTING VIDEO: IdeaFly I-FLY 4 Quadcopter Unboxing, Setup and Testing | Main | POSTING VIDEO: Oregon Senate Bill 71 Bans FPV Flying and Other “Drones” »

01/29/2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01538f63942b970b017d4096af80970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This $#!+ Just Got Real!:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris

Dang, that's bad! The infringment of liberty is always bad is this is terrible! Quick, we need to call up our reps and get this taken down!

janne höglund

I have a penis, am I a rapist now ??

Arthur Aldridge

Legislative restriction is the first step towards regulation, someone's quietly setting the stage to be a player in an artificially limited market...

Peter

Dumbest thing I've ever seen a politician do, and they do some (okay a lot) of stupid things.

Scott Berfield

Idiotic. Would the defnition extend to rockets as well? I think my buddies in the local high powered rocketry group might have something to say abou tthat. As would the model rocketry entusiasts who fly things like the Estes Camroc.

Doug Huneycutt

Does Oregon similarly restrict the aircraft in common use by nearly every radio and TV station in the nation? Each of these are also capable of being outfitted with video cameras, RF scanners, and weapons (depending on the passengers) ... the only difference is whether or not there is a pilot aboard.

Maybe the Oregon-based members of the media need to be alerted ... with a little tweaking, this bill could easily do away with one of their main sources of the imagery they use every single day.

Mark In Eugene

I agree that this Bill is troubling and sloppily written, but some of your concerns are not valid. An aerial vehicle that doesn't have a camera attached is not capable of capturing images - it becomes capable once the camera is attached. Most conventional RC aircraft would therefore not fall under this Bill.

Companies like Insitu are operating under the graces of the Feds. This Bill, in Section 2, contemplates that those businesses and individuals permitted to operate by the Feds may continue to do so.

Regulation of UAVs is coming whether we like it or not. Sloppily written legislation like this is not encouraging. But more troubling is the attitude that aerial surveillance and photography is de facto a bad thing. Legislators need to be shown the long term economic potential that UAVs can bring to a number of markets.

Pat Chewning

Welcome to the same ridiculous attempts at regulation that gun owners fight EVERY year.

BrotherBloat

What the... This is horrible!

Elvan Wilson

See this is what I have been talking about.
It seems like a bunch of guys, don't care!
There is still time to get something moving on this!
Since you guys have been featured on our local news channels, I suggest you get some of these news stations on board.
Otherwise, We will all be breakinf the law.

As one of the figured heads in the state of Oregon, you should be in the lead of getting this thing rewritten better!

Kip Jackson

Well. here we go again. We R/C modelers have been treated with the utmost disdain for decades. How many of us has lost a flying field? We have lost 6 here in the Hood River area over the last 15 years. This is just more crap only at a higher level. Did no one really expect this to ever happen? I've been waiting for years and now here it is.

Ben Howard

it looks like it was introduced by Senate Judiciary

Floyd Prozanski, Chair
Betsy Close, Vice-Chair
Jackie Dingfelder
Jeff Kruse
Arnie Roblan

those are the people you want to email

Steve

They do not want the common man to keep eyes on others because the common man is not to be trusted. The common man is not to be trusted because the common man has become wise to the schemes of the elites. If drones are classified as weapons, how would the SCOTUS ruling McDonald v. Chicago be applied to this bill should it become law?

Steve

Legislating anonymously? Does Oregon have a sunshine law? If not, it's time to apply collective punishment come next election. I'm surprised the Oregon is a "shall-issue" state.

¿QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?

Ken Wilson

Point 1: FAA regulations currently ban the use of UA’s (unmanned aircraft) of any kind for commercial use. Meaning you cannot make money from or charge a client for, the use of your UA (such as aerial photography for hire). Personal/hobby use of UA’s (i.e. not for hire) is legal. Just don’t be shooting photos/video that someone else (not yourself) would judge as invasion of privacy.

Point 2: FAA regulations supersede any state, local or municipal laws or regulations. Therefore this legislation from Oregon is superseded by FAA regulation.

Point 3: Regulation of all aircraft (powered or unpowered) flying within the borders of the U.S. is the sole purview of the FAA. State and municipal government cannot regulate, or create a law effecting, the use of U.S. airspace.

Point 4: UA’s (i.e. RC planes & ’copters, et. al.) are restricted in their use by an FAA advisory circular AC 91-57. Basically it states that your UA must remain below 400 feet AGL, not be flown within two miles of an airport without express permission and must remain apart from ‘noise-sensitive areas’ (e.g., hospitals et. al).

Here are links to the FAA website and web pages specifically concerning this subject.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment