I didn't say UAV's shouldn't be regulated, did I. I do, however, think that regulations should be enforceable, and clearly the FAA's aren't unless they somehow partner with local LEO's. To compare a low-flying under 5 lb. UAV to a flying car is like comparing a bird to a helicopter. What will the DOT/FAA do when UAV's the size of dragonflies become readily available? It isn't the device but the operator who needs education and a permit. I do agree that flying cars are an absurd and unworkable idea. Like military drones, if they crash in urban areas they represent a real threat to public safety, and there's no airspace to safely accommodate swarms of them flying every which way. Idiots obtain licenses to drive cars, and they do stupid things that jeopardize others. When this happens, they are held accountable for their actions and may lose their privilege to drive. Why do you think different standards should apply to UAV technology?

(Written on 2014/08/30)(Permalink)

This is the beginning of the end for the FAA's unenforceable arrogation of airspace below 400' with the obvious exception of airports, military installations, and other sites vital to national security. This airspace more properly belongs within the jurisdiction of state and local government entities who have enforcement capabilities that the FAA will always lack except for selective and therefore unjust trolling of web sites looking for 'violators'. Local airspace below 400' should be regulated locally. The FAA can assist by issuing guidelines for local statutes that regulate unmanned aerial vehicular activities. The FAA can then partner with local law enforcement to clarify these locally enacted rules and regulations, and to create an educational program designed to ensure appropriate responsible operating knowledge in order to issue meaningful permits for anyone who uses unmanned aerial vehicles(UAV's). The distinction between 'commercial' and 'hobby' UAV operation is arbitrar

(Written on 2014/08/29)(Permalink)

Incredible upgrade, people! The breadth and depth of information that is available by clicking on the plane icons was a real surprise.

(Written on 2014/08/15)(Permalink)

LOL! That's not what I said. I said you can't take off and land in your back yard with it. That's the difference between a 747 and a UAV weighing a pound or so with VTOL capability. To treat them the same is like treating a two story home the same as a 100 story skyscraper in terms of permits, construction, and required maintenance. I believe you, indeed, ARE the one selling bridges. Good to see you recognize it...

(Written on 2014/08/10)(Permalink)

If you could fly your 747 below 400' from your back yard, I would agree with you. Otherwise your example is just inane. The real world differs from the one from which you are imagining.

(Written on 2014/08/10)(Permalink)

I'm talking about a local law enforcement agency purchasing a UAV in order to better serve and protect its citizens. I believe you're supporting the arrogation of what is essentially our rooftops by a federal agency. I disagree with them and you on how to logically and legally approach this issue and will have nothing more to say here.

(Written on 2014/08/09)(Permalink)

Who actually enforces 'The Law' in San Jose? Think carefully about how you want your children to live before you answer. This is the proverbial 'Tempest in a Teapot' courtesy of our federal government. Selective enforcement is selective enforcement on either side of this issue.

(Written on 2014/08/09)(Permalink)

You've never jaywalked? Driven a few miles over the speed limit? I consider this 'infraction' of similar import. After all, the SJPD isn't a terrorist organization which must be reined in at all costs. The SJPD serves and protects, just like the FAA should be doing. It's the FAA that's the problem here, not the SJPD.

(Written on 2014/08/09)(Permalink)

And just how do you propose that all those who break the FAA's arbitrary 'law' be caught? The FAA needs to cultivate local law enforcement allies in order to solve this UAV 'problem'. Do you honestly believe that making an example of the SJPD serves any useful purpose other than to allow the FAA to strut around like cocks of the walk flaunting their authority? They is selective enforcement here either way you look at it! The FAA either selectively comes down hard on the SJPD or tries to work with them despite the FAA's ill-conceived rules.

(Written on 2014/08/08)(Permalink)

The 'authority' of the FAA to regulate airspace below 400' is tenuous, not because they haven't armed themselves with the proper statutes, but because they have no hope of enforcing their regulations. Current enforcement is highly selective and therefore unjust while it invites corruption. The selective enforcement of the law is tyranny of a high order. The FAA's airspace rules can only be enforced, economically and practically, if they enlist the help of state and local law enforcement agencies. Where air traffic below 400' isn't subject to live Air Traffic Control or doesn't represent a threat to national security the FAA needs to allow local control of said airspace. When control is local, such agencies could require UAV operator permits after suitable education and signed documentation. These local permits could be required to legally operate any UAV, while always remaining in direct sight, for any purpose, commercial or not. The FAA is has a dilemma with regard to UAV'

(Written on 2014/08/08)(Permalink)