Here We Go Again, California

[ianwood]

Jackson Introduces Legislation to Protect Californians from Unsafe Drone Use | Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson

Feel free to comment on her post on Facebook. I already did. (Keep it polite and factual.)

Drones are an exciting and emerging... - Hannah-Beth Jackson | Facebook

 

[snerd]

 

[B- Scene Films]

Drone pilots beware: You may have to get insurance, leave info after accident

 

[kandelin16]

The crazy thing about drone regulation to me is the bipartisanship of it. Americas politicians can't agree on anything, except that they don't like UAV's.


Sent from my iPod touch using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[EnterLeftDownwind]

The crazy thing about drone regulation to me is the bipartisanship of it. Americas politicians can't agree on anything, except that they don't like UAV's.

Part of it stems from all the national news stories regarding sUAV's interfering with aircraft operations (airports, aerial firefighting, etc.) and used for questionable means (peeping, dropping contraband into prisons, etc.)

Then I read stories on here of guys doing the same things we're reading on the news without any regrets. We, as a community, are doing this to ourselves.

Don't want any regulation? Use common sense and play by the rules. The AMA was able to do this for decades until affordable sUAVs hit the market. Unfortunately, I think we may be past that point.

 

[tcope]

"Last year, Jackson authored SB 142, which would have prohibited drones from trespassing on private property without the owner’s permission and invading Californians’ privacy. Although the bill received bipartisan support, it was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown."

If at first you don't succeed... just keep slinging the same crap in the hopes it slips through.

Let me add a thought here. I was listening to a XMSirius broadcast last night and today I plan on fly _near_ a solar farm. The farm is such that it has hundreds of mirrors set up to direct radiation. What would happen if a person were to fly over these mirrors, bake their drone and it falls onto one off them. I suspect some serious damage could occur. Should they not be able to prevent this in some way? They have fences set up to keep people out... why not the same "restriction" on drones? I have two views on this... I think it's a valid point and I also think it simply cannot be done. The "problem" is that the drone is in public airspace. _THAT_ is the problem... all airspace is currently public. People can complain about their privacy, people can complain that they need to protect their property, people can not like the sound of the drone close to them, etc. and they would all have _valid_ complaints. But airspace is currently open to the public. So we see bills like this one that want to limit this public airspace. We all know it's not legal for anyone other than the FAA to do this but (again) we all know these "lawmakers" don't care if their laws are legal. So here we are... within this dilemma. So ask yourself... why is DJI doing things like creating things like GEO fencing and why are companies gaining tracking with allowing anyone to set their property up as no fly zones.

My opinion/bottom line; I understand why people are worried. I think they have a valid argument. But airspace _should_ remain public with few restrictions. Drones _ARE NOT_ really a big problem and won't be a problem once they are no longer a "new" technology. Just like cell cameras.

 

[JKDSensei]

Yawn......
This is all so boringly predictable

 

[JKDSensei]

Part of it stems from all the national news stories regarding sUAV's interfering with aircraft operations (airports, aerial firefighting, etc.) and used for questionable means (peeping, dropping contraband into prisons, etc.)

Then I read stories on here of guys doing the same things we're reading on the news without any regrets. We, as a community, are doing this to ourselves.

Don't want any regulation? Use common sense and play by the rules. The AMA was able to do this for decades until affordable sUAVs hit the market. Unfortunately, I think we may be past that point.

Yep. Still lots of morons around who are going to fly anywhere and anyway they please....and call you the dysfunctional fun Police from their outhouses if you dare suggest they fly responsibly.

But still, there have NOT been enough serious incidents involving drones to anywhere NEAR warrant what's going on.
Something else is going on. Eventually all will see it. (Well not all).

 

[EnterLeftDownwind]

But still, there have NOT been enough serious incidents involving drones to anywhere NEAR warrant what's going on.
Something else is going on. Eventually all will see it. (Well not all).

We shouldn't be waiting for serious incidents to happen before putting methods in place to try and prevent them. The key is to try and be proactive instead of reactive. I can't fault regulators for trying to be proactive.

I can, however, fault them for the manner and method in which they are using in order to be proactive on the safety front.

 

[JKDSensei]

We shouldn't be waiting for serious incidents to happen before putting methods in place to try and prevent them. The key is to try and be proactive instead of reactive. I can't fault regulators for trying to be proactive.

I can, however, fault them for the manner and method in which they are using in order to be proactive on the safety front.

Fair enough...but....

We already had laws governing most of the undesirable activities this action purports to address.
Gun control advocates have thousands of laws on the books.....but it's never, ever enough.

What has really been accomplished here? Please tell us.

 

[EnterLeftDownwind]

Fair enough...but....

We already had laws governing most of the undesirable activities this action purports to address.
Gun control advocates have thousands of laws on the books.....but it's never, ever enough.

What has really been accomplished here? Please tell us.

Nothing. Which is why I specifically noted their faults in the manner and method.

I don't blame them for being proactive in trying to promote safety, though. This is just the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Phantom751874]

She really doesn't care about what anyone has to say about her ideas. These reps do stuff like this because in this case drones are the flavor of the year and she wants on the attention bandwagon.

That's how reps work. They feed off the attention they'll get by proposing legislation that they know full well will make no difference but they can hold that legislation up above their heads and crown themselves a champion for the cause.

 

[JKDSensei]

Unfortunately, there has to be a large enough crowd of "can't think for themselves" low information types who think these crazed politicians are right, to make it worth their while.
And there always is.

 

[JKDSensei]

Nothing. Which is why I specifically noted their faults in the manner and method.

I don't blame them for being proactive in trying to promote safety, though. This is just the wrong way to go about it.

ok.
I guess I'm just fed up with thousands and thousands of pages of new regulations and hoops to jump through on top of the already existing millions of pages of laws, regulations, registrations and hoops we already have to jump through. If new regulations don't help, they don't need to be added.
We are truly THE Regulation nation already.

 

[Phantomfreak]

At this time, that's three CA senators that have proposals up regarding drones.. Drones are a CA politicians wet dream.. They are salivating to regulate the hell out of 'em. Drones are the new "guns" for CA politicians.