I think it is just a matter of time before more regulations are imposed on the use of drones in the US.  More and more of these stories in the news.  


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/dedrone-unauthorized-drones-buzzing-joint-base-myer-henderson-hall.html

Stupid idiots will ruin it for all of us eventually.
I hope the US army shoots their drones down and traces them back to the users. A few shot drones and a few indictments, that's what it takes.

Click bait.  Need exciting articles to bring in the advertising dollars.

The drone detectors detected what?  Drones owners starting up drones and flying them according to regulations for RC hobbyists?  Flying them in their own houses located within the city of DC?  Video data being sent over a wifi channel (assumed to be a drone camera)?  

These guys have a business selling drone detecting systems.  They have to show a need to any customers their door to door salesmen encounter.  Did the drone detecting business owners actually write the article, then send it to new media as a suggestion on how it could be written?

I want to see video or pictures of these "detected" drones flying over sensitive military sites (all of Washington DC, these days).  I want to know if the drones are flown by civilians, military members having fun, or flown by the drone detecting guys ;)

Gunship9 Posted at 2017-11-1 08:17
Click bait.  Need exciting articles to bring in the advertising dollars.

The drone detectors detected what?  Drones owners starting up drones and flying them according to regulations for RC hobbyists?  Flying them in their own houses located within the city of DC?  Video data being sent over a wifi channel (assumed to be a drone camera)?  

From the article:

• Dedrone and the U.S. Department of Defense found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily, on average, over Fort McNair in Washington D.C.
  

Not sure I understand exactly what your point is or if it really matters exactly what the incident was, how true it was, who wrote it and for what purpose.  The numbers of the articles and news reports of people using drones irresponsibly are increasing.  This is shaping public opinion against them and causing governments to impose more and more regulations and taking actions against their use.

Also just about everything on the internet is click bait.  That is kind of the reason it exists.

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 08:58
From the article:

Dedrone and the U.S. Department of Defense found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily, on average, over Fort McNair in Washington D.C.

My point is reading the article, Dedrone found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily.  Not the DOD.  People say the DOD has found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily but it isn't true.  Also, Dedrone isn't the authority on what is an authorized drone.  I am!  As much as Dedrone is, anyway.

Dedrone hasn't provided one speck of proof a drone was flown unauthorized.  Give me details of an incident they detected or a photo, or a video.  They are a high tech company so I assume they have a iPhone with a camera or some other recording device.

News reports and articles of people using drones irresponsibly are increasing.  Mostly because I am writing them using no evidence that it actually happened.  I just segway nicely into information on how maybe or likely the drone is to destroy life and property.  Demand for such articles is enormous and I am just the guy to meet that demand.

All kidding aside, the article looked to be all smoke and mirrors and no substance.  Written to build demand for Dedrone's product based on unsupported claims of a wave of rouge drone use.  So much claimed illegal flying should have resulted in at least ONE photo, video, or arrest/detainment.

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 08:58
From the article:

Dedrone and the U.S. Department of Defense found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily, on average, over Fort McNair in Washington D.C.

The point was that the story sounds suspiciously like a company that makes a "drone detector" trying to get the public riled up about the "threat" of people flying over office buildings that have been deemed "sensitive" so they can sell more "drone detectors".  

remember the company that got caught selling golf ball detectors to the military that were supposed to be bomb detectors?  http://www.argonelectronics.com/ ... bal-safety-concerns

Morons from usa ^^ i think flyaing above military object, gov objects etc is priohibited in every country, and then normal users  are putted in same box and next  law restrictions tu us.. Same in poland, drons above natiopnal airport in Warsaw - owner should be castrated

Gunship9 Posted at 2017-11-1 11:33
My point is reading the article, Dedrone found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily.  Not the DOD.  People say the DOD has found that unauthorized drones are flying twice daily but it isn't true.  Also, Dedrone isn't the authority on what is an authorized drone.  I am!  As much as Dedrone is, anyway.

Dedrone hasn't provided one speck of proof a drone was flown unauthorized.  Give me details of an incident they detected or a photo, or a video.  They are a high tech company so I assume they have a iPhone with a camera or some other recording device.

From the article:
Unauthorized drones are flying an average of twice a day above critical military infrastructure just 4 miles from the White House, according to new study from drone-detection start-up Dedrone and the Department of Defense.

I don't know if there are pictures or not or what evidence they collected if any.  I have no idea if the story is fabricated or a elaborate scheme to sell products.  As i said before I don't know that it matters.  There are more of these articles and news stories being published and it will impact public opinion and cause more regulation.  Are you saying you don't agree with that?  

TexasAerials Posted at 2017-11-1 11:40
The point was that the story sounds suspiciously like a company that makes a "drone detector" trying to get the public riled up about the "threat" of people flying over office buildings that have been deemed "sensitive" so they can sell more "drone detectors".  

remember the company that got caught selling golf ball detectors to the military that were supposed to be bomb detectors?  http://www.argonelectronics.com/blog/fake-bomb-detectors-highlight-global-safety-concerns

Perhaps you are correct.  Unfortunately I believe it is working. There are drone laws being written at every level of US government and more and more countries are imposing laws, regulations and in some cases outright bans.

medyq69 Posted at 2017-11-1 11:57
Morons from usa ^^ i think flyaing above military object, gov objects etc is priohibited in every country, and then normal users  are putted in same box and next  law restrictions tu us.. Same in poland, drons above natiopnal airport in Warsaw - owner should be castrated

LOL.  Morons know no national or geographical boundaries.  They are everywhere.  I don't think that the problem with people using drones irresponsibly is unique to the US.

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 12:53
From the article:
Unauthorized drones are flying an average of twice a day above critical military infrastructure just 4 miles from the White House, according to new study from drone-detection start-up Dedrone and the Department of Defense.

If people/companies are making up stories, I think that should be addressed.  I don't think people's freedoms should be taken away over stories made up to sell a product.  

AMA did an in-depth analysis of all of the "drone sightings" over a several year period, and it appeared that drones had become the new UFO, anything that they didn't know what it was, was reported as a "drone sighting" even if the pilot was at FL360 and 550knots.  

If people are actually flying drones over protected military areas, in violation of current rules, I am in favor of prosecuting those people who don't follow the rules, rather than blanket bans on things, especially when the people writing the rules/laws likely don't understand what it is they are trying to regulate.  

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 13:04
Perhaps you are correct.  Unfortunately I believe it is working. There are drone laws being written at every level of US government and more and more countries are imposing laws, regulations and in some cases outright bans.

Drone laws at every level of US government?  do you have a cite for that?  last I checked the FAA was the only agency allowed to tell people what they can do in the national airspace (which starts just above your grass)  there are rules (3 year old "temporary rule") from places like the national park service that say that you cannot take off within national parks, but even they can't restrict the airspace above their parks if you take off from outside the park.  

TexasAerials Posted at 2017-11-1 13:11
If people/companies are making up stories, I think that should be addressed.  I don't think people's freedoms should be taken away over stories made up to sell a product.  

AMA did an in-depth analysis of all of the "drone sightings" over a several year period, and it appeared that drones had become the new UFO, anything that they didn't know what it was, was reported as a "drone sighting" even if the pilot was at FL360 and 550knots.  

I read something similar as well.  I agree with you 100%.  I am not for any additional Government regulation or control in my life on just about any subject.  Unfortunately with the number of drones that are being sold the odds are increasing that there will be people doing stupid things with them.  I have seen posts on this site where people violated guidelines doing "tests" for distance and altitude and indicated they were unaware that there were rules governing line of site flight and altitude limits.  

Personally I don't think companies trying to sell products will turn out to be the catalyst for more regulation.  As time goes on there will be plenty of actual users doing dumb stuff that will be the cause for increased regulation and control.  Just like everything else the few will screw it up for the many.

TexasAerials Posted at 2017-11-1 13:19
Drone laws at every level of US government?  do you have a cite for that?  last I checked the FAA was the only agency allowed to tell people what they can do in the national airspace (which starts just above your grass)  there are rules (3 year old "temporary rule") from places like the national park service that say that you cannot take off within national parks, but even they can't restrict the airspace above their parks if you take off from outside the park.

Ok.  Don't have a link but Kansas has a drone law as does the county and city I live in that restrict where they can be flown.  Dude you just referenced a law about taking off in a national park.  Come on.  Go try to fly one over a national monument, state wildlife park, military base...there are more and more laws being written all the time.

Here is some info on the Kansas law:

SB 319 expands the definition of harassment in the state's Protection from Stalking Act to include flying an aerial drone “over or near any dwelling, occupied vehicle, or other place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance.”Jun 30, 2016

Here is something on national parks from the National Park Service on the use of drones:
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/aviationprogram/unmanned-aircraft-systems.htm  Notice the NO DRONE ZONE referenced.

Here is some information from that link:
If I am flying my unmanned aircraft in the national airspace and do not take off, land, or operate from NPS lands and waters, is there anything the park could do to stop me?
Unless an unmanned aircraft pilot obtains special permission through the FAA, use of unmanned aircraft must remain line of sight.
In addition, although they do not directly address unmanned aircraft, the following existing 36 CFR sections may apply under certain circumstances.

• If the unmanned aircraft pursuits or harasses wildlife or creates an intentional disturbance of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities, the user could be cited for a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.2.
• If the user of the unmanned aircraft knowingly or recklessly creates a risk of public alarm or nuisance by causing noise that was unreasonable under the circumstances or by creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, the user could be cited for disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. § 2.34.
• 36 C.F.R. § 2.12(a)(3) prohibits, in non-developed areas, operating a device powered by a portable motor or engine, except pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.
  

Have I made my point about additional laws, regulations and controls on drones or would you like me to provide you more?

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 13:36
Ok.  Don't have a link but Kansas has a drone law as does the county and city I live in that restrict where they can be flown.  Dude you just referenced a law about taking off in a national park.  Come on.  Go try to fly one over a national monument, state wildlife park, military base...there are more and more laws being written all the time.

Here is some info on the Kansas law:

How do you reconcile these rules in national and state parks, when some of the same also have model aircraft flying fields inside them?  

The Kansas rule is intentionally vague so that anyone that flies a drone in any area where people are around can be hassled about it, but it won't likely stick.  stalking requires that the person doing the creeping has a particular target in mind, inadvertent capture of people out in public is not stalking.  otherwise, what would be the difference between flying a drone in public and the google streetview cars that can sometimes capture images "...near any dwelling, occupied vehicle, or other place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance."  another question:  do you have an expectation of privacy when driving your car on a public road?  

TexasAerials Posted at 2017-11-1 15:16
How do you reconcile these rules in national and state parks, when some of the same also have model aircraft flying fields inside them?  

The Kansas rule is intentionally vague so that anyone that flies a drone in any area where people are around can be hassled about it, but it won't likely stick.  stalking requires that the person doing the creeping has a particular target in mind, inadvertent capture of people out in public is not stalking.  otherwise, what would be the difference between flying a drone in public and the google streetview cars that can sometimes capture images "...near any dwelling, occupied vehicle, or other place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance."  another question:  do you have an expectation of privacy when driving your car on a public road?

I can not reconcile the rules.  I wasn't consulted nor did I have any input to their creation.  I am just responding to your request for me to provide examples of more drone laws, regulations and controls written at all levels of government by entities other than the FAA.  

The Kansas law was implemented in 2016.  I don't know for sure what caused the state to amend a law and include language about drones but I suspect it was driven by someone operating a drone in a manner that infringed on someones privacy or perceived privacy.  Again I don't know that for sure but experience tells me that politicians don't do anything unless pushed by something or someone, whether it is for good reason or not.  Often those laws and regulations they create are written without regard to the rights of the individual and sometimes even without regard to case law.

As far as the validity or whether these laws and regulations could be successfully challenged in court I can not say.  It is kind of changing the subject/statements of your original post, swapping horses in the middle of the stream as we sometimes say in Kansas.  I can say however that I don't really want to be the one to challenge them.  It can be a very expensive proposition to challenge the government on legal matters and sometimes comes with unwanted consequences.  I prefer to follow the law, rules and regulations and tend not to want to break them to challenge their validity.  Call me silly but I just don't want the attention.

To be clear I am not saying I agree with more laws, regulations or controls.  As I stated earlier as a general rule I am not for any additional Government involvement or control over what I do.  The point that I was making is that there are more and more reports of people operating drones dangerously or in violation of the rules.  This can not be a good thing for people like you and I that enjoy flying drones as either a hobby or commercially for compensation.  Whether the claims are true or fabricated they will ultimately result in more and more government regulation of the operation and use of drones.

Probably some of the military guys got bored and playing with the drones they were told to ground several months ago

Lucas775 Posted at 2017-11-1 16:29
Probably some of the military guys got bored and playing with the drones they were told to ground several months ago

LOL.  You may be right.

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 12:53
From the article:
Unauthorized drones are flying an average of twice a day above critical military infrastructure just 4 miles from the White House, according to new study from drone-detection start-up Dedrone and the Department of Defense.

Me and the department of defense say the study is authored and from Dedrone.  We support our statement by noting that Col. Anybody did not make a statement or sign the study.  Public Affairs TSgt Anybody also did not make a statement.  So the Dedrone CEO happily stood in for them.

Yes, I agree that articles like this are bad and can motivate regulations.  However, courts have so far sided with U.S. Citizens in that we peasants also have rights to fly and airspace isn't only the domain of the political elite/ wealthy.  

Also on the upside, the government apparently doesn't enforce current laws not to fly over military installations or national parks, sooooo,... more regulations won't stop anyone from flying.  Paper tigers in the face of drone blades.  We wouldn't have all these sensational articles if they enforced current laws (which I would appreciate).

Like the assistant waving the paper decree from his shogun to stop a samurai  from leaving.  Sliced the decree and the assistant.  

Gunship9 Posted at 2017-11-1 19:24
Me and the department of defense say the study is authored and from Dedrone.  We support our statement by noting that Col. Anybody did not make a statement or sign the study.  Public Affairs TSgt Anybody also did not make a statement.  So the Dedrone CEO happily stood in for them.

Yes, I agree that articles like this are bad and can motivate regulations.  However, courts have so far sided with U.S. Citizens in that we peasants also have rights to fly and airspace isn't only the domain of the political elite/ wealthy.  

Unfortunately not everyone that uses drones bothers to research and understand the rules about their use and there are some idiots that just don't/won't care.  I am confident that it is just a matter of time before your wish of greater enforcement of existing laws happens and my prediction of additional laws and controls comes true.  Hopefully it is not a major incident that causes loss of life or significant property damage that predicates it.

Kansas Boy Posted at 2017-11-1 16:23
I can not reconcile the rules.  I wasn't consulted nor did I have any input to their creation.  I am just responding to your request for me to provide examples of more drone laws, regulations and controls written at all levels of government by entities other than the FAA.  

The Kansas law was implemented in 2016.  I don't know for sure what caused the state to amend a law and include language about drones but I suspect it was driven by someone operating a drone in a manner that infringed on someones privacy or perceived privacy.  Again I don't know that for sure but experience tells me that politicians don't do anything unless pushed by something or someone, whether it is for good reason or not.  Often those laws and regulations they create are written without regard to the rights of the individual and sometimes even without regard to case law.

Forum needs a quote function, can't get it to quote your whole post...

I know you weren't consulted on the rules, but you can see that they don't make sense when they allow model airplanes but say "no drones"  

Are you sure the Kansas law was written because of some incident?  Is it perhaps more likely that it was written due to "drone hysteria" with people thinking that everyone flying a drone was "looking at their daughter or wife through the window" this is also what causes people to think that its ok to "shoot down" a drone or quadcopter flying over their property.  There are a lot of feelings when it comes to this topic, but a lot of the fears people have are unfounded.  

I agree that I don't want to be the person to challenge these overreaching laws, luckily there was a lawyer with the knowledge, finances and time to challenge the FAA hobby aircraft registration rules.  Also, another operator on the East coast challenged a city/town rule that drone operators be licensed to fly within the city limits.  

I believe that you are against additional rules, I just hate to see people feeling that there is nothing they can do when they see these overreaching and in some cases, silly regulations coming down the pipe.  remember that you can always call your representatives, offer to educate them on the issue, offer to have them out flying to teach them how things work.  there are a lot of parallels between the way people react to the idea of drones and the way people react about guns and gun legislation.  a lot of people don't know what they're looking at other than they "seem scary" and they want to ban them because they don't understand them.