Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.

You can do whatever flailing you want. Real companies have applied for and were approved for all of that. Commercial UAVs are currently approved and in use, so your original point is debunked. Moving on.

And if anything, it's likely to get EASIER when they change those guidelines, so I am really not sure why you are still arguing that it can't be done.

like I said I bow to your years of experience in the field. Meanwhile the last COA I filed is being used as the example on the FAA website.

That's pretty sweet. I'm sorry it's so irrelevant. Commercial UAV's already exist, so your argument that the rules are so strict that we won't see them soon is 100% untrue. It has happened.

I am really wondering why you keep dropping these appeal to authority posts. I don't care if you wrote the FAA rules cover to cover. You're saying something can't happen that has already happened.

Posts like this are just you flailing around trying to obscure the fact that you were wrong by mentioning your experience in the field and it's making you look like more of a fool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The bottom line is you still have to make your arguments. You don't see me posting my law enforcement cred in those cop threads, I just make the arguments and post the facts. That's how debate works.

You just fail to grasp the concept. An RC is not a UAS. A UAS certification or COA is not easy to get. The FAA has regulatory authority over all UAS. You put forward the idea that each of those was untrue, and that your roomba was applicable to this discussion. Not only are you uninformed, you refuse to be informed. And similar to previous threads when faced with opposition you throw tantrum that equates to "no no no, only I can be right, the sky is falling or will be falling soon"

AustonT wrote:You just fail to grasp the concept. An RC is not a UAS.

YOUR POST says that it is. Go back and read it.

A UAS certification or COA is not easy to get.

Yet several companies have gotten them, sooooo

The FAA has regulatory authority over all UAS.

Yes, and? So you get some paperwork and fly in uncontrolled airspace. Yes, the FAA is "regulating" you SO HARD aren't they. Yeah, of course the FAA has authority over those things. They barely exert that authority at all, so it's not a big deal.

You put forward the idea that each of those was untrue

And then you provided proof in your OWN POST

and that your roomba was applicable to this discussion.

As an example of how fast tech can miniaturize and get cheap? It sure is relevant.

Not only are you uninformed, you refuse to be informed.

Alllmost a personal attack

And similar to previous threads when faced with opposition you throw tantrum that equates to "no no no, only I can be right, the sky is falling or will be falling soon"

Dingdingdingding. We have immature personal attacks! Hooray! AustinT cedes the high ground. Rented Tritium wins!

`Hungarian UAV.

And hey, it's commercial! Fancy that!

Austin, bottom line is you are still arguing that commercial UAV's won't be a thing despite several ALREADY EXISTING.

You have to be this tall to ride this attraction.

AustonT wrote:You have to be this tall to ride this attraction.

I don't see anything in this post about how commercial UAV's already exist. Perhaps you are editing the post to include some content that's on-topic?

Perhaps I need help understanding the point you're making in this post. Could you clarify?

Chowderhead wrote:`Hungarian UAV.

And hey, it's commercial! Fancy that!

Can you give me the Cliff notes, I tried google translate but there appears to be some kind of obsession with the word "naming" showing up over and over again.

I certainly don't doubt that once the FAA relaxes the requirements, there will be MORE drones. That goes without saying. But the requirements that exist right now are not actually prohibitive, evidenced by commercial drones already existing.

Any serious manufacturer that's going to be mass producing something is going to be able to meet them.

Rented Tritium wrote:the requirements that exist right now are not actually prohibitive

R/C to a UAV

R/C = Radio control
UAV = Unmanned but piloted by a human operater via television

commercial UAV's are starting to be implemented into the public market. Not the military UAV's

AustinT posted the FAA category and UAV covers both of them. An R/C plane is just a UAV that's being used for private entertainment or sport.

R/C radio control since I don't R/C fly them I'm guessing they stay under 400 ft?

well I actually looked it up. Holy freaking crap they've gotten big since mid 80's. You literally have to file a flight plan with some of those aircrafts

Oh man yeah. They have jet powered hobby planes now. It's pretty sweet.

They stay low if they want to just follow the hobbyist guidelines. They can fly higher if they want to have to comply with more rules, though.

Explain why the knucklehead of a terrorist wanting to use the R/C planes to hit the Pentagon now

Jihadin wrote:R/C radio control since I don't R/C fly them I'm guessing they stay under 400 ft?

well I actually looked it up. Holy freaking crap they've gotten big since mid 80's. You literally have to file a flight plan with some of those aircrafts

Bill Hempel stored his 50% cub in our hootch for a couple weeks. Thing was a goddamn monster, dual AM receivers, 150cc motor, 15 ft wing span. He even let SSG Valencia fly it at the Phoenix open. fething ridiculous and now he's making 60%s, the man knows no boundaries.
IMO his dad's worse, I never got to see it fly in person but he was building an MD 11. The glass work alone was enough to make you cry. Giant scale are the playground of kings though. Septagenerarians with trailers filled with 4-8 20k a piece planes...

Jihadin wrote:Explain why the knucklehead of a terrorist wanting to use the R/C planes to hit the Pentagon now

Yeah, I mean, you can get a lot of power into those airframes, so they could carry sufficient explosives to be a big deal. They wouldn't have gotten like giant numbers, but they could have done serious damage visible from a distance.

If we hadn't caught it in advance it would have been pretty bad. They could have piloted them from a car, so even when someone sees the plane and knows that those aren't allowed near the pentagon, the only good outcomes are if you shoot it down, find the guy with the controller or you just get lucky and it hits empty offices. That's not great odds.

Have to take Dean approach from Supernatural...I hate dealing with living people...at times. Whats the Terrorism charges?

I don't understand the question

Sorry Rent. It was brought up yesterday on a different topic but somewhat related to this.

Yeah, the police do drone. "Roooooooooxaaaaaaaaaaanne"

Sound like a squeaky door frame being slowly opened.

Rented Tritium wrote:
With a regular speeding ticket, a human person came up to your window and looked at your face.

A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.

Yes, and when served with a ticket because of speeding infraction contesting its assessment requires that you go to court and testify against the serving officer in attempt to prove that you were not, in fact, speeding.

Red light cameras are no more Unconstitutional than any other traffic ticket.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
With a regular speeding ticket, a human person came up to your window and looked at your face.

A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.

Yes, and when served with a ticket because of speeding infraction contesting its assessment requires that you go to court and testify against the serving officer in attempt to prove that you were not, in fact, speeding.

Red light cameras are no more Unconstitutional than any other traffic ticket.

That is not actually true.

When you challenge a ticket, you are asking the officer to testify that you WERE speeding.

The burden of proof is not on you, it is on them. It just so happens that it's very easy for them to meet when the officer came up to the car and saw your face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it were a true civil case with another party, that would be one thing. It would just be an unchallenged assertion, But since it's a civil case with the government attempting to fine you for something against the law, it acts like a criminal case for the purposes of the 5th amendment via Boyd v. United States

Rented Tritium wrote:
That is not actually true.

When you challenge a ticket, you are asking the officer to testify that you WERE speeding.

The burden of proof is not on you, it is on them. It just so happens that it's very easy for them to meet when the officer came up to the car and saw your face.

How is that distinct from traffic cameras? When you contest a ticket assessed by a traffic camera, testimony is presented by an expert witness regarding the image taken by the traffic camera, and the nature of the traffic camera.

My larger point here is that, either both traffic camera tickets and normally assessed tickets are unconstitutional due to the burden of proof being placed, de facto, on the accused. Or neither one is unconstitutional, because they both involve the state submitting evidence that the accused committed a civil offense.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
That is not actually true.

When you challenge a ticket, you are asking the officer to testify that you WERE speeding.

The burden of proof is not on you, it is on them. It just so happens that it's very easy for them to meet when the officer came up to the car and saw your face.

How is that distinct from traffic cameras? When you contest a ticket assessed by a traffic camera, testimony is presented by an expert witness regarding the image taken by the traffic camera, and the nature of the traffic camera.

My larger point here is that, either both traffic camera tickets and normally assessed tickets are unconstitutional due to the burden of proof being placed, de facto, on the accused. Or neither one is unconstitutional, because they both involve the state submitting evidence that the accused committed a civil offense.

My complaint has nothing to do with the fact that a camera collected the evidence. My complaint is that none of the evidence has to place you at the scene. They built a case against your CAR, not you and then you have to prove that you WEREN'T driving.

That's a 5th amendment violation because though it's a civil case, it's a government fine for an infraction, which makes it count as criminal for the purposes of the 5th amendment.

With a regular traffic case, if the cop can't place you at the scene the ticket gets thrown out. If they ask the cop and he testifies that he never saw your face, the ticket is going to get thrown out. If you challenge a camera ticket and they don't have a picture of your face, it's magically different somehow.

So if a traffic camera takes a picture of the driver and license plate...like the ones in Europe...how would that go?

Jihadin wrote:So if a traffic camera takes a picture of the driver and license plate...like the ones in Europe...how would that go?

That's how I want them to be. It would perfectly fulfill the burden of proof. They establish the violation AND they place you there. I 100% support making them like this.

I'd also like the fine to be the same whether it's a camera or a cop to avoid the issue with neighborhoods being targeted.

Rented Tritium wrote:
My complaint has nothing to do with the fact that a camera collected the evidence. My complaint is that none of the evidence has to place you at the scene. They built a case against your CAR, not you and then you have to prove that you WEREN'T driving.

No, they built a case against you. You own the car, the car was photographed violating a traffic law, and you are the most likely person to be driving your car. The case isn't particularly strong, but its still a case against you. The photograph is evidence offered in support of the notion that you committed this infraction, and, just as with any other evidence offered in criminal proceedings you have the option of disputing it, or allowing it to stand.

Again, you are no more assumed to be guilty due the presence of this evidence, no matter how often the court trusts it, than you are when faced with a police officer's testimony.

Look at it this way: A house is robbed, no one saw who entered the house, but if we found person X's drivers license in the house, and person X was neither the owner, or an friend of the owner, you would not say charges brought against person X were charges brought against his drivers license.

Rented Tritium wrote:
With a regular traffic case, if the cop can't place you at the scene the ticket gets thrown out. If they ask the cop and he testifies that he never saw your face, the ticket is going to get thrown out. If you challenge a camera ticket and they don't have a picture of your face, it's magically different somehow.

Where are you getting the idea that its somehow magically different? If you show up to challenge a trafic infraction assessed according to evidence presented by a camera, and the prosecution cannot show that you were driving the vehicle, the ticket will be thrown out. I've seen this happen with many of my friends. Poorly placed traffic cameras, those that do not include images of the driver, exist because the majority of people do not challenge speeding tickets.

dogma wrote:
Where are you getting the idea that its somehow magically different? If you show up to challenge a trafic infraction assessed according to evidence presented by a camera, and the prosecution cannot show that you were driving the vehicle, the ticket will be thrown out. I've seen this happen with many of my friends. Poorly placed traffic cameras, those that do not include images of the driver, exist because the majority of people do not challenge speeding tickets.

Then you live somewhere awesome, because the ones here are all single snaps of the back of the car and when you challenge them, they are like "well who WAS driving" and you are forced to testify or assume guilt.

Every now and then one of my friends gets one where you can see their face, but it's not strongly enforced that they need to.

What should be happening is that they should not be allowed to even issue the ticket if they don't have a clear view of the face.

In Germany they send a pic of your face, your plate, and your car in the mail. No arguing it since the intersection and time the pics were taken are printed on the pics.