Drones over US Airspace

[mtv]

And, by the way, at least one of CBPs Predators has already crashed, after it's operator lost link with it. Crashed near Sierra Vista, AZ a year or two ago.

And, Greg, the FAA does NOT permit installation of things like mode S x-ponders with connections to portable devices for primary data. So, add to the price of your new transponder the price of a certified GPS. That right there would cause me to sell my airplane.

So, great idea....no hyperbole, let's just sit back and wait for something bad to happen and they'll get sued down to parade rest. In the meantime, however, many of us will be out of the airplane business, and our airplanes will be near worthless.

I'm writing to everyone who i can think of in congress.

May not help but it'll make feel better


MTV

[soyAnarchisto]

May not help but it'll make feel better

Can't hurt either.

'Greg

[hotrod150]

MY thoughts... I'm not real concerned over the potential loss of my privacy to an observation flight. If I wanna walk around my back yard nekkid they can look at me all they want (if they can stomach it). Now if I was growing pot out there, or having a meth cook-out, I'd have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned with the potential confict with "see and avoid" GA traffic. I don't wanna have to file a flight plan, squawk a txp code, call ATC, etc every time I go flying.
I also wonder how many public agencies actually need a UAV, as opposed to wanting one. Kinda like a couple years ago, when a lot of towns in Washington built "roundabouts" (aka traffic circles). Sequim got themselves one, so nearby Port Townsend built two. On the way to the aviation show in Puyallup last february, I got off highway 16 north of Gig Harbor to stop at a McDonalds & had to navigate through 3 or 4 of the damn things in just a half-mile or so. Overkill maybe?
Several years ago, Vintage Airplane magazine had an article about the "Alaska Ercoupe Squadron", 4 Ercoupes owned by the Alaska State Defense Force (which is sort of a state version of the Nat'l Guard) & used for observation flights when an expensive helicopter is too much aircraft for the mission. It sure made a lot of sense to me. How many domestic "UAV missions" could be handled by an Ercoupe, or C172. Our local sheriff's dept has hired the local air taxi operator & had private flyers take up an observer on occasion, that practice never seemed inadequate before.

[flynbeekeeper]

Just heard on the Denver news last night that a corporate jet had a near miss with a "big model airplane" at 8000 msl going into one of the Denver airports. They said the FAA was reviewing the radar tapes trying to ID and track the mystery aircraft.

[soyAnarchisto]

[hotrod150]

Just heard on the Denver news last night that a corporate jet had a near miss with a "big model airplane" at 8000 msl going into one of the Denver airports. They said the FAA was reviewing the radar tapes trying to ID and track the mystery aircraft.

If it was a government agency's UAV, you can bet the investigation will find that it was sunspots, mistaken identity, mass hysteria, or (worst case) a UFO. Or maybe bigfoot.

[lesuther]

MY thoughts...If I wanna walk around my back yard nekkid they can look at me all they want (if they can stomach it). Now if I was growing pot out there, or having a meth cook-out, I'd have a problem with it.

The 4th amendment is one of the cornerstones of the presumption of innocence in our system of law. The idea of "I have nothing to hide, so why should I care..." is progressively eroding our 4th amendment birthright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

The Bill of Rights was largely a reaction of the progressive devolution of justice in the hands of a blithe, uncreative, presuming British monarchy in just two decades. With "I have nothing to hide, so why should I care, I give up my 4th amendment birthright now and forever...", every search, however vague, is viewed as "reasonable", and the 4th amendment birthright is meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Colonial_America

I think the correct attitude is closer to the spirit the Constitution was written in, which is, "I've got nothing to hide. Why do you want to look, and what right do you have to do so?"

Drones are also a "See and avoid" disaster. You can bet what blame will not be assigned, what responsibility will not be taken, and what will not be learned in the wake of a disaster.

[kevbert]

MY thoughts...If I wanna walk around my back yard nekkid they can look at me all they want (if they can stomach it). Now if I was growing pot out there, or having a meth cook-out, I'd have a problem with it.

The 4th amendment is one of the cornerstones of the presumption of innocence in our system of law. The idea of "I have nothing to hide, so why should I care..." is progressively eroding our 4th amendment birthright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

The Bill of Rights was largely a reaction of the progressive devolution of justice in the hands of a blithe, uncreative, presuming British monarchy in just two decades. With "I have nothing to hide, so why should I care, I give up my 4th amendment birthright now and forever...", every search, however vague, is viewed as "reasonable", and the 4th amendment birthright is meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Colonial_America

I think the correct attitude is closer to the spirit the Constitution was written in, which is, "I've got nothing to hide. Why do you want to look, and what right do you have to do so?"

Drones are also a "See and avoid" disaster. You can bet what blame will not be assigned, what responsibility will not be taken, and what will not be learned in the wake of a disaster.

AMEN!

[Eltee]

...and this from the Drudge Report. Looks like a Predator to me, but Photoshopped?
If so, they're violating the regs. before the regs. are made.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzrS0BVJynM

[Eltee]

Washington Times May 18, 2012

NAPOLITANO: Is there a drone in your backyard?
Spying from the sky violates our right to privacy
By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thursday, May 17, 2012

this week, the federal government announced that the Air Force might be dispatching drones to a backyard near you. The stated purpose of these spies in the sky is to assist local police to find missing persons or kidnap victims, or to chase bad guys.

If the drone operator sees you doing anything of interest (Is your fertilizer for the roses or to fuel a bomb? Is that Sudafed for your cold or your meth habit? Are you smoking in front of your kids?), the feds say they may take a picture of you and keep it. The feds predict that they will dispatch or authorize about 30,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles across America in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, more than 300 local and state police departments are awaiting federal permission to use the drones they already have purchased - usually with federal stimulus funds.

The government is out of control.

If the police use a drone without a warrant to see who or what is in your backyard or your bedroom, or if, while looking for a missing child, the drone takes a picture of you in your backyard or bedroom and the government keeps the picture, its use is unnatural and unconstitutional.

I say “unnatural” because we all have a natural right to privacy. It is a fundamental right that is inherent in our humanity. All of us have times of the day and moments in our behavior when we expect that no one - least of all the government - will be watching. When the government watches us during those times, it violates our natural right to privacy. It also violates our constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court has held consistently that numerous clauses in the Bill of Rights keep the government at bay without a warrant.

Even when we don’t have an expectation of privacy, we do have a right to be left alone. But merely watching us in public isn’t enough for the police, as many street-corner cameras are equipped with listening devices and tiny megaphones. We can expect that these devices will soon bark commands: “Put down that BlackBerry.” “Look to your right before crossing.” “Don’t kiss her; a car is coming.” Actually, Big Brother is coming, and he’s not smiling.

Big Brother is watching from the skies, as well as the streets. This started when the Department of Defense decided to offer help to police, which they are prepared to accept. Never mind that the military may not lawfully operate within our borders, except in the case of rebellion, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. Never mind that the military may not lawfully be used for law enforcement, except in the case of disaster, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. And never mind that this use of drones by the Air Force was not the result of legislation debated and enacted by Congress, but was done under the authority of the president alone.

Add to all this the use of drones to kill people. President Obama has argued that he can use drones to kill Americans overseas, whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any constitutional due process whatsoever. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly drones are an adequate substitute for due process. Of course, no court has ever ruled that way. The president’s national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. Of course, that’s not true, but it misses the point. Without a declaration of war, the president can’t lawfully kill anyone, no matter how humane his killing.

How long will it be before the Air Force and the police adopt the unconstitutional arguments of the president’s wrongheaded advisers and use the drones not only to spy but also to kill Americans in America?

The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to assure that tyranny does not happen here, to guarantee that the government to which we have supposedly consented will leave us alone. Do you think the government accepts that? Would you feel safe with a drone in your backyard? Would you feel like you were in America?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

[Scolopax]

NAPOLITANO: Is there a drone in your backyard?
Spying from the sky violates our right to privacy
By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thursday, May 17, 2012

this week, the federal government announced that the Air Force might be dispatching drones to a backyard near you. The stated purpose of these spies in the sky is to assist local police to find missing persons or kidnap victims, or to chase bad guys.

If the drone operator sees you doing anything of interest (Is your fertilizer for the roses or to fuel a bomb? Is that Sudafed for your cold or your meth habit? Are you smoking in front of your kids?), the feds say they may take a picture of you and keep it. The feds predict that they will dispatch or authorize about 30,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles across America in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, more than 300 local and state police departments are awaiting federal permission to use the drones they already have purchased - usually with federal stimulus funds.

The government is out of control.

If the police use a drone without a warrant to see who or what is in your backyard or your bedroom, or if, while looking for a missing child, the drone takes a picture of you in your backyard or bedroom and the government keeps the picture, its use is unnatural and unconstitutional.

I say “unnatural” because we all have a natural right to privacy. It is a fundamental right that is inherent in our humanity. All of us have times of the day and moments in our behavior when we expect that no one - least of all the government - will be watching. When the government watches us during those times, it violates our natural right to privacy. It also violates our constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court has held consistently that numerous clauses in the Bill of Rights keep the government at bay without a warrant.

Even when we don’t have an expectation of privacy, we do have a right to be left alone. But merely watching us in public isn’t enough for the police, as many street-corner cameras are equipped with listening devices and tiny megaphones. We can expect that these devices will soon bark commands: “Put down that BlackBerry.” “Look to your right before crossing.” “Don’t kiss her; a car is coming.” Actually, Big Brother is coming, and he’s not smiling.

Big Brother is watching from the skies, as well as the streets. This started when the Department of Defense decided to offer help to police, which they are prepared to accept. Never mind that the military may not lawfully operate within our borders, except in the case of rebellion, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. Never mind that the military may not lawfully be used for law enforcement, except in the case of disaster, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. And never mind that this use of drones by the Air Force was not the result of legislation debated and enacted by Congress, but was done under the authority of the president alone.

Add to all this the use of drones to kill people. President Obama has argued that he can use drones to kill Americans overseas, whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any constitutional due process whatsoever. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly drones are an adequate substitute for due process. Of course, no court has ever ruled that way. The president’s national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. Of course, that’s not true, but it misses the point. Without a declaration of war, the president can’t lawfully kill anyone, no matter how humane his killing.

How long will it be before the Air Force and the police adopt the unconstitutional arguments of the president’s wrongheaded advisers and use the drones not only to spy but also to kill Americans in America?

The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to assure that tyranny does not happen here, to guarantee that the government to which we have supposedly consented will leave us alone. Do you think the government accepts that? Would you feel safe with a drone in your backyard? Would you feel like you were in America?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Ron Paul with "the Judge" as his veep would get this country back on track. Very unfortunate that the media has such a hold on the majority of the populous.

[avi8ter]

Drone fatality.Bad karma when it kills the engineer thats helping develop it. Back to the drawing board.
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articl ... -crash.htm

[OregonMaule]

Drone fatality.Bad karma when it kills the engineer thats helping develop it. Back to the drawing board.
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articl ... -crash.htm

Thats some funny shit right there

[avi8ter]

I bet the engineer sittin' in the control truck didn't see that one comin' Well on second thought...

[Eltee]

With all due respect, I'm not sure you should say it's funny when someone,
no matter how dense or complicit in the process, unintentionally arranges for their own demise.
What really WAS funny, were the facial expressions...right down the chain of command...when some newly minted ensign
on a FRAM converted ( 800 class) Detroyer flew the $600,000 Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter over the horizon and out of VHF line of sight....one of those priceless Sundance Channel non-moments. More fun than a GSA convention!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfCM2DtnIk0

[mtv]

With all due respect, I'm not sure you should say it's funny when someone,
no matter how dense or complicit in the process, unintentionally arranges for their own demise.
What really WAS funny, were the facial expressions...right down the chain of command...when some newly minted ensign
on a DASH converted ( 800 class) Detroyer flew the $600,000 Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter over the horizon and out of VHF line of sight....one of those priceless Sundance Channel non-moments. More fun than a GSA convention!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfCM2DtnIk0

Or, the first DASH torpedo trials, when they dropped one torpedo of a pair, shackled side by side. Instant roll over of the DASH, due to assymetric loading.....duh.

MTV

[lesuther]

Not to be too cynical or anything, but:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones/
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-domestic-drones-armed-090/

After this happens, I can only imagine news like this may become a bit more relevant to the American public than it has been in the past several years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/05/afghanistan-raf-drone-civilian-deaths
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/world/asia/30drone.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_bombing

The reaction in the finger-pointing aftermath:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vupiwJyK1w

[RanchPilot]

Another drone crashes on US soil due to lost contact.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/11/12169157-navy-drone-crashes-off-maryland-no-injuries?lite

[Centmont]

The plane (uav) which went down yesterday was not just an overgrown RC...but 25,000 lbs of aircraft with a 112' wingspan. This is just all wrong. R

[Stol]

The plane (uav) which went down yesterday was not just an overgrown RC...but 25,000 lbs of aircraft with a 112' wingspan. This is just all wrong. R

Yup............... No toy for sure.... Several of the major TV channels reported this morning the cost of it was 176 million.. .... Wait till they crash one in the playground of an elementary school full of kids..