So, there was a RC "drone" hovering above my house yesterday...I was kinda pissed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
That is the offical term. "Drone" is a marketing term. It's not a term used by anyone else.
I totally understand that drone is purely a "soft" term. It's the term model, though, that violates the English usage of the term. The word model means something that doesn't apply here. Lots of terms could be used that would include all these devices, model, in English, does not though.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
model, in English, does not though.
Model is because it's smaller aircraft.. Like model cars.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Model is because it's smaller aircraft.. Like model cars.
A model car is a smaller model of a car.. That's what I am asking, what is the drone a model of?
-
A model car is one that is a replica of a larger car. A toy car or other term applies when it is not a replica.
In the hobby communities this has always been a clear distinction. A drone is not a smaller copy of something larger, the drone itself is the original.
In model railroading, for example, this is a tightly held distinction. A toy or prototype are different than a model. You can only call something a model train when it is an attempt to replicate a real world train, but when you just made something that looks like a train and runs on tracks smaller than a certain size.
-
A three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original: a model of St Paul’s Cathedral [as modifier]: a model aeroplane - Oxford
Notice that it is that it is a replica that makes it a model. That it is smaller is only "typical." The term model in English is very, very much not what the FAA means to imply there.
-
If I was a judge looking at that FAA page, I would say that clearly nothing in it suggests that it applies to non-model aircraft like most drones. They are primary, non-model, devices and the FAA has gone pretty out of their way to make the rules stated on that page appear to be specifically for the modeling community, not the operators of non-model small aircraft.
I doubt that the law itself uses those terms or states them without clarifying them. But that page is horrible. If I was looking for drone info, knowing that they are obviously not models, I would not look there.
And there is precedence of that. Classic cars, for example, are carefully regulated in the US. When you are doing something historic or modeling there are often special laws for doing that where operating non-models is seen as a different activity. This is both legal and standard for the hobby communities to be split along those lines.
People who do model trains and people who use toy trains often have different stores to shop at and different hobby events. Just like people who make replicas of antique aircraft and people using drones have essentially no hobby overlap other than overlapping (but unclear) regulations. And even what they want to do is completely different. No one was concerned about or ran into people operating models in their backyard, but drones are there all of the time, it seems (I hear about these questions a lot, probably just a hot topic.)
But already I know commercial drone operators and I've never known a model airplane enthusiast.
-
Did you ever consider becoming a lawyer instead of IT, Scott?
-
Looking at the law, it appeas that the use of "model" is purely by the person making the website and not from the FAA's lawyers. Why they changed the term to be confusing when making it for the general public I have no idea because calling them unmanned aircraft in the law is both straightforward and obvious to everyone.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Did you ever consider becoming a lawyer instead of IT, Scott?
I did actually looking into challenging the bar back when it was still legal to do so (part of my "you don't need college to do this." thing) but they since found that they weren't making enough money up here in NY and added the college requirement so I lost interest. Did look into it and got a book, though.
-
I live in Ga, so I say shoot the thing down. Exterminate with extreme prejudice.
-
What happens when a drone "interferes with your free-fire zone"?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What happens when a drone "interferes with your free-fire zone"?
There are other weapons that can be used in the city limits... or as somebody else suggested: A frisbee.
-
My dad was looking at getting a "net" launching device for capturing bees. That would cause some havoc.
-
Tiny EMP devices are what is needed. No damage, just take them out of the air.
-
Or a jammer.
-
@scottalanmiller Except for the part where they suddenly crash land, lol.
-
Drone is about to be jammed!
Neighbor's kid: Daddy, the drone isn't working! The remote is covered in red sticky stuff.
Neighbor: Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...!(sorry... I couldn't resist)
-
Taking it down with a boomerang would be pretty cool. Though I'm sure that just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have a right to destroy it (in the UK at least).
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Taking it down with a boomerang would be pretty cool. Though I'm sure that just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have a right to destroy it (in the UK at least).
In much of the US you can shoot PEOPLE if they are on your property and don't leave. Pretty sure in Texas you can just open fire. Just yell "get off my property" and if the drone doesn't run for it you are free and clear to open fire.
-
@mlnews said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Taking it down with a boomerang would be pretty cool. Though I'm sure that just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have a right to destroy it (in the UK at least).
In much of the US you can shoot PEOPLE if they are on your property and don't leave. Pretty sure in Texas you can just open fire. Just yell "get off my property" and if the drone doesn't run for it you are free and clear to open fire.
You're talking about the castle doctrine, right?
