patrick.net

RWSGFY says

(The quoting is broken so I won't bother with it).

Works for me.

Ceffer says

Greer seems to know.

Greer is s UFO huckster.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

Misc says

If flown for hire they must have a transponder

Yes, commercial drones. But the majority are amateur, right?

The same Mavic can be either commercial or amateur depending on how it's used. If you film your sister's wedding for free with it - it's amateur, if you film some house for a Realtard and being paid for it - it becomes commercial. Everything between 0.55lbs and 55 lbs is like that. Dual-use, if you will. Above 55 lbs is a whole 'nother game with way tighter regulations (but I'm not exactly well-versed in these). Below 0.55 lbs - it's a free-for-all as in "no licensing". (Still can't fly into restricted airspace, of course).

RWSGFY says

The same Mavic can be either commercial or amateur depending on how it's used. If you film your sister's wedding for free with it - it's amateur, if you film some house for a Realtard and being paid for it - it becomes commercial.

Right. Like that can be enforced as things are now. Not.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

Greer is s UFO huckster.

Part ufo hustler, part legit. A mixed bag, as are most of the various pundits. I guess they have to make a living. Many of the alternative pundits get involved in merchandising and financial advisements from dubious sources and schemes to stay afloat. Anonymous, voiceless saint or survival thrive-al with a platform seems to be their mantra.

Caveat Emptor, but oddly Greer has the ear of somebody because he has held Congressional symposiums.

Ceffer says

Part ufo hustler, part legit

No. 100% huckster. He lost all credibility when he did this bullshit:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tiny-alien-humanoid-among_n_3017854

UFOology is rife with fraud and hucksters and hustlers and fake sightings. There are a core in individuals who are quite rigorous, but it seems the various secret agencies want the noise to drown out the signal, so the hucksterism is widely promoted.

Greer's noise to signal ratio is hard to estimate, because there is ALWAYS noise. He has done some good work, though, particularly with his various disclosure interview series.

RWSGFY says

Drones weighting more than 0.55 lbs are already regulated and registered by FAA. If flown for hire they must have a transponder. If flown as a hobby, no transponder required (but most of newish ones already have it anyway). The hobby pilots are required to pass so-called TRUST cert exam (easy and costs something like $5), commercial must pass FAA Part 107 cert (kinda hard and almost $200). Both are required to post their lic# on the aircraft.

Can't go higher than 400 ft AGL (with few exceptions), can't go beyond line of sight and farther than 3 miles.

I don't see this angle, honestly: the shit is already regulated AF.

This is mostly right. Newer drones have ASD-B and can be tracked. I actually think it's required. FAA part 107 is a breeze. It's mini ground school for flying real planes. I did self study and got my license while studying at night having a beer. I just paid for a book and paid for the test and fees. I think I paid $120 at the time.

I think it was 75% to pass the test. I answered the questions I 100% knew and guessed on the rest. I think it was around 90% final. I'm an aviation junkie that likely can never get a real pilots license due to health reasons, but enjoy learning about it.

Either way, most modern drones for consumers or prosumers are trackable. Licensed or not. Have a semi big general aviation (no commercial/major airlines) airport nearby and my drone won't take off if I'm too close. It's more regulated than people think, which is why you never update your drone. I'm 3-4 years from my last update. They can't brick my drone. Might be missing out on features, but I want to fly it when/where I want.

TL:DR - This drone story is stupid. No conspiracy.

RWSGFY says

Drones weighting more than 0.55 lbs are already regulated and registered by FAA. If flown for hire they must have a transponder.

I quoted it and commented already... but missed this. The FAA is not going to do anything unless you blatantly did something stupid. Like hit a plane. And even then the pilot would consider it a bird strike or just say something hit the plane. I had a deer strike on my car the other week.

It would mess with a jet engine if sucked in, but hitting the body/airframe is a nothing burger. A prop would tear that fucker up.

My record AGL is 1,900ft in MT. If a plane was flying at that level it was hitting a mountain, so it was safe to go that high even though illegal.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

RWSGFY says

The same Mavic can be either commercial or amateur depending on how it's used. If you film your sister's wedding for free with it - it's amateur, if you film some house for a Realtard and being paid for it - it becomes commercial.

Right. Like that can be enforced as things are now. Not.

Like anything else - guns, taxes, traffic, business licensing - it will be enforced if you bring enough attention to yourself. Or tacked onto some other shit. No difference.

This guy did attract attention to himself:

RWSGFY says

This guy did attract attention to himself:

New Jersey isn't a military base. 99.9% of America's landmass isn't.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

RWSGFY says

This guy did attract attention to himself:

New Jersey isn't a military base. 99.9% of America's landmass isn't.

If drones are under 55lbs and not flying in the restricted airspace, what's the problem? If they are over 55lbs and/or fly in the restricted aispace, then you don't need a military base - even something like a hospital helipad would suffice. I honestly don't undrestand the whole covfefe: if drones violate FAA regs - enforce, if not - don't. 🤷‍♂️

Above is an example of such enforcement for such a violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

A weapon often described as an "anti-drone rifle" or "anti-drone gun" is a battery-powered electromagnetic pulse weapon held to an operator's shoulder, pointed at a flying target in a way similar to a rifle, and operated. While not a rifle or gun, it is so nicknamed as it is handled in the same way as a personal rifle. The device emits separate electromagnetic pulses to suppress navigation and transmission channels used to operate an aerial drone, terminating the drone's contact with its operator; the out-of-control drone then crashes.



A Pischal-Pro anti-drone rifle, featured at the Dubai Airshow, 2019

Wonder what would happen if you shot someone with a pacemaker in the chest.

Patrick says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

A weapon often described as an "anti-drone rifle" or "anti-drone gun" is a battery-powered electromagnetic pulse weapon held to an operator's shoulder, pointed at a flying target in a way similar to a rifle, and operated. While not a rifle or gun, it is so nicknamed as it is handled in the same way as a personal rifle. The device emits separate electromagnetic pulses to suppress navigation and transmission channels used to operate an aerial drone, terminating the drone's contact with its operator; the out-of-control drone then crashes.



A Pischal-Pro anti-drone rifle, featured at the Dubai Airshow, 2019

How come they can't make something really useful like a remote thong dissolver?

https://babylonbee.com/cleanArticle/fbi-assures-nation-drones-just-us-government-spying-on-its-own-citizens