Beyond The Fringe | Conspiracy, News, Politics, and Fun Forum!

Full Version: Court upholds FAAs requirement for remote ID on quads (drones)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Faz1WIiTev4

Not really any surprise that the FAA would recognize the AMA as their first CBO.

And network remote ID even though not required because cell towers have spotty coverage, the FAA still wants to get away with it where it can.
If the remote ID is not serving the purpose of integrating quads into the national airspace, it isn't serving the right purpose.  Identifying the quad is only so useful.

The FAA required equipage of ADS-B OUT for anyone going through controlled airspace by the beginning of 2020. However, using the traffic avoidance side of it, ADS-B IN was optional. But ADS-B is still not the primary system in use.
If a [congressional] committee is allowed to discuss a bad idea long enough,  it will inevitably vote to implement the idea simply because so much work has already been done on it.

-- Ken Cruickshank
https://dspalliance.org/the-american-sec...drone-act/

The American security drone act coming up in December.

Still fighting on the Chinese drones and whether it presents a tangible threat.

Quote:Folks, there is a new push to add bad legislation to the next National Defense Act that will be passed in December. The American Security Drone Act (ASDA) will basically disallow any drones made in China or made with Chinese parts from being used by Federal agencies or in coordinated efforts with Federal agencies. This doesn't just mean DJI. Rather it basically means every drone you can think of - as even those drones assembled in the US still use Chinese parts (and that isn't going to change in the next decade or more). It is critical to get the ASDA trounced. Your help in sending emails to Senator Peter's staffers is needed. Please look to send an email to each of the three staffers below. Use the template letter provided. Sign with your name, e-mail address, and contact information.


Senator Peters key staffers for ASDA:
Chris Mulkins (HSGAC) - christopher_mulkins@hsgac.senate.gov
Ben Schubert (HSGAC) - Benjamin_Schubert@hsgac.senate.gov
Nick Graham (Peters’ LA) - nicholas_graham@peters.senate.gov
Sample email for each staffer:
[Mr. Staffer Last Name(s)],
I am [name, position] from the [agency/department] writing in my personal capacity to ask Senator Peters to oppose the inclusion of the American Security Drone Act (ASDA) in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Drones are critical to our public safety and law enforcement operations. We use drones to keep our officers out of harm's way, de-escalate violent situations, facilitate search and rescue operations, and more. To ensure the safety of our officers, we use drones with the operational capabilities needed to meet our mission requirements. Limiting our ability to coordinate with federal agencies and build out our programs using grant funding will endanger our officers and hinder operations that save lives and protect our community.
I understand that changes have recently been made to allow for some operational and purchasing exemptions. However, these exemptions are granted on a case-by-case basis, and there is no telling how long it would take for a department to receive a waiver once requested. When it comes to public safety, time is of the essence. Waiting for a waiver to coordinate with a federal agency to help our community does not make sense and could put lives at risk.
For these reasons, we ask that Senator Peters oppose ASDA's inclusion entirely.

Sincerely,
[Your Name, email, phone number]
If cell towers aren't really used for airborne targets,  but rather ground based low power targets, just how were people aboard flights that weren't even scheduled to fly on 9/11, be able to make calls from 30,000 feet?
Browsing through some of the faa uas incident reports.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public...ngs_report

Many of the reports show uas or some other unidentified craft up in thousands of feet of altitude, several feet in length, some going 100s of miles per hour.

These are definitely not the little commercial made consumer grade quads or little toys that everyone is making a fuss about.  

They are using the drone idea way too broadly.  Maybe the military is out moving around in their actual drones.  But if the military has had drones since the world wars why is there such a fuss about them only recently?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/233...ng-flight/

Zephyr solar powered drone flies for 2 months straight.
Hmm...now let's go bluetooth war driving.  Hey there's a guy hiding in the bushes.  He's had the vaccine, so he can run but he can't hide.  And look at that what is that?  Wait it's a bird, it's a plane...no wait let me pull out my RID reader. Ah yes where was I?  No that's not superman.  That's a quad.  It can leap whole buildings in a single bound.  But it's not near as quick as the guy with the cape. Sure is taking awhile.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25