New drone rules to include hobbyists

So that should require all types of rc to follow the same rules then.you have to remember there are more people flying rc planes,helicopters,cars boats then drones.
All the new brushless rc can top very scary speeds.

I've got former Co workers that have rc cars that they drive(race)in streets and parking lots that do way over 60mph.

If you YouTube brushless boats you'll see some that'll do 70mph on the water but for some reason drones are put into a category of its own.

It's just another thing for people to pass the time,it's not some evil underground cult that's out to get the world

Boats, (built my share) cars, airplanes and even model rockets each have places outside of air traffic lanes.. or other traffic lanes unless the operator is a total zero and we don't have the crap these new toys have created. Mostly because people voluntarily set up self regulated places to enjoy them. After all, those build kits are expensive in both time and money, and are actually hobbys, not like an off the shelf ready to fly quad copter that you can pick up at mart mart for under 300 and use to peek in the neighbors windows. 

I used to fly u-control planes. I still have a K&B torpedo 40. It gets too expensive, Kayaking costs a lot less and I can feed myself.

A better solution is a jamming radio signal that would cause a drone within a mile of a plane to shut down or crash and outfit all planes with the technology.

Calif is already considering it but there are Federal laws against it. 250,000 planes in the US that's a lot of $$$$

Yes, there are federal laws on radio jamming.  Otherwise the technology would be used for jamming cell phone signals around prisons, movie theaters, etc. 

Rather than recreational drone operators, I'd think the bigger and more realistic threat is terrorists using them for every thing from dropping commercial aircraft to low level bombing runs on strategic targets.  (Imagine a fleet of them loaded with napalm on suicide runs into the White House.)  So the cost ought to be a Homeland Security issue and the cost part of the military budget. 

A better solution is a jamming radio signal that would cause a drone within a mile of a plane to shut down or crash and outfit all planes with the technology.

Calif is already considering it but there are Federal laws against it. 250,000 planes in the US that's a lot of $$$$

Yes, there are federal laws on radio jamming.  Otherwise the technology would be used for jamming cell phone signals around prisons, movie theaters, etc. 

Rather than recreational drone operators, I'd think the bigger and more realistic threat is terrorists using them for every thing from dropping commercial aircraft to low level bombing runs on strategic targets.  (Imagine a fleet of them loaded with napalm on suicide runs into the White House.)  So the cost ought to be a Homeland Security issue and the cost part of the military budget.

You mean like this Jerry? We had some discussions on this video how hard it would be to catch someone using this.

I think the new rules should also include 2 other things;

1. An open, shogun only, season on nuisance machines. 3 warnings for invasion of privacy, then you go onto an open local register that neighbors can access. That way they can give you back your scraps. ( I think the cops should have given the father who shot down the one spying on his daughter a new box of shells. And the firemen who hosed one down in New York should have gotten a medal for outstanding public service.)

2. A mental evaluation and background check to weed out the ones most likely to use these things for nefarious purposes. Just like the nanny staters want to do to us firearms owners.

And before someone starts throwing flame mail around, just remember, you have your opinion, I have mine. Sometimes they meet, sometimes they don't.

I'm for shooting a F&G one down you know they will soon be using these. Only a matter of time if they aren't already.

With the onset of 3D printers replicating gun parts, it's only a matter of time someone builds an untraceable gun mounted on a 3D printed and untraceable drone. 

So, here's the thing; a registration's only asset is to open the eyes of the unawares operator, getting his attention through his wallet.  Anyone else who's serious about using a drone for illegal operation is going to find it way too easy to sidestep such a naively written law.   

I just googled, "Drone radio frequency jammer" and got over 23,000 hits. Ha!  First on the list;
"Legislators in California are considering jamming technology to disable drones that interfere with firefighting work even though federal regulations prohibit its use."

Here is how to build your own jammer;
http://www.qrz.ru/schemes/contribute/security/jammers/drone-jammer.pdf

Good. After that fiasco at Cajon Pass a few months back, I think the state is justified in doing so.

WOW this country has people who won't follow regulations. That is just amazing how a regulation will be ignored by a criminal. As they won't commit a crime that is regulated. By the way A regulation is made by people who were never voted into office. If we really want to know how politicians stand. A regulation should only last two yrs then our Congress or state has to vote on it to keep them enforced. A regulation is made so it keeps the politicians politically safe, no matter what side of an issue your on. Sorry I hate it when people who we never voted for can make laws. Just my opinion. 

Thanks Jerry I saved that link who knows when it could become handy.  My question is why would the feds make a civilian jammer illegal? 

So the cost ought to be a Homeland Security issue and the cost part of the military budget. 

So what you are saying is that the tax payers should foot the bill instead of the users?

So the cost ought to be a Homeland Security issue and the cost part of the military budget. 

So what you are saying is that the tax payers should foot the bill instead of the users?

Not exactly.  I'm saying there is no issue with recreationalist users.  I know the feds are 'scared' that one might collide with a plane, but to date that has never happened.  There's no proof that if there were a collision that it would cause any sort of problem for the plane, at least not any more than a bird strike since a drone weighs about what a bird does anyway.

Since there is no evidence that recreational drones are any sort of problem and it's only theoretical that they could cause any sort of catastrophic harm as use, then the speculation has to consider inferious use of civilian drones.  THAT is where Homeland security comes in and where tax payers should become involved.

The thing I absolutely HATE is when the government, usually appointed and not even elected officials, make up scare tactics and force otherwise law abiding citizens to pay a fee or risk fines or even litigation. 

Boy that's a relief nothing to worry about and if anything does happen the Government will take care of it and I can pay for it with my tax dollars.

Boy that's a relief nothing to worry about and if anything does happen the Government will take care of it and I can pay for it with my tax dollars.

I'm happy to have put your mind at ease!