Not illegal to buy them but illegal to use them - microcopters

Obama weighing in - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/27/politics/obama-drones-fareed/index.html

According to CNN "The FAA needs to OK the commercial use of any drone, whether that's selling photos or videos, providing security or making a movie using a UAV."
.
hummmmmm

Is anybody missing a DJI quadcopter? ....... Uncle Sam wants you ..... oh, I mean the FBI:

DJI will go into history as the first "unmanned aerial peeping tom" to get into the White House grounds.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-drones-white-house-20150126-story.html

BEER DELIVERY DRONE GROUNDED BY FAA. LoL I want my beer. This is ridiculous. They are out in the middle of no where.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/tech/innovation/beer-drone-faa/index.html

He posted this video in youtube and the FAA paid him a visit.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmHwXf8JUOw

Guess he asked for it. Funny that's the caption at the end.

One thing I am wondering about all this is that unless I'm totally wrong, even if everyone decides to be a fool and fly their craft in stoopid fashion near airports and in flight paths, isn't it still a bit more likely that a bird gets sucked into an engine than a quad, simply by sheer numbers? I mean, they keep talking about "near misses" and all that, but laws don't protect people from getting hurt. Wearing seatbelts and helmets is all well and good, and such is required by law, as is insurance, but people still get hurt and killed and sued and such.

Why don't the reasonable majority turn off their mainstream paranoia hype machines and tune into reality? Think if the AMA managed focused its efforts we might see something constructive come of this rather than stupid laws turning yet another considerable segment of the population into criminals?

Or am I missing something?

Most of this is really a CNN hype to drum up a controversy so they will have news.

Oh and Obama says you can buy that drone at Radio Shack ... I did a search and doesn't look like Radio Shack sells DJI just the "toy" quads.

When I was flying, birds strikes were a huge danger. At 600 mph a duck, goose, seagull can break through the fighter canopy and kill the pilot easily. The Landing in the Hudson was due to bird ingested into the engines. Yes I flew with the Pilot "Sully" in F-4s at Nellis AFB.

I seriously doubt most airplane pilots will see a "toy drone" while take-off or landing. They are concentrating on the runway and going too fast. One report was pilot reported a 20 foot miss, I doubt it, all he would have seen is a blur and would not in most cases determine if it was a bird or UFO.

All this is paranoid news.

Intake injestion is one thing....would a flying case of beer or RED camera down a jetliner if it impacted on fuselage or control surface? Not being facetious...I wanna know....not gonna do any testing, either, mind you.

At take-off or landing speeds I doubt if it would penetrate the cockpit window. Hitting a control surface and causing it to crash, no probably not.
The problem of private aircraft having near-miss with military or airliners has always happened. A Cessna 174 is a much more problem than a Quad will ever be. I've had numerous close calls when civilian pilots wonder into restricted military areas. Having a private pilot license will make no difference. They still break the current rules.

I almost coulda died in one of those mistakes - was in a friend's Cherokee, tower instructed him to take off runway (?) south, he he took off north. Coulda been interesting if there was more traffic.

I just wonder if the whole regulation thing has to get abominally stupid before it becomes reasonable. I dont' even have $100K insurance for my vehicle liability....why does Canada think I need such so I can shoot tundra and mountains?

I figure lay low, play cool, BE cool, real careful, get shots, enjoy the fact that almost every person, young or old, who sees these things flying is interested, curious, and approving, "Like WOW!"

Another wonder I have is whether shots gained from UAS without red tape approval will be considered illegal, or is it just the flying itself that is frowned upon....for instance, I already have a backlog of clips I need to process and put up. They were made before any laws made. Still no laws, by the way...many sources indicate that an FAA "rule" is not a law. I wonder about that. IN one of those recent articles posted here it mentions the guy who was fined $10K, but does not mention that he didn't have to pay that, and they got what they got from him for being reckless, not for flying.