ANOTHER DRONE PROBLEM - FELONY CHARGES

The right to film vs the right of public safety.

http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/video-drone-flight-leads-to-felony-charges/

The FAA received a "stay" on this issue shortly after they lost the last case in front of a federal judge. Basically this means that regardless of state laws, quadcopters, octocopters, drones etc.. are quite simple illegal to fly for any commercial purpose. I for one will hold off until things around the laws become more clear. I don't care what a state's laws are, the fed overrides them anyway in this case as it is FAA jurisdiction.

The National Park System has announced that using them inside of National Parks is illegal. Some idiot chased a herd of wild Mountain Sheep in Zion's NP and now they are enforcing it. Unfortunately there must be Federal and State laws controlling them. If not every accident, fire, emergency etc etc there will be numerous idiots flying them for video when emergency helicopters are trying to save lives. Of course the News Stations will try to claim they have the right to do it where normal citizens need control.

I read about that. "Flying an unmanned aerial vehicle within the park can be penalized by a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months imprisonment."

damn people in ohio ruining it for everyone.

The Zion NP event:

http://fox13now.com/2014/05/05/drones-harass-wildlife-bother-visitors-at-zion-national-park/

Ruining the industry for everybody else.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/news-media-challenges-ban-journalism-drones-23608133

More drone problems. Mid-air collision with jetliner:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/05/09/wsj-airline-flight-had-close-call-with-drone-in-march/8904829/

These guys are paving the way for us to loose our privileges.

The problem I see with this last article is that this was a different class of drone altogether. Not the type of quadcopter etc. Unfortunately these flying machines all get thrown into the same category by default. The media isn't helping much on defining the differences either.

After reading this latest near collision with a drone someone needs to get their facts straight. Either Bart Jansen of USA Today or Jim Williams FAA's unmanned aircraft office have no glue as to what they are talking about or writing about. Read the following paragraph:

The FAA wasn't able to identify either the drone, which had a piston engine and resembled an F-4 Phantom jet, or its pilot involved in the March incident. The incident involved PSA Airlines Flight 4650, a CRJ-200 aircraft, which operated as a US Airways commuter flight from Charlotte, N.C.