It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: gariac
This is the section 333 exemption mentioned in the minutes of the commission meeting.
originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: FosterVS
OK, here is the shot you need to compose. Park in that area just before the front gate. (Funny how that pull off doesn't have a name.) Hover your drone. Have the camera point at you in the parking lot. Now take a DSLR and photograph the drone looking at you AND get the camo dudes on the hill in the background.
That photo would demonstrate the pure stupidity of this law, and there isn't a thing the DA could do about it. You can invite the Lincoln County Record press photographer to document the event.
For more fun, pull the simcard from the camera and orient the drone to face the base or the dudes. There is no way to tell if you are shall we say shooting blanks. The dudes will have to call the sheriff, who will have to drive in from Alamo. This can waste a great deal of the county's money. Lather, rinse, repeat. The Sheriff will have to make another trip.
This ridiculous law will draw so much attention to the base that they will regret asking for it.
well, after all; it could be one of their babies coming home: you know.
originally posted by: FosterVS
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
this should do it:
Imagine if you had a radio with the range, and FPV video, land this on the runway and taxi it up to one of the hangars. Love the LED afterburners.
originally posted by: HomeyKXTA
a reply to: gariac
as per your request Gariac. Pardon the late response...
This was the time and place set for public hearing on an ordinance restricting the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft and providing a penalty. Paul D. read the ordinance into the record. Kevin called for public comment. Russell Tracy addressed the Board and stated there are already enough federal regulations and penalties concerning drones. Russell read several of the regulations. Russell asked that the Board not infringe on his civil rights. Russell is against the ordinance. He wants to keep our airways free and under the guidance of the FAA. Russell presented a map of Groom Lake; he finds it hard to believe you can get a drone close enough to get the same level of detail. Russell referred to guidelines from the FAA for how the local law enforcement is to handle drones. Russell asked what will happen to those who have legitimate uses for drones. Russell will apply for Section 333 exemption and be able to fly drones here anyway. Russell is working towards a use for drones. Connie Simkins agrees with several of Russell’s points. Connie advised that the drones are very dangerous around airports because people don’t pay attention to the rules that are already in place. The core problem is rural areas and enforcement. More federal regulations aren’t needed and the Board shouldn’t do something simply because the Air Force asks it. Something is definitely needed in order to give our local law enforcement something to rely on. The ordinance doesn’t ban the use of drones, it simply bans them from restricted areas and from using them on others. Daniel stated there are four prohibitions: 1) no photographs of anyone’s privacy can be taken, 2) no photographs of NV’s Test and Training Range are allowed, 3) anything that would cause someone injury, damage, hurt, inconvenience, or discomfort is disallowed, and 4) no drones can operate within any restricted air space, which includes the airports in LC as well as the Test Range. Connie said we need to be concerned about the affect a drone with/without a camera will have on employees fighting fires. Russell stated the Forest Service is using drones themselves as it gives a better view than anything else available. Russell questioned how this ordinance will affect FS. Russell stated that privacy issues and annoyance need to be clearly defined. Russell doesn’t want the DA to have the ability to prosecute anyone for “annoyance” when it isn’t clearly defined. There is nothing restricting anyone from shooting one down if it’s flying over their property. Paul D. commented that it would be better if the ordinance was restricted to certain areas. A prohibition like this is based upon complaints. As of now, the County has no real authority to take action in these situations. It is difficult to prosecute. Maggie Marston, BLM, advised that the drones are causing issues with wildfire protection. As a consideration, wildfire includes state, private, and county lands. BLM has published pleas in the newspaper asking folks to cease and desist during these types of situations. Kevin called for more public comment. Adam made a motion to approve the ordinance; seconded by Paul M. Varlin stated that the language needs to be more defined and specific. The wording in the ordinance leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. Paul M. stated that the ordinance must be written in such a way that law enforcement has the ability to go forward when someone is creating an annoyance. Varlin was opposed. Motion carried 4-1.