NY-bound passenger jet reports near-miss with drone at 2700 ft ???

Well, that's interesting. No downed planes from the lasers or the drones, just a potential threat. Since others have shown they can go that high, that means we can't blame this on the government based on just that. However, I agree; it looks like they want to ban drones for private ownership. They can watch whomever they want, but we can't have anything. How long before a plane is downed to push the issue?

However, I agree; it looks like they want to ban drones for private ownership.

Not really. The most stringent regulations would seem to be on commercial use.

I want to know when a brave soul is going to fly one over Area 51 and take video of the base.

originally posted by: Answer
We're being set up by the media to support a ban on civilian quadcopters. It's only a matter of time.

The incidents around the white house, the talks about privacy, and now they're being painted as a threat to commercial aircraft.

It won't be long before the usual suspects are pushing for bans and/or strict regulation. Mark my words.

It will never happen. It is far too easy to build your own quadcopter/fixed wing UAV for effective legislation to ever be made. Like I said, for $300 you can build an autonomous-capable fixed wing UAV with the ability to fly for several kilometers and loiter for nearly an hour. I have less experience with what is available for quadcopters but they are so ubiquitous that I don't believe there is a way to completely ban them. There is a whole industry surrounding RC and autonomous hobby aircraft.

I wonder how long before some scumbag flies one into the turbine intake intentionally.

originally posted by: Answer
We're being set up by the media to support a ban on civilian quadcopters. It's only a matter of time.

The incidents around the white house, the talks about privacy, and now they're being painted as a threat to commercial aircraft.

It won't be long before the usual suspects are pushing for bans and/or strict regulation. Mark my words.

If these civilian drones didn't have high resolution video capturing, nobody in government would care. Civilian drones allow "We the People" the same type of protection body cameras on police do. They allow civilians a chance to see things that aren't supposed to be seen and they don't like it one bit.

I have a DJI Vision 2 Plus and I think it would go a mile straight up if you wanted to and didn't care if it returned. the new software limits it around airports but many of us haven't upgraded

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Answer
We're being set up by the media to support a ban on civilian quadcopters. It's only a matter of time.

The incidents around the white house, the talks about privacy, and now they're being painted as a threat to commercial aircraft.

It won't be long before the usual suspects are pushing for bans and/or strict regulation. Mark my words.

Well that ruins my plans for a .50 mounted on a quad for home protection.....damnit!

A .50 would be far too heavy and major overkill for a quadcopter. You'd need something the size of a swimming pool just to lift a Ma Deuce. Then you have to build-in a system to cope with the recoil.

You could do a belt-fed .22 that would be just as effective and much lighter. You could also run it suppressed so the folks have no idea where the shots are coming from.

... LASERS
&flashbangs ...
Still have to get the flashbangs but that´s how I do it.