New FAA Fines Coming

[Krogith]

Now, Now Lady's You Both just as Ugly as the Other.

 

[Lotus_Darkrose]

I'm not even quite sure what you are asking lol. I'm not even sure if that question is a second troll attempt so I'm not going to answer it.

We can't all be as pretty as you, Krogith.

 

[Trevor]

I'm not even quite sure what you are asking lol. I'm not even sure if that question is a second troll attempt so I'm not going to answer it.

You seemed really happy going on about how police officers are terrible people until qumefox showed up.

Instead of respectfully disagreeing, you immediately reverted to trolling.

Makes me wonder if you can refute it...

-Trevor

 

[Lotus_Darkrose]

Refute trolling a rhetorical question? I don't disagree with qume's statement because it makes sense. It was however rhetorical.

How about you concentrate on your own occasional trolling and worry less about mine People in stones shouldn't throw glass houses

 

[Brenner]

Sorry guys,

But I thought that this thread is about FAA regulations.

You can PM each other, if you have some unresolved issues.

Am I wrong?


Now I have to scroll xx posts just to see what pple post in regards to these new FAA regulations.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

@Brenner

We temporarily went off topic to do a little anti/pro law enforcement especially with regards to tasers. Then well... you read the rest:undecided:

 

[Krogith]

Refute trolling a rhetorical question? I don't disagree with qume's statement because it makes sense. It was however rhetorical.

How about you concentrate on your own occasional trolling and worry less about mine People in stones shouldn't throw glass houses

Did you do that wrong on purpose? It's people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Sorry guys,

But I thought that this thread is about FAA regulations.

You can PM each other, if you have some unresolved issues.

Am I wrong?


Now I have to scroll xx posts just to see what pple post in regards to these new FAA regulations.

Lol your post is in direct conflict with it's intention... Could you of not PM'ed that? :thinking:



OP: I think the fines are awesome. I just hope it stops there. And some have sort of pointed to the fact that the departments would get these fines? So it could incentive them into fining anyone pointing into the sky due to the possibility, claiming you were trying to find one with it or something. Or even they saw it pointed towards a plane and they didn't Or if you think about it someone seeing a laser pointing into the sky from a different stand point it could look towards a air plane and not even be going that direction in fact you could not even see a plane and from the stand point they saw one and the laser "looked" towards that direction... I see Trouble A'Brewin

 

[Lotus_Darkrose]

It comes down to what that article Infinitus posted says, along with the police officer's opinion of what your are doing (safe or possible threat), along with how these laws mature in the future. We won't know more until laws are passed/strengthened/weakened, etc.

I, myself just hope it ends up not leaning towards hobbyists being penalized for safe usage of lasers, but there's no way to know how it will end up.

 

[Trevor]

Refute trolling a rhetorical question? I don't disagree with qume's statement because it makes sense. It was however rhetorical.

How about you concentrate on your own occasional trolling and worry less about mine People in stones shouldn't throw glass houses

I enjoy trolling. I troll trolls, and deliver the occasional non sequitur accompanies by an awesome smiley. However, there is a time and place to do it.

Using it to evade a valid point brought up by someone is just obnoxious, especially when you've spent several pages spouting the opposite viewpoint.

-Trevor

 

[Lotus_Darkrose]

So anyways, let's hear some more thoughts on the regulations and what could possibly stem from this article.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Well here's my fear, and an issue that's even pointed out in the article.

Except in those situation with clear evidence... where say a helicopter is being targeted with a laser and guides people to the suspects, or it's a small plane that can actually locate the source... what happens?

I mean if the situation is such that the fine is made if there is a report by the pilot... and the offender is located, I'm all for those fines.

What worries me is the potential for abuse and misuse to target proper hobbyists. Krogith basically pointed it out... what if a cop sees you using a laser, and decides you're targeting a plane?

What proof does he need? If that fine is going to his police department.... and he doesn't need any proof (such as a corresponding complaint from an airplane flying over the area at the time) than we can basically say goodbye to using lasers outside.

I mean crap... a little while ago I read an article about how a judge ruled it appropriate that a cop can eyeball a speeding car and legally write out a ticket... we might have zero recourse, in these situations, and even people in the middle of nowhere will have issues.

I mean if yours is the only house for a mile in each direction... guess what, laser was in the sky, it must have been you.

Alright rant over... who's up next?

 

[Wolfman29]

Yeah... fortunately, I use my lasers in my neighborhood, and A) there are never any cops around, B) my friend's dad (who is a cop) could probably vouch for me being a good kid and not pointing it at any planes [lives in my neighborhood, works for my local police department], and C) there are more than a hundred houses in my neighborhood... how do they know it's me?

 

[anselm]

This new law is awesome. Fuck those assholes who target aircraft, prison would
be just fine for them.
At the same time, if people start getting charged for simply shining a beam into a clear and
aircraft-free nightsky......

I don't get that Rule. Isn't the point of a Forum discussion is to have it lead where ever it gos? I get the idea to keep it back on topic but a few posts about something that came up can't be that bad?

Well, it's a waste of time when you click on a topic, expect to read something about the topic
and then have to wade through several pages of unrelated crap.

I have places to go, things to do

I got better things to do with my time
I got places that I've gotta be
And people that I've got to see
Mountains that I have to ski
Golden days ahead of me

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

@ Wolfman29

A, and B are wishful thinking, B might be helpful but don't rely on it.

Problem C arises if say a cop is patrolling and sees a beam of light over in your direction, so he drives closer, and sees you with a laser. You see him and turn the laser off, or not, either way he saw you and comes over.

Here's the nightmare scenario... he writes you citation for $11000. Why, because he wants money for the department.

Depending on how the new laws are written it won't matter if there isn't a plane within a hundred miles of where you're pointing the laser.

The big question is about the burden of proof required for the citation. If it is minimal we are f*cked. If the fines are going to local departments, or citing agency, so local pd writes it on behalf of the FAA we're even more f*cked.

If on the other hand there has to be a corresponding report that at the same time, or the initiator has to be a pilot - let's say of a helicopter being lasered... I'm all for that.

 

[Wolfman29]

Yeah, I got ya. I live in the suburbs though, and there are usually not any cops within a mile or so of my house (I think the closest station is a couple of miles away?).

Does anyone have any data on how far away you can be to see a beam in the sky for high-powered lasers, anyway? I have always wondered that.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

At the same time, if people start getting charged for simply shining a beam into a clear and
aircraft-free nightsky......

.

Yup... except cops are gonna have an 11k incentive to find the guys shining the laser into the completely clear and empty sky.

With regards to going off topic... I think sometimes it is just a natural evolution of conversation... usually threads come back on topic or just die, so no big deal. If people are so pressed for time they wouldn't be spending so much time on the forum in the first place:thinking:

@Wolfman29 - If you find data on beam visibility from the ground and distance from which it can be seen, please share.