not really. The best thing that he can do is pull manufacturing from China. Seriously, at this time, Apple can build their own robotics plant here in America and bring it home.

If Slashdot had posted a story about "the Lone Gunmen" pilot episode, then they would have a scoop that anticipated the 9/11 attacks with a civilian airliner, by several months...

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;

Making a 180 and flying above a manned helicopter is interference with that helicopter, and is certainly not giving way to them. Further, the definition of "model aircraft" requires that it be:

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft

Two miles away is not "visual line of sight" of something the size of a Phantom. If you think the pilot was maintaining "visual line of sight" as his craft was flying between buildings to get away from the cops, you're wrong.

Further, it would be interesting to find out if any of the neighborhoods he'd been flying this thing in were closer than 5 miles to any airport, or if he even considered that problem.

As long as those model aircraft meet the definition of model aircraft and operate in according with that law. Which is one way of saying that the AMA is not in total control of model aircraft, just a limited subset.

This was not a model aircraft. It was a toy. And one of the guidelines is it must remain in sight of the pilot, which this one didn't.

They aren't. I've already cited the UAS information from the FAA.

There is a big difference between testing and development using the existing production system and using limited areas and tight control. The latter is the correct way of testing and development, as any software engineer should be able to tell you.

That's going to be very hard for a 50 MPH Amazon delivery drone to do, and even the toys can wind up there without much trouble at all. Given that Amazon has a strong presence in Seattle, and downtown Seattle has Boeing field, that means the controlled airspace extends from the surface up. SeaTac has even more restricted airspace, which includes a surface up for a distance of 30 miles.

You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.

I read TFA. It was a Phantom. Yes, it's a toy. BUT, the exemption applies only to toys that are flown with visual contact. I.e., a tiny thing like this, two miles away, isn't being flown under visual control. The camera that it carries points only one way, and if the police helicopter approached from the rear the operators would not have seen it. It is quite possible that they did a 180 and flew back over the police helicopter (as the transcript from ATC says). If they did that, while not under visual control, and could have been sucked down into the chopper blades, it was reckless. It wasn't the police fault that they turned and flew back over, it was theirs, and it was only because they didn't actually have their aircraft in sight the whole time.

Also, the statement by the chopper pilot that he didn't know what to charge them with is irrelevant. He's not the one who arrested them, and he may not know the exact crime that was committed. He doesn't have to.

Nah. Not HERE, in the land of the Free, with Rule of Law!

But?

We were right all the time. Unfettered by doctrine, dogma of allegiances, wary of our own cognitive bias, we saw what we saw.

Bitter vindication.

You misunderstood. It was the aliens looking for cheap human labor that could be exploited. I mean, you go all the way to Alma Crematoria to take a job and it turns out you're becoming an indentured servant, what are you gonna do? Are you going to be able to afford a ticket back to the Earth? You think you'll find another job there, without good language skills and a degree from an Alma Crematorium university? You may wind up picking cabbage ... or working at Walmart. By the time you get there they'll have stores.

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

I'm using the term that was used in the summary, which was almost certainly a quote from TFA.

If this thing was large enough to be hovering near the bridge and visible to the pilot of the police helicopter, it was almost certainly not a toy or model aircraft, so yes, in this case, it was a helicopter.

There is no indication that this was a "toy" or "model" aircraft. I would also appreciate a citation from the other commenter who said that toys were exempted from this, to see if the exemption covers something as large as this apparently was.

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent for FAA regulation well below "high altitude". Many of the FAA rules contain an exemption similar to "except as required for landing or takeoff", which also make it clear that the FAA has the authority to regulate aircraft activity at well below "high altitudes", since landings almost never occur at high altitude.

Yes. Loopholes based on lay use of terms that are specifically defined in the regulations.

and yet, Germany knew that we were in fact, spying on their citizens and giving German gov. information. For starters, we have stopped several AQ attacks on them because of that.
What they DID NOT know, was the spying on their gov, which I have to say was surprising.

We need to re-define patents. It should remain for hardware, but not software. Basically, we need to drop that method patent.

Fungus among us.

He preached Torah?

Harrumph. He makes vague statements about Law, in writings committed 60 years after his crucifixion.

Sermon on the Mount is what he taught.