Most FPV transmitters are at 5.8Ghz. Used to be important that you were hitting this as close to 5800Mhz as possible so as to stay in the middle of the ISM band. Really hard to believe these 500mw transmitters can cause a signature on Doppler when most times they drop useable signal after 1200 meters.
It does seem that the FCC and the FAA are working together on this. The FAA specifically targeting FPV last week, and now the FCC trying to take back the same radio band this week.
Another happy independence day in the land of the free and the home of the brave...
True the article is talking in reference to regulated flight.
However areas from ground structures to 500 feet are the property of the land owner (with some variation by state, but that's not the FAA's call). If the FAA wishes to traverse the airspace over a land over at less than 500 feet they must obtain navigational right-of-way from the land-owner.
This is not a matter of flight regulation, this is basic property rights.
What regulations are you talking about?
TFA is referring to the interpretation and enforcement of HR 658 which specifically separates hobby and commercial (with no commercial provisions for the Continental United States!)
So since I'm not a government agency, this still leaves me class G airspace on private property (assuming I have permission from the land owner).
My understanding is operating my drone outside of public airspace (no higher than 500 ft above obstacles) while on private property where the land owner has given me permission: the FAA has no jurisdiction
Whether I have line-of-sight, radio control, or out-of-sight completely computer autonomous: in private airspace the FAA has no say.
It is a conspiracy that's what's being investigated!
This is not just a political animal (i.e. an elected administration), this is the company in charge of tax records who is in non-compliance with the Federal law it enforces.
Or (more likely) the actual conspiracy has more connections, enough that someone is covering them up.
Fine. There are other options; but I seriously doubt you have anything but malevolent intentions.
From my experience "doing better than the status quo" in this arena means you will not stop until your advocacy has destroyed whatever shred of protection or usefulness a representative governing body currently affords to individual freedom of choice, and confer it instead on persons and territories outside its jurisdiction.
You're advocating either one-world government or anarchy. Neither is a governing body that looks out for the interests of its people.
Anarchy (by definition) has no governance and protects no-one. Universal governance is a monopoly.
Borders represent choices. No borders means no choices.
A government that does not favor its own people over those of another is attempting operational universal governance and is setting itself up for absorption or dissolution.