G+_Ed Lazarus (thegrayarea Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Next Know How... Drone project Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/8/9871732/drone-flamethrower-austin-haughwout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_David Simmons Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 FAA approved!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_William L. DeRieux IV Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 David Simmons But banned in the state of California and Nevada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Brand Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 No idea how firearm laws apply but it may be more legal than the gun drone. He's in a lot of trouble for that first quad and this will only .. add fuel to the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Marsh Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I don't care what laws this may bump up against; it's a cool project with applications for legitimate use. Humans have to light fires for controlled burns as part of wildland firefighting efforts and as maintenance for forests and grasslands, from the ground or by ultralight aircraft. Mod this flamecopter for range and (partial) autonomy, and you've got a lifesaver on your hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Brand Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Last week I attended a course on drone law (usual disclaimer, IANAL) and the subject of "dropping bullets" came up. While you could make the case, the regulations on firearms specifically exist with a lot more clarity than "dropping stuff from drones." I find it interesting that being armed with fire doesn't qualify as a firearm but don't dispute it. An important point was made, specifically to this person's pistol drone, that the remote control of the weapon likely classifies it as an "automatic firearm" with a lot more controls and penalties on it. To your quote: 1. It's a "civil aircraft" only if he's flying it commercially. Since it's a sponsored video then that case could be made. Even still, it actually looks like "reasonable precautions" were taken in the form of a stone barrier and much more so than firing a gun from altitude. That said, he's likely not a pilot either. 2. If it's a hobby aircraft, it doesn't apply at all. The FAA would need to prove reckless flight endangering others which may not hold given aforementioned "reasonable precautions." The FAA can make a case and/or chastise whomever they want. However, plenty of eyes are on them to do the right thing - protecting manned aircraft and people on the ground without over-reaching. Amazon specifically has an eye on all "dropping stuff from drones" regulations along with automated flight which I believe will help the industry find a reasonable middle ground. I take issue with the whole commercial/hobby boundary and would like future regulation to be based on vehicle capabilities and uses only. That said, Padre, when are you getting your pilot's license? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Brand Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Did I say fully automatic? Also, if we're talking about a remote trigger that starts a process that repeatedly loads and fires the gun, then that fits the definition cited. But again, I didn't say "fully". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Brand Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Lawyers disagree with you. You pointed out the sorts of legal gymnastics that could be used to charge someone. This follows that sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Brand Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Who said they didn't? The FAA lawyer on the case was in the room at the time of the discussion. He wasn't commenting on the open case against him, otherwise someone would have asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Marsh Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 So... Jeff Brand doesn't like innovation? Without innovation we can't fight terrorists or child pornographers. Well, I guess that means... Lighten up, guys. The guy is demonstrating something he built for fun and to broaden his knowledge base. If you think he's going to try to use it as a weapon to attack people you're crazy. It's not like someone who WOULD use it against people can't be smart enough to build one of their own design. It's still probably not the smartest thing to play with. I could imagine a thousand ways that could go wrong and really ruin his day. The same could be said of freerunning and mountainbiking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Brand Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Nothing I've said has been my opinion for or against innovation. My entire discussion has been to look at the current legal implications/issues of this person's flamethrower and pistol quads, even if from the position of a non-lawyer who is interested in learning the laws affecting drone use. So here it is: I'm all for innovation. (Yay!) This individual has been "blazing" a path regarding weaponized drones in the hands of private citizens. We'll see what legal angles are used to squash his activities and prevent others from doing anything similar. I have my eyes on other uses for sUAS's, if only the FAA could straighten their act out about commercial use (see above, a pro-innovation/de-restriction position..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts