Log in

View Full Version : Drones To Be Certificated For GA?


hierophant[_2_]
April 19th 11, 09:07 PM
Appears so :(

<http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying-report-drones-fly-through-congress-and-american-skys>

The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
which was removed. ???

My concern is that this certification will lead to the
<temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields. :(
--
Live To Spend It

Daryl
April 19th 11, 09:55 PM
On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
> Appears so :(
>
> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying-report-drones-fly-through-congress-and-american-skys>
>
> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
> which was removed. ???
>
> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
> of smaller airfields. :(

Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. Drones are
on the way, get over it.

hierophant[_2_]
April 19th 11, 10:02 PM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:55:54 -0600, Daryl wrote:

> On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
>> Appears so :(
>>
>> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying-report-drones-fly-through-congress-and-american-skys>
>>
>> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
>> which was removed. ???
>>
>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>> of smaller airfields. :(
>
> Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. Drones are
> on the way, get over it.

Daryl, calm down. ;) First, it is an opinion not a "cite" and one that
I only partially share. Second, the fact that drones are coming is
self-evident.

Do you have your PPL?
--
Live To Spend It

Daryl
April 19th 11, 10:14 PM
On 4/19/2011 3:02 PM, hierophant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:55:54 -0600, Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
>>> Appears so :(
>>>
>>> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying-report-drones-fly-through-congress-and-american-skys>
>>>
>>> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
>>> which was removed. ???
>>>
>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>
>> Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. Drones are
>> on the way, get over it.
>
> Daryl, calm down. ;) First, it is an opinion not a "cite" and one that
> I only partially share. Second, the fact that drones are coming is
> self-evident.
>
> Do you have your PPL?

You needed to say that in the original post. It looked like it
was a political statement or an anti government statement.

Actually I have PTSD. Shall I go off the meds? Saying that I
should go on my meds doesn't work over here. Of course, maybe I
should. There are a few people that need messing up. :)

vaughn[_3_]
April 19th 11, 10:59 PM
"hierophant" > wrote in message
...
> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
> of smaller airfields. :(

Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..

Vaughn

hierophant[_2_]
April 19th 11, 11:05 PM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:

> "hierophant" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>> of smaller airfields. :(
>
> Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
> airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..
>
> Vaughn

I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
drones?

A pickle.

Why BeeDee
April 19th 11, 11:40 PM
On Apr 19, 5:59*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "hierophant" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > My concern is that this certification will lead to the
> > <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
> > general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
> > of smaller airfields. :(
>
> Agree. *The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. * When a
> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
> airspace will be necessary. *That is the standard we should insist on. *Until
> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. *Video "see & avoid" *technology is
> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. *..
>
> Vaughn

Agreed.

The only trouble is that your key word - "cheaply" - will be the
driving factor in the struggle between drone operators and GA. The
operators will claim that "see & avoid" capability will be cost
prohibitive to implement. Since a plurality, if not a majority of
drone operators in the near term will have government functions
(police, aerial surveys, etc.), it's a fair bet that GA will have to
bite the bullet with mandated transponders.

Uncontrolled airspace will soon be a thing of the past.

April 19th 11, 11:43 PM
In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant > wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:
>
>> "hierophant" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>
>> Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
>> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
>> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
>> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
>> airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
>> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
>> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
> freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
> competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
> drones?
>
> A pickle.

Not really.

Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
near the borders.

For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
suitable for that.

And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
else.

However, that is a big "if".

In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
objectionable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Schiffner
April 19th 11, 11:50 PM
On Apr 19, 2:07*pm, hierophant > wrote:
> Appears so :(
>
> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying...>
>
> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
> which was removed. ???
>
> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
> of smaller airfields. :(
> --
> Live To Spend It


Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.

I wouldn't worry much. Then again considering what a anti-anyone but
the government and big business organization the faa is, I don't
discount your concern.

Why BeeDee
April 20th 11, 12:07 AM
On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>
> Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
> be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
> they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
> coast2coast.
>

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S

(CBS/AP) Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
(civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
vehicles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/national/main6579920.shtml

Schiffner
April 20th 11, 12:15 AM
On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
> > be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
> > they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
> > coast2coast.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure about that:
>
> FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S
>
> (CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
> reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
> pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
> rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
> enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
> worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
> corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
> hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.
>
> On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
> Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
> The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.
>
> The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
> planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
> data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
> police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
> license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
> suspects.
>
> Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
> are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
> piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.
>
> "There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
> (civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
> operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
> constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
> Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
> figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
> vehicles."
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/national/main6579920.shtml

bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
working towards that goal for 50 years...

Why BeeDee
April 20th 11, 12:21 AM
On Apr 19, 7:15*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>
> > > Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
> > > be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
> > > they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
> > > coast2coast.
>
> > I wouldn't be so sure about that:
>
> > FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S
>
> > (CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
> > reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
> > pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.
>
> > The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
> > rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
> > enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
> > worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
> > corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
> > hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.
>
> > On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
> > Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
> > The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.
>
> > The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
> > planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
> > data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
> > police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
> > license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
> > suspects.
>
> > Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
> > are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
> > piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.
>
> > "There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
> > (civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
> > operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
> > constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
> > Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
> > figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
> > vehicles."
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/national/main6579920.shtml
>
> bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
> working towards that goal for 50 years...

I tend to agree. I'm sure there isn't a day goes by that some brainiac
at the FAA doesn't pass some time wondering how many beer cans could
be made out of the 200,000+ aircraft registered in the USA.

Sad to say...

Mark IV
April 20th 11, 12:21 AM
On Apr 19, 5:02*pm, hierophant > wrote:

> Live To Spend It

Good luck with that.

Mark IV
April 20th 11, 01:12 AM
On Apr 19, 5:14*pm, Daryl > wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 3:02 PM, hierophant wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:55:54 -0600, Daryl wrote:
>
> >> On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
> >>> Appears so :(
>
> >>> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying...>
>
> >>> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
> >>> which was removed. ???
>
> >>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
> >>> <temporary><permanent> * closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
> >>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
> >>> of smaller airfields. :(
>
> >> Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. *Drones are
> >> on the way, get over it.
>
> > Daryl, calm down. ;) First, it is an opinion not a "cite" and one that
> > I only partially share. Second, the fact that drones are coming is
> > self-evident.
>
> > Do you have your PPL?
>
> You needed to say that in the original post. *It looked like it
> was a political statement or an anti government statement.
>
> Actually I have PTSD. *Shall I go off the meds? *Saying that I
> should go on my meds doesn't work over here. *Of course, maybe I
> should. *There are a few people that need messing up. *:)

Daryl,
"Heirophant" is a bonafied asshole and troll.
He previously went under the name Ari Silverstein.

=========
WARNING: Using a fake name, Heirophant's
premise is simple... "a lie is as good as the truth
if he can get someone to believe it." But heed this
warning; he has tried all of this before. Just look
back on the various newsgroups, and there he will be
in all his pathetic ugliness. Yet, this time it is much
worse. Out to undermine these newsgroups to the
point that seemingly he alone appears to be the
only authority on just about everything, and/or
pretends he is trying to warn us of others, he not
only fabricates all he says, but does much of it
by stealing the identity of many others, including
yours truly, as the means to this end (if a posting
seems out of character or obscene, be sure to
check the Headers - if it's from X-privat or Hushmail,
it's a forged post from Heirophant). Besides the identity
theft, this time he is blatantly stalking many of
us into many other newsgroups that we frequent
as well, including this one, with the intent to disturb
and spread his lies there as well. It was even
shown that there are many more newsgroups that
he is trying to disturb this way, even an AVIATION
group in which he is apparently stealing the identity
of actual pilots, where periodic warnings to readers
about Heirophant are posted. There he PRETENDS
TO BE A PILOT; here he pretends to actually be
involved.

Unfortunately, because of these very antics by
Heirophant, some of the regulars have already moved
on to other forms of communication, or soon will
be, including many of the travel agents from one of
the original newsgroups he frequents. And after chasing
them away by posting vile messages under their names,
he chastises them for leaving the group. He then tries to
fool readers here that he is the savior of the group - when
in fact he is the person who has caused all the anarchy.

Others are simply waiting and hopefully for a time
when it is safe to rejoin the various groups. Yet, to
Heirophant, it doesn't matter... he simply continues to
post and adds threads using the identities of these
others, saying and implying things that they would
never actually say. And just look at his current
signature line in these other groups, doing the exact
same thing that he accuses many of us as doing.
Yet, unlike Heirophant's signature, ours is at least in
keeping with what is acceptable according to the Charter
guidelines. Plus, follow our links, which will lead you to
actual and legitimate connections, affiliations and
licensed endeavors. That can't be said of the associations
Heirophant claims; a website that attracts spammers,
in addition to certifications that have never heard of him.

Now we all know that this post and information will
simply be met with more lies, negative comments
and innuendos by Heirophant, staying true to form,
with him possibly tying to add clout by again taking
on the identity of some of the other regulars. As
to his bashing of me personally (which in this case
will be a forgone conclusion) one only needs to look
to the source. He hasn't been accurate yet in
anything he has said, so it is of little consequence
what he tries to makes up in this reference.

Nothing has changed on my end at all, but
seemingly this is not the case with some of the
services he claims as leverage in his dealings. Even
they have a problem claiming something that he
is not, and using foul language to boot. What
can be done in the meantime until such antics
can be stopped? On our part, that answer is simple.
Totally ignore everything Heirophant does and says,
don't believe a word of what he tells anyone,
be suspicious of others actually backing and
endorsing such behavior (it is probably just him
anyway), and let's simply go about business as
before - minus Heirophant.

---
Mark IV

Daryl
April 20th 11, 02:01 AM
On 4/19/2011 6:12 PM, Mark IV wrote:
> On Apr 19, 5:14 pm, > wrote:
>> On 4/19/2011 3:02 PM, hierophant wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:55:54 -0600, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>> On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
>>>>> Appears so :(
>>
>>>>> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying...>
>>
>>>>> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
>>>>> which was removed. ???
>>
>>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>
>>>> Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. Drones are
>>>> on the way, get over it.
>>
>>> Daryl, calm down. ;) First, it is an opinion not a "cite" and one that
>>> I only partially share. Second, the fact that drones are coming is
>>> self-evident.
>>
>>> Do you have your PPL?
>>
>> You needed to say that in the original post. It looked like it
>> was a political statement or an anti government statement.
>>
>> Actually I have PTSD. Shall I go off the meds? Saying that I
>> should go on my meds doesn't work over here. Of course, maybe I
>> should. There are a few people that need messing up. :)
>
> Daryl,
> "Heirophant" is a bonafied asshole and troll.
> He previously went under the name Ari Silverstein.

Posting in a primarily Military Group as a troll is probably not
such a good idea. I have removed the one NG so I won't see the
response.

Schiffner
April 20th 11, 03:42 AM
On Apr 19, 5:21*pm, Why BeeDee > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:15*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>
> > > > Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
> > > > be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
> > > > they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
> > > > coast2coast.
>
> > > I wouldn't be so sure about that:
>
> > > FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S
>
> > > (CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
> > > reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
> > > pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.
>
> > > The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
> > > rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
> > > enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
> > > worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
> > > corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
> > > hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground..
>
> > > On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
> > > Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
> > > The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.
>
> > > The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
> > > planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
> > > data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
> > > police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
> > > license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
> > > suspects.
>
> > > Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
> > > are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
> > > piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.
>
> > > "There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
> > > (civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
> > > operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
> > > constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
> > > Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
> > > figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
> > > vehicles."
>
> > >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/national/main6579920.shtml
>
> > bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
> > working towards that goal for 50 years...
>
> I tend to agree. I'm sure there isn't a day goes by that some brainiac
> at the FAA doesn't pass some time wondering how many beer cans could
> be made out of the 200,000+ aircraft registered in the USA.
>
> Sad to say...

I have secret planes in case of lottery. Mr. Rutan will be getting a
call...nothing new, nothing off the shelf either. ;^)

hierophant[_2_]
April 20th 11, 09:15 AM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant > wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:
>>
>>> "hierophant" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>>
>>> Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
>>> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
>>> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
>>> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
>>> airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
>>> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
>>> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..
>>>
>>> Vaughn
>>
>> I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
>> freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
>> competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
>> drones?
>>
>> A pickle.
>
> Not really.
>
> Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
> there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
> near the borders.
>
> For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
> suitable for that.
>
> And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
> there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
> else.
>
> However, that is a big "if".
>
> In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
> objectionable.

Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.

April 20th 11, 05:26 PM
hierophant > wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:
>>>
>>>> "hierophant" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>>>
>>>> Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
>>>> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
>>>> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
>>>> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
>>>> airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
>>>> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
>>>> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..
>>>>
>>>> Vaughn
>>>
>>> I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
>>> freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
>>> competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
>>> drones?
>>>
>>> A pickle.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
>> there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
>> near the borders.
>>
>> For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
>> suitable for that.
>>
>> And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
>> there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
>> else.
>>
>> However, that is a big "if".
>>
>> In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
>> objectionable.
>
> Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
> NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.

Yeah, I know.

There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
at hand.

UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
some place like LA.

UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
toward 1st street.

What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?

Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters.

About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

hierophant[_2_]
April 20th 11, 06:18 PM
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:27 -0000, wrote:

> hierophant > wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "hierophant" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
>>>>> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
>>>>> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
>>>>> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
>>>>> airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
>>>>> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
>>>>> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>
>>>> I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
>>>> freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
>>>> competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
>>>> drones?
>>>>
>>>> A pickle.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
>>> there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
>>> near the borders.
>>>
>>> For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
>>> suitable for that.
>>>
>>> And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
>>> there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
>>> else.
>>>
>>> However, that is a big "if".
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
>>> objectionable.
>>
>> Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
>> NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.
>
> Yeah, I know.
>
> There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
> no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
> at hand.
>
> UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
> but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
> some place like LA.
>
> UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
> air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
> toward 1st street.
>
> What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?

Ha! It's more about intimidation than useful surveillance.

> Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
> UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
> the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters.
>
> About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
> patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.

They're talking border patrol but your point is well made.

hierophant[_2_]
April 20th 11, 06:18 PM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Why BeeDee wrote:

> Uncontrolled airspace will soon be a thing of the past.

Sadly ;(

hierophant[_2_]
April 20th 11, 06:20 PM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT), Schiffner wrote:

> On Apr 19, 5:21*pm, Why BeeDee > wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 7:15*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee > wrote:
>>
>>> > On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
>>
>>> > > Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
>>> > > be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
>>> > > they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
>>> > > coast2coast.
>>
>>> > I wouldn't be so sure about that:
>>
>>> > FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S
>>
>>> > (CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
>>> > reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
>>> > pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.
>>
>>> > The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
>>> > rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
>>> > enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
>>> > worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
>>> > corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
>>> > hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.
>>
>>> > On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
>>> > Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
>>> > The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.
>>
>>> > The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
>>> > planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
>>> > data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
>>> > police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
>>> > license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
>>> > suspects.
>>
>>> > Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
>>> > are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
>>> > piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.
>>
>>> > "There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
>>> > (civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
>>> > operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
>>> > constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
>>> > Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
>>> > figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
>>> > vehicles."
>>
>>> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/national/main6579920.shtml
>>
>>> bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
>>> working towards that goal for 50 years...
>>
>> I tend to agree. I'm sure there isn't a day goes by that some brainiac
>> at the FAA doesn't pass some time wondering how many beer cans could
>> be made out of the 200,000+ aircraft registered in the USA.
>>
>> Sad to say...
>
> I have secret planes in case of lottery. Mr. Rutan will be getting a
> call...nothing new, nothing off the shelf either. ;^)

I'm buying a fake drone...that I can pilot. Fools them all ;)

April 20th 11, 06:42 PM
hierophant > wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:27 -0000, wrote:
>
>> hierophant > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:
>>>
>>>> In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "hierophant" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>>>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>>>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>>>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
>>>>>> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
>>>>>> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
>>>>>> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
>>>>>> airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
>>>>>> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
>>>>>> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>
>>>>> I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
>>>>> freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
>>>>> competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
>>>>> drones?
>>>>>
>>>>> A pickle.
>>>>
>>>> Not really.
>>>>
>>>> Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
>>>> there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
>>>> near the borders.
>>>>
>>>> For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
>>>> suitable for that.
>>>>
>>>> And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
>>>> there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> However, that is a big "if".
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
>>>> objectionable.
>>>
>>> Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
>>> NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.
>>
>> Yeah, I know.
>>
>> There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
>> no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
>> at hand.
>>
>> UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
>> but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
>> some place like LA.
>>
>> UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
>> air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
>> toward 1st street.
>>
>> What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?
>
> Ha! It's more about intimidation than useful surveillance.

An unarmed UAV is not going to intimidate a street criminal and domestic
UAV's will never be armed unless the Constitution goes away.

>> Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
>> UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
>> the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters.
>>
>> About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
>> patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.
>
> They're talking border patrol but your point is well made.

Again border patrol could be simply implemented by putting a mode C veil for
a few miles around the border.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

george
April 20th 11, 09:26 PM
On Apr 21, 5:42*am, wrote:
> hierophant > wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:27 -0000, wrote:
>
> >> hierophant > wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:
>
> >>>> In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant > wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "hierophant" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
> >>>>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
> >>>>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
> >>>>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>
> >>>>>> Agree. *The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
> >>>>>> by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
> >>>>>> install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. * When a
> >>>>>> drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
> >>>>>> airspace will be necessary. *That is the standard we should insist on. *Until
> >>>>>> then, we should hold their feet to the fire. *Video "see & avoid" *technology is
> >>>>>> coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. *..
>
> >>>>>> Vaughn
>
> >>>>> I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
> >>>>> freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
> >>>>> competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
> >>>>> drones?
>
> >>>>> A pickle.
>
> >>>> Not really.
>
> >>>> Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
> >>>> there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
> >>>> near the borders.
>
> >>>> For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
> >>>> suitable for that.
>
> >>>> And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
> >>>> there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
> >>>> else.
>
> >>>> However, that is a big "if".
>
> >>>> In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
> >>>> objectionable.
>
> >>> Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
> >>> NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.
>
> >> Yeah, I know.
>
> >> There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
> >> no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
> >> at hand.
>
> >> UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
> >> but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
> >> some place like LA.
>
> >> UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
> >> air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
> >> toward 1st street.
>
> >> What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?
>
> > Ha! It's more about intimidation than useful surveillance.
>
> An unarmed UAV is not going to intimidate a street criminal and domestic
> UAV's will never be armed unless the Constitution goes away.
>
> >> Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
> >> UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
> >> the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters..
>
> >> About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
> >> patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.
>
> > They're talking border patrol but your point is well made.
>
> Again border patrol could be simply implemented by putting a mode C veil for
> a few miles around the border.
>
Imagining the cost of patrolling your Mexico/USA border the UAV's
would be cost effective in detecting those crossing the border..

Mark IV[_3_]
April 21st 11, 10:26 PM
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:01:07 -0600, Daryl wrote:

> On 4/19/2011 6:12 PM, Mark IV wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 5:14 pm, > wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2011 3:02 PM, hierophant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:55:54 -0600, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
>>>>>> Appears so :(
>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying...>
>>>
>>>>>> The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
>>>>>> which was removed. ???
>>>
>>>>>> My concern is that this certification will lead to the
>>>>>> <temporary><permanent> closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
>>>>>> general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
>>>>>> of smaller airfields. :(
>>>
>>>>> Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. Drones are
>>>>> on the way, get over it.
>>>
>>>> Daryl, calm down. ;) First, it is an opinion not a "cite" and one that
>>>> I only partially share. Second, the fact that drones are coming is
>>>> self-evident.
>>>
>>>> Do you have your PPL?
>>>
>>> You needed to say that in the original post. It looked like it
>>> was a political statement or an anti government statement.
>>>
>>> Actually I have PTSD. Shall I go off the meds? Saying that I
>>> should go on my meds doesn't work over here. Of course, maybe I
>>> should. There are a few people that need messing up. :)
>>
>> Daryl,
>> "Heirophant" is a bonafied asshole and troll.

>> He previously went under the name Ari Silverstein.
>
> Posting in a primarily Military Group as a troll is probably not
> such a good idea.

That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
threat, that's all.

Where's the Feds, Jewball? as to Federal employees...no one can get
within a quarter mile of me without a warrant. I'm very hard to access
and my critter cameras record everything that happens around here.

All I said was:

"Call your attorney. Call the FBI. Hunt me down. And when you do, be
sure and let's get a comprehensive list and copy of all these posts
which I've supposedly authored. There are hundreds of them.

He also brags that he's been forging my identity in "Pilots of
America" for 6 months. If this is true, then they should have those
archived as well. Yes as Mark, blueriverday. Myself, I've never been
there, nor plan to.

So, hunt "me" down, please. Expose my identity. Not the AT&T "me".
That's really me. I'm talking about the 15,000 groups he's claimed to
have spammed in my name, and made virtually unuseable. *That" Mark.

He's hiding in this group right now. Just look at the bottom of your
screen at those forgeries. CALL THE FBI.

This is a DEATH THREAT.

I'm considering KILLING him!"

MarkIV, so better than all the rest

Daryl
April 21st 11, 10:39 PM
On 4/21/2011 3:26 PM, Mark IV wrote:

>
> That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
> threat, that's all.

If you put out the amount of trash I think you do, it wasn't the
"Jew" that got your account canceled, it was you that got your
account canceled.

Have a Nice day from a Christian.

Mark IV[_3_]
April 21st 11, 11:14 PM
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:39:48 -0600, Daryl wrote:

> On 4/21/2011 3:26 PM, Mark IV wrote:
>
>>
>> That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
>> threat, that's all.
>
> If you put out the amount of trash I think you do, it wasn't the
> "Jew" that got your account canceled, it was you that got your
> account canceled.
>
> Have a Nice day from a Christian.

Forget this childish internet stuff. I dare you to reveal your
identity. If you don't you're a coward. Any time, any place. Bring
your friends. I don't mind. Waiting... I DARE YOU. I am the ancestor
of the Vikings!

Hey, Jesustroll, when you were a little boy, did your granny explain
why everyone called you "Mr. Holy"? You know, because you were, and
STILL ARE a Xristian idiot.

Ok, go ahead, get busy. Spend another 1000 hours of your valueless
unemployed time and continue devoting your life to forging posts.
Yeah, spread it as far as you want, like you've been doing.

At the end of the day, I'll still be paying peeps to fly me and you
won't. See, the internet isn't my life like it is yours. Ok, I lied
rite there but I am MAN enough to admit it. I am sensible and in
control GODDAMMIT.

Mark IV, simply the best

hierophant[_2_]
April 21st 11, 11:16 PM
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:14:06 -0400, Mark IV wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:39:48 -0600, Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2011 3:26 PM, Mark IV wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
>>> threat, that's all.
>>
>> If you put out the amount of trash I think you do, it wasn't the
>> "Jew" that got your account canceled, it was you that got your
>> account canceled.
>>
>> Have a Nice day from a Christian.
>
> Forget this childish internet stuff. I dare you to reveal your
> identity. If you don't you're a coward. Any time, any place. Bring
> your friends. I don't mind. Waiting... I DARE YOU. I am the ancestor
> of the Vikings!
>
> Hey, Jesustroll, when you were a little boy, did your granny explain
> why everyone called you "Mr. Holy"? You know, because you were, and
> STILL ARE a Xristian idiot.
>
> Ok, go ahead, get busy. Spend another 1000 hours of your valueless
> unemployed time and continue devoting your life to forging posts.
> Yeah, spread it as far as you want, like you've been doing.
>
> At the end of the day, I'll still be paying peeps to fly me and you
> won't. See, the internet isn't my life like it is yours. Ok, I lied
> rite there but I am MAN enough to admit it. I am sensible and in
> control GODDAMMIT.
>
> Mark IV, simply the best

Obsess much? ;)

http://boardreader.com/thread/I_dare_you_Jeffrey_Bloss_95btXdfjvx.html

Dan[_12_]
April 22nd 11, 12:12 AM
On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
> Mark IV, simply the best

Not since they overdid your bris.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mark IV[_3_]
April 22nd 11, 12:19 AM
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:

> On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
>> Mark IV, simply the best
>
> Not since they overdid your bris.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
for you black, crack-baby.

Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*

Dan[_12_]
April 22nd 11, 12:43 AM
On 4/21/2011 6:19 PM, Mark IV wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
>>> Mark IV, simply the best
>>
>> Not since they overdid your bris.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
> on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
> for you black, crack-baby.
>
> Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*

"Monnkeys?" "Millioaire?" Ask your mullah to explain what a spell
checker is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

george
April 22nd 11, 05:38 AM
On Apr 22, 1:37*pm, Dan > wrote:

> * *How long have you been so insecure, Muhammad IV?
>

Ever since they let him out of the Institution but the way he's
posting that small problem is going to solve itself

Schiffner
April 22nd 11, 05:40 PM
On Apr 21, 5:19*pm, Mark IV > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:
> > On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
> >> Mark IV, simply the best
>
> > * *Not since they overdid your bris.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
> on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
> for you black, crack-baby.
>
> Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*

Liar cheat theif drug abuser...and you got a little dinky.

tell you what BOY when you stop being scared...then talk ****. Me I
hope you come to my town...you've given me enough ammo to shoot you on
sight and scalp. 8^) That's not a threat. I don't threaten, little
piles of **** like you need to either be quiet and not talk to each
other or you need to be killed, period end of discussion.

Schiffner
April 22nd 11, 05:41 PM
On Apr 21, 6:37*pm, Mark IV > wrote:
\
hey cock breath...muslims believe in the same god you and the jew
believe in. Just in case you didn't know you uneducation **** for
brains.

Religion, the leading cause of human suffering on the planet.

Mark IV
April 22nd 11, 06:58 PM
On Apr 22, 12:40*pm, Schiffner > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:19*pm, Mark IV > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:
> > > On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
> > >> Mark IV, simply the best
>
> > > * *Not since they overdid your bris.
>
> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
> > on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
> > for you black, crack-baby.
>
> > Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*
>
> Liar cheat theif drug abuser...and you got a little dinky.
>
> tell you what BOY when you stop being scared...then talk ****. Me I
> hope you come to my town...you've given me enough ammo to shoot you on
> sight and scalp. 8^) That's not a threat. I don't threaten, little
> piles of **** like you need to either be quiet and not talk to each
> other or you need to be killed, period end of discussion.

Philip T. Mellinger
Ellicott City, Maryland

Mark IV[_3_]
April 22nd 11, 07:40 PM
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:40:16 -0700 (PDT), Schiffner wrote:

> On Apr 21, 5:19*pm, Mark IV > wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
>>>> Mark IV, simply the best
>>
>>> * *Not since they overdid your bris.
>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
>> on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
>> for you black, crack-baby.
>>
>> Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*
>
> Liar cheat theif drug abuser...and you got a little dinky.
>
> tell you what BOY when you stop being scared...then talk ****. Me I
> hope you come to my town...you've given me enough ammo to shoot you on
> sight and scalp. 8^) That's not a threat. I don't threaten, little
> piles of **** like you need to either be quiet and not talk to each
> other or you need to be killed, period end of discussion.

Look here needledick, GO TO ****ING HELL. MR. NOBODY.

You can call yourself a creative genius when you've done what I've
done.

My walls are covered with the first run editions of /intricate/
valuable artwork. I have the originals safely stored away too. All
these pieces were commissioned before they were started, and they
represent thousands of dollars in revenue. They were all done by the
same artist.

*Me*
--
http://cc.st/My-Twitter-Page
http://cc.st/My-Bio

Mark IV[_3_]
April 22nd 11, 07:42 PM
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Schiffner wrote:

> On Apr 21, 6:37*pm, Mark IV > wrote:
> \
> hey cock breath...muslims believe in the same god you and the jew
> believe in. Just in case you didn't know you uneducation **** for
> brains.
>
> Religion, the leading cause of human suffering on the planet.

**** u AND **** THE GOD YOU RODE IN ON. Obviously you have never flown
a plane much less built one.

And, a lot of kit planes end up under dusty tarps unfinished too.
Mine? It's a jet...the price is about 39k. I'm ready to order since
2008.

You see, I am a Renaissance Man. I'm still attempting things people
think are impossible. I'm a dichotomy, shoot em dead brainbell
jangler, a soft diamond, a militaristic saint, and always a very wise
fool...If anything I'm a Zena.
--
http://cc.st/My-Twitter-Page
http://cc.st/My-Bio

Mark IV
April 22nd 11, 10:14 PM
On Apr 22, 2:42*pm, Mark IV > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Schiffner wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 6:37 pm, Mark IV > wrote:
> > \
> > hey cock breath...muslims believe in the same god you and the jew
> > believe in. Just in case you didn't know you uneducation **** for
> > brains.
>
> > Religion, the leading cause of human suffering on the planet.
>
> **** u AND **** THE GOD YOU RODE IN ON. Obviously you have never flown
> a plane much less built one.
>
> And, a lot of kit planes end up under dusty tarps unfinished too.
> Mine? It's a jet...the price is about 39k. I'm ready to order since
> 2008.
>
> You see, I am a Renaissance Man. I'm still attempting things people
> lthink are impossible. I'm a dichotomy, shoot em dead brainbell
> jangler, a soft diamond, a militaristic saint, and always a very wise
> fool...If anything I'm a Zena.
> --http://cc.st/My-Twitter-Pagehttp://cc.st/My-Bio

Philip T. Mellinger
9685 Gwynn Park Dr.
Ellicott City, Maryland 21042
410-750-2603

Google