Basically the government wants us to sit in our houses and never leave and never do anything- UNTIL they approve.

Prior approval is the watchword of federal regulations. They did it with medical devices in 1976, long before that with transportation of all types. long before that even with our food, and lately with our medical care.

Getting time to make enough resources to be able to "shrug" without living in a cold, dark tent.

Its very depressing

I'm not entirely sure what I can do to make air 'productive' at any height -- although planting a tree or building a radio tower might do so.

Nevertheless, my point was not that I own a wedge of the universe pointed to by my property but that people who own drones generally get bored flying them over their own property at any height and start flying them over someone else's.

So, setting aside the simplistic Austrians, what is an appropriate objectivist solution to the fact that drones can endanger aircraft?

You do not own the air above your land ( greater than about 100ft), because you have done nothing to make it productive. Not surprisingly you have the simplistic attitudes toward property espoused by the Austrians

So what is the appropriate solution to keep a drone from bringing down the next airline you are flying on? Drones are typically used in manners that ignore private property. Do we say that you may only use a drone in airspace over your own property?

What technological solution keeps drones out of the flight path of airplanes that are landing and taking off -- or swooping low to drop fire retardant?

Admittedly this is still a theoretical problem, but we have had times in So. Cal. when airborne firefighting was brought to a halt because of the presence of drones.

Of course, government registration is a useless form of revenue enhancement.

Agreed.

Drones can present a hazard, that is my only point.

As to the FAA, all they can do is put out useless rules and regs. Useless because they are not able to enforce them effectively even if it wasn't against property rights.

The problem with the drones lies with the operators of course. The FAA can't regulate and supply them sense or intelligence.

Technical solution would be jamming the controls frequencies to keep them out.

Exactly

The problem is with the whole thought process from the beginning. We assume that there will be a problem based on some hypothetical, then the answer is for the government create a big bureaucracy to track every one involved.

Not only is this philosophically inconsistent with a free country it is inconsistent with sound science. On top of this all, the money wasted on the big bureaucracy could be spent much better on technical solutions and on proper understanding of the property rights involved

Are there any known incidents of a plane being damaged from 'drone' impact, or any crashes attributed to 'drone strikes'?
I sure haven't heard of one yet. But it seems that anything new, the bureaucracy does a mad search to find a reason to regulate, license, and get fees. I just don't know how I've managed to remain alive all the years I have without gov't taking full control of my life.

Which brought it down.

Flesh and hollow bone is going to be easier for the engine to survive than metal pieces of a drone.

The US Airways Flight 1549 that landed in the Hudson took up 'multiple birds' in both engines. The Canadian Geese weigh 5-10 lbs each.

According to the CNN article "The plane's CFM56-5B/P turbofan engines were certified in 1996 as being able to withstand bird ingestion of 4 pounds."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/huds...

Good point

Lots of factors in that question. Ingesting a drone into a jet intake is not a desirable thing. It doesn't take much to imbalance blades and the engine self destructs at that point.

Or are they registering, as they wish to register all firearms, a potential challenge to the supremacy of the unconstitutional federal police by future defenders of individual liberty?

The atrophy of the skill sets around the country to maintain or upgrade existing infrastructure is already decreasing safety. Bridge closures or collapses from inadequate maintenance for example.

Interesting point.

Safety is always the excuse. In the long run (10 years) the lack of technological progress results in less safety, not more

We've had a number of incidents where firefighting planes have stopped dropping water because there were drones in the area.

I wonder how dangerous drones are to aircraft?

The word 'drone' covers everything from the 2 oz drone charging on my USB port to military drones weighing in excess of a ton.

.55 pounds is pretty light. I'm sure hitting birds is more dangerous. Are they freaking out over nothing or is there a real danger -- and at what weight?

Government agencies cripple or kill everything they touch. Inventions are one of the major casualties.

Wait!
Aren't drones included as arms under the 2nd amendment?