Drones Over Ellijay
School Teacher

Ellijay, GA

#61 Apr 23, 2013
They're on their last terms drone or no drone.
Woodsy

Ellijay, GA

#62 Apr 24, 2013
Someone stole my earlier screen name (Doc) and isn't the same Doc who had posted earlier. I guess I'll have to think up a bunch of new names to thwart the thieves who obviously lurk on this thread.

Just a comment about drones, though: I'm opposed to using them anywhere in the US. However, we in Gilmer County have no control over that. I'm not even sure that Florida, or the other states that have banned drones have any power to enforce those bans. That doesn't really matter.

Regardless of what our Board of Commissioners does, experimental drones are going to be flying over Gilmer County. That's simple fact. If they're not based in Gilmer County, Ga Tech has said their next choice is Paulding. Even if they're based in Paulding County, though, they'll be flying over Gilmer. We can't stop that. So why should we cede $500 a day, plus hotel, restaurant, and other income to Paulding, while we get absolutely nothing for doing so?
JT Badass

Ellijay, GA

#63 Apr 24, 2013
Woodsy wrote:
Someone stole my earlier screen name (Doc) and isn't the same Doc who had posted earlier. I guess I'll have to think up a bunch of new names to thwart the thieves who obviously lurk on this thread.
Just a comment about drones, though: I'm opposed to using them anywhere in the US. However, we in Gilmer County have no control over that. I'm not even sure that Florida, or the other states that have banned drones have any power to enforce those bans. That doesn't really matter.
Regardless of what our Board of Commissioners does, experimental drones are going to be flying over Gilmer County. That's simple fact. If they're not based in Gilmer County, Ga Tech has said their next choice is Paulding. Even if they're based in Paulding County, though, they'll be flying over Gilmer. We can't stop that. So why should we cede $500 a day, plus hotel, restaurant, and other income to Paulding, while we get absolutely nothing for doing so?
If you had a clue as to what you think you are talking about you would know these drones dont have the range to fly from Paulding to Gilmer. They are line of sight only....Geez...another moron. Hope you dont vote and cant reproduce.
CRR Resident

Ellijay, GA

#64 Apr 25, 2013
Woodsy wrote:
So why should we cede $500 a day, plus hotel, restaurant, and other income to Paulding, while we get absolutely nothing for doing so?
If the test flights are out of Paulding, then the crashes won't be setting CRR or the rest of the county on fire. I don't want them gambling the lives and homes of thousands of people for $500.
Jason Turner

Ellijay, GA

#65 Apr 25, 2013
JT Badass wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had a clue as to what you think you are talking about you would know these drones dont have the range to fly from Paulding to Gilmer. They are line of sight only....Geez...another moron. Hope you dont vote and cant reproduce.
I'll call you out on this one and be the very first to let you know that you are wrong. They are only using "line of sight" during the test phase. Why they need to test these, that question is debatable. However, back to your original statement...

These UAVs were used as our aerial reconnaissance vehicles by First Cav at Camp Taji, Iraq. Ground Base launches the UAV and it is flown to the nearest "link" on the ground. Once a link is established, the vehicle is then turned over to the unit on the ground. Once the vehicle reaches altitude, 7,000ft+, with a wingspan of 14 to 17 feet and only weighing just over 200lbs, the engines can be shut off or idled for a period of time to slow the consumption of fuel.

If and when the RQ-7 Shadow 200 (which is an exact replica of the UAV they are wanting to use) needs to be refueled, a catch net can be slung between two vehicles to retrieve it. It DOES NOT need a runway to launch. This can be conducted by a towed launch catapult. Data Link (satcom) can be used to establish communication with this vehicle, if needed, to fly over extended range.

So, before you start degrading people about their knowledge of this particular vehicle, please make sure you know exactly what you are talking about. It does nothing to help your case when you ridicule, it only makes you look ridiculous in the process.
LT Badass

Ellijay, GA

#66 Apr 25, 2013
Jason Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll call you out on this one and be the very first to let you know that you are wrong. They are only using "line of sight" during the test phase. Why they need to test these, that question is debatable. However, back to your original statement...
These UAVs were used as our aerial reconnaissance vehicles by First Cav at Camp Taji, Iraq. Ground Base launches the UAV and it is flown to the nearest "link" on the ground. Once a link is established, the vehicle is then turned over to the unit on the ground. Once the vehicle reaches altitude, 7,000ft+, with a wingspan of 14 to 17 feet and only weighing just over 200lbs, the engines can be shut off or idled for a period of time to slow the consumption of fuel.
If and when the RQ-7 Shadow 200 (which is an exact replica of the UAV they are wanting to use) needs to be refueled, a catch net can be slung between two vehicles to retrieve it. It DOES NOT need a runway to launch. This can be conducted by a towed launch catapult. Data Link (satcom) can be used to establish communication with this vehicle, if needed, to fly over extended range.
So, before you start degrading people about their knowledge of this particular vehicle, please make sure you know exactly what you are talking about. It does nothing to help your case when you ridicule, it only makes you look ridiculous in the process.
My apologies Mr. Turner. Let the drones begin!
Woodsy

Ellijay, GA

#67 May 5, 2013
Jason Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll call you out on this one and be the very first to let you know that you are wrong. They are only using "line of sight" during the test phase. Why they need to test these, that question is debatable. However, back to your original statement...
These UAVs were used as our aerial reconnaissance vehicles by First Cav at Camp Taji, Iraq. Ground Base launches the UAV and it is flown to the nearest "link" on the ground. Once a link is established, the vehicle is then turned over to the unit on the ground. Once the vehicle reaches altitude, 7,000ft+, with a wingspan of 14 to 17 feet and only weighing just over 200lbs, the engines can be shut off or idled for a period of time to slow the consumption of fuel.
If and when the RQ-7 Shadow 200 (which is an exact replica of the UAV they are wanting to use) needs to be refueled, a catch net can be slung between two vehicles to retrieve it. It DOES NOT need a runway to launch. This can be conducted by a towed launch catapult. Data Link (satcom) can be used to establish communication with this vehicle, if needed, to fly over extended range.
So, before you start degrading people about their knowledge of this particular vehicle, please make sure you know exactly what you are talking about. It does nothing to help your case when you ridicule, it only makes you look ridiculous in the process.
Excellent post, pointing out that some people don't know what they're talking about.

Forgetting about the refeuling capability, It's about sixty miles straight line from Dallas, the seat and roughly center of Paulding County, to Ellijay, the seat and roughly center of Gilmer County. The range of these drones, without refueling, is about 8o miles; so it would probably be impractical to use them over Gilmer from Paulding (but not impossible). I used Paulding as an example, though, because I understand that's GT's next choice, not the only one. They could base them in Pickens or Cherokee, too, and make Gilmer an even better test area. I really think they want to test them over Gilmer because of the terrain, and they're going to find a place to base them that lets them do that.

As an aside, drones have been flying over Gilmer already, for several years. Twice a year there's a ground-controlled model airplane competition featuring Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's), which is what drones are, at the Gilmer County airport. While these drones are much smaller than the ones GT plans to test here, they're drones nevertheless, and they could be fitted with surveillance technology of the type that folks seem to be scared of.

There's an old saw about attacks on women that I won't repeat here, but it still applies. Why should we let some other county benefit from this testing when we have no choice but to accept it?
LT Badass

Ellijay, GA

#68 May 5, 2013
Woodsy wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post, pointing out that some people don't know what they're talking about.
Forgetting about the refeuling capability, It's about sixty miles straight line from Dallas, the seat and roughly center of Paulding County, to Ellijay, the seat and roughly center of Gilmer County. The range of these drones, without refueling, is about 8o miles; so it would probably be impractical to use them over Gilmer from Paulding (but not impossible). I used Paulding as an example, though, because I understand that's GT's next choice, not the only one. They could base them in Pickens or Cherokee, too, and make Gilmer an even better test area. I really think they want to test them over Gilmer because of the terrain, and they're going to find a place to base them that lets them do that.
As an aside, drones have been flying over Gilmer already, for several years. Twice a year there's a ground-controlled model airplane competition featuring Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's), which is what drones are, at the Gilmer County airport. While these drones are much smaller than the ones GT plans to test here, they're drones nevertheless, and they could be fitted with surveillance technology of the type that folks seem to be scared of.
There's an old saw about attacks on women that I won't repeat here, but it still applies. Why should we let some other county benefit from this testing when we have no choice but to accept it?

Wrong again Doc! FAA does not allow radio control at Gilmer airport. Those UAVs are tethered!
GeorgeShaffer

Ellijay, GA

#69 May 5, 2013
Richard Nobel wrote:
The Gilmer County Tea Party attended the Board of Commissioners meeting last night. About 35 in attendance. A couple of people where missing, Jack Smith, Joyce Smith, Jerry Tuso, Don Murray and the list goes on. Jack Smith supports the Drones and plans to run for office (Chairman Commissioner) and did not want to be seen with the fringe right. Smith only preaches against agenda 21 when its to his advantage. He has betrayed the Tea Party. The Tea Party has a decision to make. Trust Mr. Smith? How can they? Why should they?
I would like to repeat here that I have personally resigned from the Gilmer County Tea Party.

Though there are many fine people within in the ranks of the Gilmer Tea Party,,, some I call friends and probably most I will agree with politically , most of the time in Generala the Gilmer Tea Party is too Liberal and not focused enough on local issues for my interest.

As far as the local GOP Way too far to the left and supporting of good ole boy politics for me....
Realist

Orlando, FL

#70 May 5, 2013
LT Badass wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Doc! FAA does not allow radio control at Gilmer airport. Those UAVs are tethered!
Should drones be authorized to fly out of Ellijay for test purposes the FAA will modify flight policy/procedures for the airport.
political quicksand

Ellijay, GA

#71 May 6, 2013
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>
Should drones be authorized to fly out of Ellijay for test purposes the FAA will modify flight policy/procedures for the airport.
After reading a certain letter to the editor this week, it looks like the drones will be flying over a county other than Gilmer. The average people of this county are virtually united on their opposition to drones and some are quite perturbed about it.
Woodsy

Ellijay, GA

#72 May 7, 2013
LT Badass wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Doc! FAA does not allow radio control at Gilmer airport. Those UAVs are tethered!
They may be tethered, but they're still radio controlled, and they're still drones, flying over Gilmer County.

And, the million dollar question -- who controls Gilmer County airspace? Certainly not Gilmer County.
Woodsy

Ellijay, GA

#73 May 7, 2013
GeorgeShaffer wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to repeat here that I have personally resigned from the Gilmer County Tea Party.
Though there are many fine people within in the ranks of the Gilmer Tea Party,,, some I call friends and probably most I will agree with politically , most of the time in Generala the Gilmer Tea Party is too Liberal and not focused enough on local issues for my interest.
As far as the local GOP Way too far to the left and supporting of good ole boy politics for me....
Can you be more specific about the Gilmer GOP being far too liberal? The stuff I've seen from it's past Chairman has been about as far right as you can get.
Drone Article

Ellijay, GA

#75 May 7, 2013
There's a very informative article on drones named, "The Drones Come Home" in the March 2013 issue of the National Geographic Magazine.

Get a copy and read it Gilmer County to get educated.

Give a copy to JC since he doesn't use computers, then after he reads it, ask him to make an educated decision.
Animal

Ellijay, GA

#76 May 7, 2013
Woodsy wrote:
<quoted text>
They may be tethered, but they're still radio controlled, and they're still drones, flying over Gilmer County.
And, the million dollar question -- who controls Gilmer County airspace? Certainly not Gilmer County.
I guess you aint quit drinkin have you Doc. Let me explain. "tethered" means they are controlled by cables that a person on the ground controls. Just like we had when we was kids. I watched them last year and this year both. There is nothin "radio control" about them. I have a radio controlled airplane but was told The FAA would not allow me to fly iy at an airport. They control the airspace and radio bands at any airport. Put them pills away and climb out of that bottle so you can make sense again.
Joene

Ellijay, GA

#77 May 8, 2013
The Drone issue is dead, at least for now. J.C. just read a letter at the Special Called Meeting this afternoon from GTRI (the company he sent the letter of interest to) that they "have elected to suspend any plans to fly at the Gilmer County Airport at this time."

Should another entity wish to pursue this they would have to make a new request.

Thank you everyone that worked hard to make this happen.
Harry Cary

Ellijay, GA

#78 May 8, 2013
All of us Rednecks will drag out our "AR-15's" and shoot those suckers down! HA!

Since: Aug 12

Hartwell, GA

#79 May 10, 2013
i believe there is a rabbit hole located somewhere in the north georgia mountains.
Jason Turner

Ellijay, GA

#80 May 16, 2013
CSX wrote:
<quoted text>
At least JC and Danny are trying to bring some revenue to the County. Bell has always been against everything.If he has his way Gilmer will shrivel up and die. Jack Smith, Gilmers most patriotic citizen ( and I hope next Chairman) carefully screened and approved of the testing. Thats good enough for me.
Wait, what revenue are you speaking of here? Do you know ANYTHING about that whole drone thing? According to the video/voice recordings that I obtained when I sat in on a private meeting that had taken place between Danny and randy with Steve Justice, from his own mouth there is absolutely NO money involved with this, other than the $500.00 per day that they intend to pay upon using our airport. That would have accumulated approx $4,500. If you call that revenue, we have major problems.

Jack Smith was one of the 5 men that brought this to our county. if you know ANYTHING about this whole issue, you would know that this is an OBAMA issue. He was the man that set this thing into motion under the National defense Authorization Act and the FAA remodernization and reform Act of 2012: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6...

If you ask me, this only strengthens the fact that your dearly beloved Jack isn't who you think of him to be. He preaches on a daily about how BHO should be impeached, yet according to the paper sent to the BOC, "The Gilmer County Airport Advisory Board enthusiastically and unanimously recommends that the request for UAS operations by GTRI be approved and that the Airport Manager (Jim Smith) be directed to execute a Letter of Agreement for UAS Operations with GTRI. A timely execution of this document in order to have it in place prior to the March 28, 2013 submission deadline would be beneficial."

Let that sink in just a minute. The AAB wanted the BOC to give Jim Smith,the authority to execute a letter of agreement with GTRI. Paul Layman, Jack Smith, Michael Jones, Robert Mosley and John Harrison were the five individual's, according to Jack Smith, who gave this very wonderful recommendation to the BOC.

"The Advisory Board further recommends that the Gilmer County BOC issue a letter of support to the FAA and GDOT indicating our willingness and enthusiasm to participate in the UAS Test Site program."

Does this sound to you like ANY of these men ever had ANY intentions of not supporting this program? Any freedom loving Constitutionalist would see this and throw up red flags and protest this from the beginning. Did that happen? Absolutely not. Had it not been for six patriots, ALL from the Gilmer County Tea Party, that showed up to the specially called meeting the next day, this thing would already be here.

I am attaching, just for you, the link to the almost 2 hours of audio/video footage that I acquired personally from the, what was supposed to be "Private meeting". I hope that you will listen to the WHOLE thing and the questions that were presented at the end. You are going to hear some VERY damning information in there that would have never left the confines of the Airport, had it not been for the few patriots that ultimately stopped this. I will also, in another comment, leave you with a "note" that I left Jack Smith in a conversation with him that ultimately got deleted as soon as it hit his Facebook status that we were engaged in.

Commissioner Hall with Steve Justice
https://vimeo.com/64636069

Commissioner Randy Bell with Steve Justice
https://vimeo.com/64638500
Jason Turner

Ellijay, GA

#81 May 16, 2013
Here are two excerpts from that conversation between myself and Jack Smith.

Jack Smith: I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not been a back channel messenger to the BOC. If you have a problem with me, either meet me & discuss or call me and discuss. I have no idea what your problem is. I have no authority in this, nor do I speak for the parties you refer to. There were 5 members of the Advisory Board, Paul Layman, Robert Moseley, Mike Jones, John Harrison & me. Since I have left the Board, the remaining 4 have indicated full support for the program, pending investigation with other airports where this is being done. I think you need to concentrate your efforts on those that make the decisions, the BOC. As I stated earlier, I think it is currently a moot issue. There is nothing on the table that I know of. I also want to make it clear. The technology to violate our 4th Amendment rights already exists. At no time was I or would I be in favor of violating any rights. I am also smart enough to know that there will be good and or bad uses of the unmanned aircraft and the technology that evolves. I also know that they cannot operate in the national airspace without a Certificate of Authorization from the FAA, which does not exist at present. The testing program that was presented was to assist in learning how unmanned aircraft could be integrated into the system. Although you and others may feel I had an obligation to publicly announce that there was a presentation made to the Advisory Board, I had no such obligation. The Advisory Board meetings are open to the public. The Tea Party Board was informed.

I will have to post my response into yet another "reply" seeing as how it will not allow me to post more than 4,000 characters...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dawsonville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
wtb a campground lot in coosawattee river resort (Jun '15) Mon VET Protector 136
gay cruising at 515 scenic overlook (Aug '12) Nov 19 Gilmersucks 104
Emergency Room Fiasco/Gilmer Nov 16 Pedro the American 21
Senior School Tax Exemption in Pickens County Nov 13 Tax Man 3
swingers (Dec '12) Nov 10 Interested Party 19
Ellijay Swingers (Nov '09) Nov 10 Interested Party 61
Leadership Nov 9 Not so Stupid 7

Dawsonville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dawsonville Mortgages