back to article Alabama quadchopper hits THREE THOUSAND FEET next to AIRPORT

An Alabama UAV enthusiast has been told by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to steer clear of airports after he sent a quadcopter up to 1,100m (3,609 feet) within five miles of Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport (BHM). Michael Mayhew posted an impressive video of the DJI Phantom 2 flight on YouTube, and …

  1. corestore

    From the link you cite:

    "There is currently a rulemaking proceeding that aims to improve the regulations on UAVs. It will take a while; indeed, you shouldn't hope for anything before 2010-2012. "

    In other words is waaaaaay out of date.

    Since then there's been a court case which proved the FAA's purported rules about UAV operations aren't worth the paper they (aren't) printed on; they don't exist. So as of now there ARE no rules affecting UAV operations in the USA; until the FAA get their arses into gear and go through the notice-and-comment rule making procedure, both amateur and commercial UAV/drone use is legal and unregulated in the USA.

    1. tomban

      Yes, IANAL but the FAA rules appear to be guidlines and not actual laws.

      Although it changes as soon as you start charging money for it, and exacltly the same model becomes an aircraft.

      Also it would appear they want to ban FPV goggles.

      http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/faa-issues-notice-clarifying-legal-model-aircraft-use

      Interestingly, even though the drone was in class B airspace, the airport didn't detect it, are they too small for radar?

      Also, I would just like to add that this was a foolish thing to do near an airport and it's people like this with DJI Phantoms (search Phantom Flyaway) that will get the hobby banned for the rest of us.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Sure a small drone is too small for a primary radar, and having no transponder can't be seen from any secondary one. Flying so close to Class B airspace is foolish, and sometimes even if there is not a specific rule to deny something, common sense should be used. The idea "I'll do it because now I can, even if it looks stupid" is what is turning the actual world in a planet of morons...

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Dutch Coward

        Re: @corestore

        "This is why the UK has resisted having a written Constitution, by the way; obsolescence due to changing circumstances."

        I strongly suspect that is not the (only) reason. Other countries with written constitutions even manage to update the things, you know...

        (Not that ours is worth the paper it's printed on as citizens can't refer to it when they claim rights violations - instead they have to use e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights)

        1. Avatar of They
          Happy

          Re: @corestore

          I think it more the amount of red tape to update in the US to update constantly, far too much red tape and arguing lawyers with 52 states all arguing their own bias to make the law favourable. (like teaching AIDS awareness or gay rights or creationism)

          In the UK people claim human rights, but they abuse the system and claim for lots that are nothing to do with human rights violations.

          Don't fall into blaming Europe for laws we adopted (from the courts of human rights via Winston Churchill) before hand but paranoid media have scapegoated back onto Europe.

          1. Hud Dunlap

            Re: @avatar of they

            52 states?

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Re: @corestore

        A written constitution?

        We want to prevent "obsolescence due to changing circumstances", sir.

        There is a cattle truck waiting for you, sir. Yes, the circumstances changed. Again. Sorry about that.

        What's that you are showing me here? A musquet? How utterly quaint.

        Right, take him away boys.

      3. Someone Else Silver badge
        Pint

        @ Arnaut the less -- Re: @corestore

        The simple fact is that the present US government would not introduce driving licences if they did not already exist, on the basis that it might restrict the sales of cars.

        +5 Insightful. Have an upvote!

      4. YetAnotherLocksmith Silver badge

        Re: @corestore

        Arnaut, we do have one. The Bill of Rights.

        However, the government(s) has basically ignored it and overwritten it for so long that it is pretty much worthless.

        The 'merkins have at least got that bit right - if you don't defend your rights they rapidly become nothing but forgotten words on paper.

        Oh, and the US Constitution was modelled on our Bill of Rights. It's just the citizens there kept it alive.

  2. auburnman

    I wonder what flying your drone through a firework display does to your insurance premium?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Ask Admiral Adama!

    2. frank ly

      He might have used a telephoto lens. I would.

      1. Steve Evans

        Not a telephoto... He turns round in the middle of the display at one point!

        It's an amazing bit of footage, and it would be a pity if such filming is forbidden, by definition, the firework display is clear of people (this one over a river I believe), so even if it did catch a bit of flack and go down, it should do little more than make a splash.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
          Happy

          so even if it did catch a bit of flack and go down, it should do little more than make a splash.

          You heartless bastard! Have you no regard for the safety of Playmonauts?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Steve Evans

          The fireworks may be clear of spectators, but what about the people operating them? Or the fireworks themselves? If a UAV takes a hit from a firework and goes down, odds are it crashes harmlessly, but those odds are far from 100%.

          1. Martin Budden Silver badge

            Re: @Steve Evans

            If a UAV takes a hit from a firework and goes down, odds are it crashes harmlessly, but those odds are far from 100%.

            This firework display was over a huge area of water, so the odds of any quadcopter crash being harmless on this occasion were very close to 100%.

          2. JoshOvki

            Re: @Steve Evans

            I imagine with a firework display like that the people operating them will be sat far away in a tin shed pressing a button.

          3. Joe 35

            Re: @Steve Evans

            If a UAV takes a hit from a firework and goes down, odds are it crashes harmlessly, but those odds are far from 100%

            =======

            It could crash anyway, irrespective of fireworks.

    3. DropBear
      Devil

      Not sure, but I believe that a bunch of 3D-cinema execs are tearing out their hair right now for not having thought of filming that first. I mean, that's pure 3D gold! Probably the first thing I've seen to actually justify putting on those 3D glasses.

  3. D@v3

    at what point does a model aircraft become a UAV?

    1. Lester Haines (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

      Fair point. I'd suggest an autopilot is a factor.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        But what...

        is an autopilot? 3-dof leveling, 6-dof stabilisation, altitude hold, speed hold, gps guidance, enroute reprogrammable?

      2. John Bailey

        Nope.. Autopilots have been available for remote controlled aircraft for ages.

        And radio controlled aircraft are not necessarily fragile balsa wood and tissue paper things. If they were, the jet engine models wouldn’t survive take off.

        Main difference as far as I can see is UAV sounds far more menacing than toy helicopter, in a story about a bloke being stupid enough to fly a toy helicopter near an airport.

    2. Anonymous Blowhard

      "at what point does a model aircraft become a UAV?"

      When you're explaining to your friends in a way that makes it seem cooler?

    3. chris lively

      A model aircraft (or remote controlled aircraft ) is immediately promoted to being a UAV when one of the following occur:

      1. It is noticed by law enforcement or any other government agency.

      2. It is noticed by the media.

    4. Stevie

      at what point does a model aircraft become a UAV?

      In the UK during the 70s anything with a wing span over 11 feet was considered a light aircraft and subject to all regulations for same.

  4. Anomalous Cowturd
    Thumb Up

    Pah, I have a screensaver that looks like that!

    GL Skyrocket.

    The video is actually pretty good...

  5. zaax

    LOHAN goes higher than that

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      But Lohan does it with the knowledge and approval of the relevant authorities.

      1. Preston Munchensonton
        Big Brother

        You mean they take time between their drunken stupors and cronyist griftings to worry about things like quadacopters and model rockets? Who knew the day was long enough...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          No, more like they HAVEN'T is the reason that the regulations haven't been done.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    UAV's : bigger threat to planes than carry-on kit?

    I have a distinct feeling that the US will soon be deploying Ack-Ack batteries around every airport just in case some idiot tries to fly one of these into the patch of a passenger jet.

    Add a bit of Explosive (all those unused 4th July Fireworks would do) and boom.

    no risk to the bad guys either. They can be miles away.

    One more reason (if it were needed) not to fly to the US unless you really have to.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: UAV's : bigger threat to planes than carry-on kit?

      It might be difficult to actually pull off.

      Large airliners are fast and have messy air movements all around them.

      An accident, being random, is far more likely.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: UAV's : bigger threat to planes than carry-on kit?

        What about Bird Strikes?

        I've seen one take down a Jet. At Dunsfold in Nov 1975 a Hawker P125 took off at dusk and ran into a flock. Both engines flames out and the plane bellyflopped over the peri-fence, over the A281 and ended up in the field beyond.

        http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt3/pt3HS125crash75.html

        A UAV being sucked into an engine just as the plane rotates is not something I'd want to happen.

        1. cordwainer 1

          Bird strikes have more recently taken down large passenger jets...

          The best known example being the "Miracle on the Hudson" five years ago, where US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines to Canadian geese, and ditched in the Hudson River.

          One study from 1999 estimated bird strikes cause $1.2 Billon (US) damage annually worldwide, to commercial jets alone (i.e., not including private, military, or other aircraft).

          Deaths are rarer, but they happen, by FAA estimates at least 200 since 1988.

          Airports can to some extent keep birds away. A number of methods have been successful in reducing large flocks around most major airfields.

          But a drone, or a model airplane, will not be frightened away by those measures, and either is harder for a pilot to see than even a single flapping bird.

          Anyone who flies ANY aircraft into commercial airspace without notice - remote controlled or otherwise, and regardless of size - is an irresponsible idiot.

      2. Cynic_999

        Re: UAV's : bigger threat to planes than carry-on kit?

        An accident is also extremely unlikely, given the volume of air occupied by the quad and the aircraft compared with the volume of air available to each. A collision by pure chance alone is probably less likely than winning the lottery - added to which the operator no doubt wants to avoid a collision and so would immediately descend should they see any aircraft in the area.

    2. Anonymous IV
      Black Helicopters

      Re: UAV's : bigger threat to planes than carry-on kit?

      > I have a distinct feeling that the US will soon be deploying Ack-Ack batteries around every airport just in case some idiot tries to fly one of these into the patch of a passenger jet.

      Ack-Ack batteries to shoot down a quadcopter? Isn't that what cruise missiles were invented for?

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: UAV's : bigger threat to planes than carry-on kit?

        Isn't that what cruise missiles were invented for?

        What? No. These are not meant to intercept flying targets. Initially it was a stealthy, ground-hugging transporter for nuclear warheads - you know, go deep into Soviet territory for some action, possibly underneath radar (Risks of first-strike weapon? You bet! But it was mainly to keep the air force and its bombers, which had become a bit too obsolete, relevant).

        When production became "cheap enough" in th early 90's, they got fitted with conventional warheads as needed. ("Needed" meaning: a politician needed to blow his load to show "resolve" but did not want to take the ugly decision to put "boots on the ground"; upon which there was much rejoicing ~~yeaaahhh~~)

  7. Avatar of They
    Facepalm

    Shocked FAA haven't been all over this or at leat updated their laws.

    I think laws and FAA rules aside, when one gets sucked through the engine or bounces off a commercial aircraft things will be very messy, very quickly for the operator.

    Some law somewhere will be stuck to them with a nail gun. Probably public endangerment would apply or attempted murder if they can prove it. (or in anyway apply the terrorism laws)

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: Shocked FAA haven't been all over this or at leat updated their laws.

      "Some law somewhere will be stuck to them with a nail gun."

      Here in Australia, that would be the charge of "interfering with the operation of an aircraft", the same offence they slap the idiots who shine laser pointers at planes with. It's a terrorism-related offence, so getting slapped with that means you are in some very, very deep doo-doo.

  8. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Flame

    The thing is...

    all the air usage laws, UK or US and elsewhere, are nominally for the safety of people flying. It's why you *don't* fly into an ATZ without permission from ATC; why you don't fly on instruments unqualified; why certain airspace is zoned to exclude e.g. my paraglider.

    Pilots can on the whole be expected to be doing certain things in certain circumstances, to respect the rights of way of other aircraft, to maintain clearances and suchlike. A major reason that they do that is that if they don't, there's a good chance of it being fatal.

    That simply does not apply in the case a remote piloted vehicle; the pilot's biggest risk is loss of his machine. These things terrify me; bad enough flying into a bird (I've done it; it's painful) but meeting one of these at three thousand feet? No thanks...

    They're no doubt huge fun but they're potentially lethal.

    1. Bob Wheeler

      @ Neil Barnes Re: The thing is...

      Spot on. My understanding of the CAA/FAA etc to provide the saftey for different types of use of Airspace, whether your in A380, a vintage Tiger Moth, your paraglider, hot air ballon etc.

      The type of airspace, ATZ's, air corridoors, NOTAM's all allow, (or at least shold allow) everyone to do their thing without endangering anyone else.

      I would have thought, that these things would be covered the same way as any other Radio Controllered Model, sure they may have more 'smarts' built in then the old RC models, but they are still RC craft.

      This numpty taking to 3,000FT close to a commerical airport is just plain mad.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ Neil Barnes The thing is...

        Plain mad? or plane mad?

        Coat...

        PS. Hitting one of these should be worse than a bird, because a bird doesn't have a set of heavy, dense metallic batteries somewhere in its structure.

        1. Alan Edwards

          Re: @ Neil Barnes The thing is...

          > Hitting one of these should be worse than a bird,

          The body of a bird is solid, especially when you hit one at silly-MPH. A drone will mostly disintegrate, as it's all light plastic - a reviewer killed a DJI Phantom by flying it into a tree.

          It was a bird strike to both engines that downed the airliner that landed in the Hudson, and four geese went through the windscreen of a Pave Hawk flying low over a marsh causing it to crash and kill all on board.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ Neil Barnes The thing is...

            "The body of a bird is solid, especially when you hit one at silly-MPH" er, no. Search youtube for 737 turbines tests with bird flesh. The turbines get mostly just smeared. Actually, the safest place where a bird that size could hit a plane would be one turbine; even if it seizes, most passenger aircraft has at least two. The snag was exactly hitting a whole flock.

            Well, flying a drone into a tree, it can't fly at silly-mph, can it?

            Exactly the point of the batteries is the concern, everything else has not much mass about it and would vaporize. But NOT the batteries, those would cause a shotgun-size hole on any aircraft's skin, again flying at silly-MPH. Specially if it is not made of several cells, that are literally silvertaped together and tend to be sturdy enough to hold lithium cells. How large are they, 40mm in at least one dimension? Anti-aircraft shells have that size.

            Time to call Mythbusters.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Typical

    This should be a wake up notice that as usual we have people with no respect for law and other people's safety. It's sad that we live in a world full of arse clowns.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: Typical

      This is no way to talk about duly elected politicians!

  10. imanidiot Silver badge

    I've posted a rant here before

    so I'll just keep it short.

    I'm a pilot. I have a piece of paper that shows I know airspace structures and where I can and cannot operate an air vehicle.

    Anyone operating anything (remote or otherwise) over 200 feet altitude (I think 400 is WAY too generous already) should IMHO be able to show a similar piece of paper.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: I've posted a rant here before

      I think the rules in France at pretty stringent, and for my dinky little helicopter (I'd like a quad) I would really prefer to keep it where I can clearly see it.

      To add to this, military jets often test drive around this patch of sky. The thing would be a burning wreck in the field long before a model plane operator even had a chance to register the military aircraft's presence, never mind drop out of the way.

      So, upvote for you sir. Model aircraft can be lots of fun, but if somebody is going to be an asshat about it, they'll make the rest of us look like asshats too. I agree - if a person is going to fly out of what is considered reasonable for a model, they ought to have a piece of paper to demonstate a lack of asshattery, and another piece of paper providing the relevant permissions.

    2. chris lively

      Re: I've posted a rant here before

      I'd take a slightly different tact.

      1. Maximum allowed ceiling of 200 feet while within a 1 mile radius of any airport.

      2. Maximum allowed ceiling of 400 feet while operating within normal air traffic lanes.

      3. Maximum allowed ceiling of 1000 feet everywhere else unless a flight plan is filed with the FAA.

      4. Anything capable of flying above 400 feet must be registered with the FAA and include an active flight transponder and GPS system. A fail safe system must be built into it to allow tracking in the event of a crash.

      1. Cynic_999

        Re: I've posted a rant here before

        Anything *capable* of flying higher than 400 feet must be registered? Pretty much all model aircraft are capable of that - and so are kites and toy balloons. There are no IFF transponders available that could be carried & powered by any reasonably sized model. Does "any airport" include small GA airports, ad-hoc heliports and farm strips (which the UAV pilot will not necessarily know about)?

    3. Cynic_999

      Re: I've posted a rant here before

      Why is 400 feet too generous? As a qualified pilot you surely know that you mustn't fly within 500 feet of any person or structure on the ground without explicit permission (except in the immediate vicinity of your landing/takeoff area of course). If you choose to fly lower than 500 feet (over deserted fields or the sea for example, which is legal), you take your chances. I once nearly collided with a kite being flown on the approach to an airstrip.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: I've posted a rant here before

        @Chris lively, I'd agree with you except for the simple fact that anyone who doesn't know airspace structures would also not know where airlanes and airports are. (Not to mention the existence of low-flying transit routes for military jets, forbidden airspaces, etc)

        @Cynic_999, basically the same region. Anyone who doesn't know airspace won't know where those takeoff/landing areas are. Thus they shouldn't be flying that high. (Add to that the fact there is VERY little reason for a normal powered model to go that high. I can understand a larger span glider model getting extra altitude, but I would like the pilot to know where he is flying with regards to other traffic.

        1. cordwainer 1

          Then they need to LEARN where air lanes and airports are...

          BEFORE they start flying anything around willy-nilly. For heavens sake: airspace maps are public and posted online in numerous locations. Or there are remote aircraft clubs that help educate users, and for the most part encourage responsibility, as well as choosing safe places to fly.

          Drone users should do likewise. If they can't be bothered, or are too stupid to realize such things as restricted airspace even exist, then I've no sympathy if they have the book thrown at them by every relevant regulatory agency out there.

    4. usbac Silver badge

      Re: I've posted a rant here before

      Have another up-vote from a fellow pilot!

      I agree with you completely.

  11. Speltier

    Paupers

    Only a pauper who isn't averse to rubbing cheeks with bubba should fly over 100M or maybe even 50M.

    Fail, crash into windshield of moving car, mom is dead and children are paralyzed. Instant bankruptcy (and read your EULA for the drone/uav/whatever... right) and years being dragged through criminal court even if one gets let loose with "time served" or less.

  12. Stevie

    Bah!

    So, who do the family sue when Mr Fucktard flies his hobby chopper into the path of an actual aircraft and brings it down in flames?

    At the very least these things need to have one of those octagonal vane-prism things mounted on them so they make a decent blip on radar so ATC can see them.

    1. Magani
      Boffin

      Re: Bah!

      @Stevie

      "At the very least these things need to have one of those octagonal vane-prism things mounted on them so they make a decent blip on radar so ATC can see them."

      I suggest you do a bit of research into the differences between primary and secondary radars and their use by ATC before you start offering suggestions. Things have moved on a bit since the Home Chain radar used to spot the Hun forming up over France.

      1. Stevie

        Re: Bah!

        And *I* suggest you take a look at the mast of any working boat, where you will see the very thing I referred to dangling up high where radar can see it even in these days of Wikipedia. Someone should tell those fishermen they are wasting good mast space.

        As the recipient of a number of visits by American pilots in Phantom Jets and one British crew in a Shackelton during my days at the University of East Anglia, who were concerned at what my ten cell Bell Tetrahedron kite might be as it bobbed higher than the legal 200 ft limit on kites in the air over Earlham Great Park, I can say with some firsthand authority that ATC radar could spot the shape from miles away even when it's made of plastic sheet and styrene rods as recently as 1977.

        The shape is resonant and shows as a much bigger blob on the screen because of all those sharp inside angles. At least, that's what the radar specialist I asked told me.

        And I believe him rather than some guy off the interwebs every day of the week, though I suppose it's possible the laws of physics changed in the intervening years.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This has been brought up a few times in the "rc community"; most people that fly quads etc are either newbies and shit scared to fly too high, in the foot print of an active airport etc or are experienced enough to know not to do it. The main problem seems to be with people that buy the ready to fly dji or walkera quads. The sort of people that that imagine whipping out their iPhone and using their spy drone to fetch them a beer AKA fucking morons. Here at least (country famous for Godzilla and love hotels) you should have registered to be an RC pilot and paid the 20 quid extra for the 2 years of insurance to cover if you kill anyone with your model... The dji and walkera transmitters are not registered with the right body so when you use them you are not covered by the insurance. Now you would have thought not being able to be insured would put people right off of buying those things here.. Nope.

    I imagine it's pretty much the same everywhere; people interested in flying rc models are registered and covered by their registration body's or club's insurance just in case a kid takes a quad to the face.. and then there are people that have no interest in model flying and instead want a cool gadget that have no idea they should even be insured. If they don't care about what happens when things go wrong then chances are they have no idea or don't care about flying safely... And then puff out their chests and accuse people of being "nerds" when they get called out on the stupid shit they've done and uploaded to YouTube to show their bros.

  14. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Up

    Just for a moment...

    ... ignoring the rights and wrongs of this, that footage from *inside* the fireworks display was bloody impressive!

  15. Gordon 8
    Black Helicopters

    From the RC side of the fence

    I've been learning to fly RC planes in Asia for about 12 months.standards are variable at best some of the pilots scare me.

    I was in the RAF cadets, so have basic understanding of airmanship.It has given me a respect of other flying machines.

    i would have no problem having to pass a basic airmanship exam before flying. i think it should be compulsory, as should some simple transponder on all kit.

  16. dncnvncd

    Sanity and FAA Rules

    There are different rules for each class of airspace. Those flashing red lights and "checkerboards" on high structures mark height for aircraft. Anyone using airspace should at the very least get an FAA airspace map which will show restrictions. As for the "birdseye" view from drones. Those views are attainable from private aircraft. Drones can give a much lower view that are more interesting.

  17. Farnet

    CAA rules and flying

    Firstly I have to say that the guy flying that quadcopter (NOT A DRONE) is an idiot and is not a typical pilot of quadcopters.

    I agree there are some now that have seen how easy it is to fly these quadcopters as they have compass, gps, computer stabilation and even 'return to base' facility if your transmitter runs out of battery, or you fly too far away, and since they are robust and dont break the bank, people just go out and fly them without experience, care or common sense

    I'm from a traditional model helicopter background and these guys are very annoying, and dont understand how dangerous 1.5kg of material at a height can be.

    but that is not why I'm posting here, I just want to make it clear what the rules are in the UK.

    Firstly we have a ceiling of 400ft if you are flying FPV (First person video, ie goggles), but that increases to 1000ft (CAA increased this in April) if you have spotters and they can clearly see the copter whilst you are flying it.

    Also we cannot legally flying within 50 meters (approx 200ft) of a structure or people without prior permission.

    I have spoken to reps In the CAA regarding licensing and becoming properly CAA qualified as I can see that the bad apples will everntually spoil it for everyone, this can be done but at a cost of about £2000.00 for the formal training, qualifications and certifications, so I'd imagine at some point we will be forced down that route to reduce stupidity

    Just don't judge all quadcopter pilots the same, there are some muppets out there, but these devices are are actually bloody good fun and the quality of video is amazing, and I've had a lot of friends ask if I can take aerial shots of their house / street, as well as having a couple of National Heritage sites asking if I would be interested in doing some overhead video of thier land. I have actually been thinking of doing it as a side business but that brings a whole new world of public liability and insurance issues.

  18. JCitizen
    Devil

    When I was a kid..

    I almost shot an Air Guard cargo transport down with a rather large model rocket. The flight was making practice runs over an emergency landing field nearby, and I never knew it was coming - I couldn't hear it because it was flying so low and fast. I was using safety fuse to light the thing off, and I think the pilot was more alarmed than I, because all I could do is stare at the cockpit crew as they went over. The missile almost flew into the intake of an outboard jet. This old aircraft had both prop and jets. Needless to say, I tried to use electric squibs from then on so such an event would be less apt to happen; as if Murphy's law would strike twice - well maybe so!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon