Posted on 08/01/2015 11:31:04 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Everyone is overlooking this paragraph in the article:
'They didn't take the SIM card out of it…but we've got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio.
Just this afternoon, I was driving along a busy street right by the freeway and I saw a big white drone, like this one, hovering over a couple of businesses right next to the street and freeway.
Everyone defending the drone operator on this thread who got his drone shot down will say about the drone I saw today that the pilot wasn't doing anything illegal, but he was.
As I pointed out in earlier posts, flying for hobby or recreation is one thing. Flying for commercial purposes are strictly regulated.
Flying with a camera and transmitter on-board the model aircraft that transmits the video to a ground-based receiver that the operator uses fly the model is called 'first-person video' or FPV for short.
The FAA bans, outright FPV flight, for hobby or commercial model aircraft. The Academy of Model Aeronautics allows it, but the AMA 'rules' are only in place for the purposes of their insurance carrier and carry no legal weight that may be used in lieu of FAA FARs. Even when flown for hobby-related purposes, the drone operator must maintain a safe distance from people and houses.
For hobby-related flight, the pilot-in-command (PIC) of the drone does not need to be a certificated pilot. But, this does not relieve him of the responsibility to operate his model aircraft in a safe manner and flying over people and houses is not operating in a safe manner.
For commercial operations, the PIC needs to be a certificated pilot or needs a waiver issued by the FAA. The drone (UAV) also requires a certificate of airworthiness. (COA) At no time may the drone operator fly outside the visual line of sight (VLOS) and may not operate closer than 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:
A) There are sufficient barriers to protect the persons, vessels, vehicles and structures and if for whatever reason the UAV comes within 500 feet, the PIC is to cease all operations to ensure the safety of all non-participants.
B) The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.
For full details of what is required of commercial UAV operators, here's a link to a letter from the FAA granting permission to Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. (See: Exemption No. 11253, Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2014−0817)
'They didn't take the SIM card out of it…but we've got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio.
Was this responsible operation of the drone or was the pilot being a bonehead?
"...in an effort to spy..." - I totally get your feelings about the matter, but your facts on this case are 100% wrong. The shooter is charged and the telemetry info and video evidence from the drone will be powerful. However, shoot Drones. I don't care.
What? Took you a whole day to get your ‘puter to restart after the wholesale flaming you took.
I’ll be sure to bookmark billybutthead for future ref. Then again you may not be here long enough to post more liberal crap.
This is what you know nothing about: post 35, “I think I’ll pass on giving you the Drone Pilots’ Basic Flight Regs free lecture series seminar.”
Yeah, I'm mostly with you and, unlike most of the other replies I've received, you are thinking it through logically. The facts of the case are being ignored completely and the drone operators were lawful. However, as you likely well know, the idiot schmucks are gonna ruin it for guys like me who took classes and studied the law (Regs, etc).
What he is talking about is: Unmanned Aircraft Systems
What he's ignoring is the basic safety rules for flying radio control model aircraft:
These rules are just for hobby-related flight. If the drone operator was flying commercially, such as taking pictures of his "friend's" house for money, he broke a lot more rules.
Do you know for a fact whether they were flying as a hobby-related activity or commercially?
Oh, so because I didn’t take the time to stop my work at hand and assemble my extensive notes on the subject to share with some presumptuous nitwit like you, I’m “wrong and know nothing”. Ok, you win. Pay yourself a dollar, Cheapskate.
IF the drone owner wanted to take pictures of a friends house but use air space over others property to hover in he should have approached the effected landowners first for permission and explained why. So why didn't he?
I was visiting a cemetery one weekend about 50 acres of land and a drone operator was flying a drone around hovering it in close to the head stones almost at ground level maybe 10 ft up. When anyone approached the area his drone he was flying it in he sent the drone over to the other side away from them.
A few days later I figured it out what was going on. He was a volunteer taking pictures of headstones to put in a website to help families and friends locate loved ones graves in cemeteries or so family can view the stone on line. The reason I knew was because we had left some flowers there and they were in the picture when I looked online a few days later but we were not in the picture. No harm done and it was a public area on state land and the V.A. cemetery administrators permission.
Hovering drones over a persons house without permission isn't wise. It's asking for conflict. It's invading their privacy and private property. At that point the craft is not being used to get from point A to point B nor fly in a traditional hobby craft pattern used for decades. Notice I said "hovering" not flying over and going on. Hobby radio controlled aircraft has been around for decades at least 50 years. But the onboard cameras being used now rightfully have some persons concerned. I don't have to worry about them. Trees would eat them LOL.
Totally 100% agree with you about the clown Pilots out there (making it hard for guys like me who try so hard to follow the laws), but you are wrong in the presumption that a commercial flyer is a “danger to the community without the 333 exemption” etc (the other stuff is another thread, entirely) - and that a hobbyist, by your logic is somehow unrelated to such safety restrictions. An ETHICAL Pilot flies safely and within Regs, irrespectively of WHY they’re flying. At least you’re using Google. Keep Googling, brother. It’s a fun and potentially productive new technology and I hope I can be a good example of it, too.
Seriously, you’re NOT paying attention to the facts of the case and what I’m trying to communicate. You are running off of ignorance, fear, and emotion - EXACTLY as the Shooter did. I can’t help you. The facts of this case are that the drone operator acted 100% legally and ethically. He did NOT use his camera to spy on anyone and he followed flight rules and laws. I don’t know what personal fear you’re emoting from, but YES, IT IS REPREHENSIBLE TO USE TECH TO BE A SPY OR PEEPING TOM OR INVADE PRIVACY... Or property, or legal airspace. Sheesh. Grab some wine and go to bed.
Hi Dan, they were flying commercially for the purposes of marketing. However, I can’t speak to the guy’s 333 exemptions, background, or training. ALSO, I heard it was his second flight. I NEVER would have taken that on! They’re lucky that they DIDN’T give the Shooter good cause.
Hell, a dollar? I just paid myself a hundred dollars.
No cheapskate here.
PLUS I see ole Dan has your number in 107.
Told you, you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
You need to sit down with a very good attorney. Otherwise, you’re going to spend a very large amount of time in jail should you choose to act upon your very misguided understanding of the law.
You obviously care a great deal about what other people think of and about you; even strangers. Ok. I'll go there with you! Balding Eagle not only pays himself $100 (because that's his esteem of self-wealth) - but he ALSO has fantasy sex with (fill in the blank) who rates a 7 instead of a 4! YOU GO, BALD-E!
== Ol' Dan:
'They didn't take the SIM card out of it…but we've got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio. Was this responsible operation of the drone or was the pilot being a bonehead?
=============
Danny, Dan-Dan-Dan-Ma'amerson... That's fascinating fiction and all but the actual FACTS AND TRUTH AND NON-EMOTIONAL NON-REACTIONARY NON-CRAP is quite different. Let me know when you catch up. (PS - I'm here with ya every step of the way, so you just give me your latest.)
You misread what I wrote.
You wrote previously that he was taking pictures for a 'client' and in response I wrote that if he was flying commercially, then he was not following the FARs by flying within 500' of a non-participating person, vehicle or structure without the non-participant's permission.
By dropping down below the height of the neighbor's patio cover to 'peep' into the patio, he busted the regs.
Just today I was driving home and a goofball was flying his drone (DJI Phantom) over a busy street near the freeway and local businesses. If he was a commercial pilot, he was busting regs because he was well within 500' of people and structures.
Then, later today I was fishing at a local pier and some other goofball was flying his drone 50' over the pier, hovering within 25' of the pier, then flew over and was hovering over a crowd of people on the beach.
Regardless of whether he was a hobbyist or a commercial pilot, the mere fact that he was flying directly over a crowded pier made him unsafe.
This doesn't even count the yahoos that grounded water drop aircraft, the most recent time caused over a dozen cars to be burned to a crisp. (See: Drone grounds water drops on California wildfire -- again & Chasing Video With Drones, Hobbyists Imperil California Firefighting Efforts) Or, the yahoo who decided to take video of airliners on final approach to JFK.
I've been flying radio control models for over 20 years and this is a recent phenomena related to the explosion of quadcopter and FPV technology.
The problem is that the pilot who got his drone shot down was one of the clowns. As an ethical pilot, would you be hovering your drone over someone's house? Taking video into someone's patio? Or, video of some SYT sunbathing by a pool? This guy and his three buddies are classic examples of people with more money than brains.
And what does 333 say about flying within 500' of any person, vehicle or structure without permission?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.