Advice for Flying

[bhartwell]

Unfortunately with Gatwick, and London, this has been the state of things. Best bet is trying a few local hobby clubs and finding where they usually fly, as most RC plane fields allow drones.

RC flying and drone work just are not the same thing, at least not for me. The drone is just a tool I use for better photography and video, it allows for perspectives and shots that can’t be done from the ground. The flying part is a means to an end. So, in my case, restrictions to an RC Park and the like are not an option.

In fact, given the difficulty of flying in places that are worth photographing has made using the drone nearly pointless. At least in so far as California, Arizona and Nevada are concerned, most of the natural scenery a drone can really exploit for some incredible video is now off limits.

Even extremely remote areas, surprisingly have adopted restrictions. I did a shoot around Pyramid Lake north east of Reno last year. It’s a truly remarkable area, with some incredible, if desolate, scenery. On a return trip this year, I was told by a local authority if I was caught with a drone it would be confiscated. He didn’t say I would be fined, he was very clear, they would take my equipment. The legality of this aside, it was clear I wouldn’t be doing a sequel shoot in the area.

Just to be blunt, either people interested in these tools and/or an industry group starts pushing back, or we will simply no longer be able to use these tools in any meaningful way. That’s just the way it is.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

The issue with gray areas or with your being right and local authorities being wrong is it may cost you if you don't go out of your way to get specific "sign-offs" for areas where you fly. It cost me $4000 to prove I was not trespassing on railroad property ... but still got fined $900 by a trumped up "lessor included offenses" by the municipal judge. Caution is the name of the game.

See:
Jurisdiction: Railroad vs. FAA ... is this similar to National Parks
Rules and Regulations

 

[Geoelectro]

About a year and a half ago I flew over a train yard. It was a Litchi mission about 150’ high.I attempted to get permission but no one would commit one way or the other. One fellow said, how long would it take and I told him, about 12 minutes. He said by the time anyone saw it (if they even noticed), told a superior which then contacted an officer etc. you’d be long gone. So I flew it. I went back two more times for additional footage from outside the yard and along some tracks. Looking back I’m sure I pushed some boundaries. So my question is, should I take the video down? I have a couple of other questionable videos as well...

Geo

 

[Russ43Phantom]

Nice video. The DJI ad for the new Controller also has some very nice footage over a railroad as well. In my case, it cost $4000 to have all charges of trespassing and flying a drone from railroad property dropped. Fortunately, my drone footage and my AIRMAP GPS track showed without any doubt I was not on railroad property. But ... that's some expense to prove your are not guilty of a false charge. Then the transit police, who have a major aversion to "railroad enthusiasts" who get too close to railroads when photographing, got he judge to fine me $1000 and my lawyer could only get the fine reduced to $900. I think it's time DJI did some serious PR to reduce the drone phobia that exists today. As drone pilots, we also need a directory of lawyers who are well versed in drone related law. Finally we need to work with those who might develop and document drone case's to better clarify the boundaries between local and FAA jurisdiction.

 

[African wildlife]

Niles: This is my view on your question. National Parks and State Parks are special places. The US has some of the best natural landscapes in the world. I would respect them as places that should have minimum disturbance. Yes, millions of visitors to places like Yosemite and Grand Canyon spoil this peacefulness (which is why we visit off-season). Aside from any regulations, I think there should be self-regulation - i.e. thinking of others. Drones are noisy and intrusive to many who do not own one.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

Share and share alike ... those who don't like drones need some consideration for those that do. It can't be a one way street. I find many who are of the attitude that "I don't like drones and I must impose my will on those who do".

As we are all tax payers and support both National Parks, National Forrests, and State Parks, my recommendation would to allocate some time during the week for drones ... lets say two 1/2 day periods (one on a weekend, one on a weekday). This would be a fair approach and shows a "share and share alike" approach.

In my experience, most drone pilots are photographers. We love natural beauty and like to share the experience with others who don't have the opportunity to personally go to our nature preserves/parks. Can you imagine saying to Ansel Adams ... "sorry I don't like photography so you can't photograph here". I don't agree with that approach.

 

[bhartwell]

Share and share alike ... those who don't like drones need some consideration for those that do. It can't be a one way street. I find many who are of the attitude that "I don't like drones and I must impose my will on those who do".

As we are all tax payers and support both National Parks, National Forrests, and State Parks, my recommendation would to allocate some time during the week for drones ... lets say two 1/2 day periods (one on a weekend, one on a weekday). This would be a fair approach and shows a "share and share alike" approach.

In my experience, most drone pilots are photographers. We love natural beauty and like to share the experience with others who don't have the opportunity to personally go to our nature preserves/parks. Can you imagine saying to Ansel Adams ... "sorry I don't like photography so you can't photograph here". I don't agree with that approach.

I agree. I understand the concerns people have around noise and drones being an annoyance. I don’t agree with the idea that I should be able to ruin other people’s peace and quite with my drone buzzing about. I am completely ok with reasonable rules/guidelines around drone use.

Just like cars, bikes and dogs, certain areas that might pose a risk or might be negatively impacted, should be off limits. Rules around how close to people, wildlife or vehicular traffic you can fly can be defined. That’s all fine and likely necessary to avoid injury or just people getting annoyed. It’s no different then any other tool we bring into a park today. Campers can’t generally run their generators all night, but we haven’t banned them.

It’s these foolish, knee jerk, all out bans on all flying autonomous devices I have an issue with. Public lands (I.e. national parks, state parks, preserves), we pay for them. We pay the rangers that staff them, the people that maintain them and we pay just to go see them. So, why is it that a tool that can help capture the beauty of such places, and that poses no risk if used properly, is unilaterally banned. I simply don’t see the equity here.