Perhaps. But the problem is the FAA doesn't clearly define what they mean. Nor do they specify a max distance. If we were to use your interpretation, we couldn't fly much further than a football field. <shrugs>
AMA Recommends Members To Not Register Until Deadline
- Thread starter LuvMyTJ
- Start date
The DOT also does not state exactly how to hold the steering wheel or how to place your feet on the brake or gas pedal while driving a car. The do expect you to be in complete control though or pay the consequence .
Indeed. Not doing those things doesn't mean you do not have control of your car.
However, we are kinda getting a little off topic. The LOS requirement is very vague and leaves a lot to be assume/interpreted.
Right. But do you see how each person interprets this rule? And neither interpretation matches the definition of line of sight.
It's UOTE="FotoGeek, post: 606952, member: 45394"]Indeed. Not doing those things doesn't mean you do not have control of your car.
However, we are kinda getting a little off topic. The LOS requirement is very vague and leaves a lot to be assume/interpreted.[/QUOTE]
Its not vague at all to me. I know how far I can go before its too far to see the quad well enough to control it properly . Some have better eyesight than other so that distance will vary with people. Do you want them to set a max distance for you. I don't. I'll follow the safety rules and won't be bothered. Many have posted here on how they crashed . They saw the quad but lost their orientation and they crashed. They exceeded their ability to fly in a controlled manner.
However, we are kinda getting a little off topic. The LOS requirement is very vague and leaves a lot to be assume/interpreted.[/QUOTE]
However, we are kinda getting a little off topic. The LOS requirement is very vague and leaves a lot to be assume/interpreted.[/QUOTE]
Its not vague at all to me. I know how far I can go before its too far to see the quad well enough to control it properly . Some have better eyesight than other so that distance will vary with people. Do you want them to set a max distance for you. I don't. I'll follow the safety rules and won't be bothered. Many have posted here on how they crashed . They saw the quad but lost their orientation and they crashed. They exceeded their ability to fly in a controlled manner.
However, we are kinda getting a little off topic. The LOS requirement is very vague and leaves a lot to be assume/interpreted.[/QUOTE]
Hey kids, wanna see what the barracuda lawyer representing that little old lady who says you buzzed her house and peeked, will be using to give your address to his process server to serve you with a complaint in court for _____________________ (you supply the boatload of potential causes of action)?
The FAA has a PUBLIC search tool that allows anyone to look at your info! | DJI Phantom Forum
Or, wanna see what the LEO will be using to serve you with a citation, or (perish the thought) arrest you for flying over that crowd? See link above. What, don't believe they can get you for that? Take a look at the agreement you acknowledge when you register, in the above thread. Mr. prosecutor says "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, here's the list of activities so inherently dangerous that the FAA had Mr. Screwed Defendant here acknowledge when he registered his Phantom--the same drone I would remind you already being used by Amurrican troops in African war (see clip about our troops using Phantoms with long distance mods to spy on bad guy troops), and by terrorists landing on the White House lawn, probably in a trial run for assassination. It's an inherently dangerous activity, good thing we seized his Phantom aircraft, sitting here on my counsel table labelled People's Exhibit 1.
Yah, I hope I'm phantasizing a nightmare too, but let me ask you this: Do you really think a piece of paper called a Constitution or the AMA is going to come to your defense? As inspired as the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is, you only get to create the caselaw which makes clear those rights after you get arrested and your drone gets seized (and probably forfeited to the state). Those rights are written in blood, sweat and tears, and no small amount of capital. And I see no consensus that the AMA is going to rush to embrace us as a group. They have organized and imposed their own code of responsible flying on members. We got nada, zip, bupkus, and guys who insist on posting videos of them flying in contravention of what most people would say is responsible flying. So why should they embrace us? I don't see it, not on these boards.
Somebody else said it. We need QPA, Quadcopter Pilot Association, or some equivalent. And those who want to preserve the sport need to get going on getting the world out to the world at large that this is a legitimate sport that can be safe and responsible.
The FAA has a PUBLIC search tool that allows anyone to look at your info! | DJI Phantom Forum
Or, wanna see what the LEO will be using to serve you with a citation, or (perish the thought) arrest you for flying over that crowd? See link above. What, don't believe they can get you for that? Take a look at the agreement you acknowledge when you register, in the above thread. Mr. prosecutor says "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, here's the list of activities so inherently dangerous that the FAA had Mr. Screwed Defendant here acknowledge when he registered his Phantom--the same drone I would remind you already being used by Amurrican troops in African war (see clip about our troops using Phantoms with long distance mods to spy on bad guy troops), and by terrorists landing on the White House lawn, probably in a trial run for assassination. It's an inherently dangerous activity, good thing we seized his Phantom aircraft, sitting here on my counsel table labelled People's Exhibit 1.
Yah, I hope I'm phantasizing a nightmare too, but let me ask you this: Do you really think a piece of paper called a Constitution or the AMA is going to come to your defense? As inspired as the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is, you only get to create the caselaw which makes clear those rights after you get arrested and your drone gets seized (and probably forfeited to the state). Those rights are written in blood, sweat and tears, and no small amount of capital. And I see no consensus that the AMA is going to rush to embrace us as a group. They have organized and imposed their own code of responsible flying on members. We got nada, zip, bupkus, and guys who insist on posting videos of them flying in contravention of what most people would say is responsible flying. So why should they embrace us? I don't see it, not on these boards.
Somebody else said it. We need QPA, Quadcopter Pilot Association, or some equivalent. And those who want to preserve the sport need to get going on getting the world out to the world at large that this is a legitimate sport that can be safe and responsible.
It's perfectly fine that you doubt it. But the fact remains the rule/guidelines is vague and left up to interpretation. What if a cop says he doubt you can see it beyond 1200 feet?
Oh geez relax man, it is civil and it's ok to have disagreements and go back and forth.
A cop has no right to dictate what distance you can fly your quad at safely. But if you fly it in a careless manner or at 1200 away and you can't see people on the ground underneath, then he can step in and bust you. Common sense plays a big role here. When you liftoff, you assume full responsibility for that flight.
A cop can enforce federal laws/rules and the fact the the FAA left this rule vague leaves it up to interpretation.
This is one of the reasons that the Flight Data log files from the UAV should be backed up regularly. These logs are very detailed and include the actual altitude, as well as flight path. Add to this your flight log and videos the defense counsel will have an easy time clearing you. Everyone should familiarize yourself with these flight data logs.
Not everyone has flight logs on their aircraft. And what would the average cop do with that? That may help in courtif it goes that far.
FotoGeek and I are not arguing. We are sharing thoughts. We judge others capabilities by our own. That is our rreference point. If some of you can see your craft well at 2000 feet....that's great. Just have fun and be safe. At the end of the day....if you had good flights and no crashes, property damage, or anyone hurt....you had a good day.
FotoGeek and I are not arguing. We are sharing thoughts. We judge others capabilities by our own. That is our rreference point. If some of you can see your craft well at 2000 feet....that's great. Just have fun and be safe. At the end of the day....if you had good flights and no crashes, property damage, or anyone hurt....you had a good day.
Correct. It was just a dot. And I had to follow it out from launch to see it that far away. I was making the point that any LOS rule will be less than half a mile. Which will be goofy, as on the box they advertise its 3.1 mile range.
True, not everyone UAV has them. But since this is a Phantom forum... It is not necessarily what the average officer would do with them. It is important that the UAS Pilot know what data his aircraft has so that the information can be relayed properly to the Officer when they contact you. You tell the Officer in a friendly professional manner that your flight data (if you have it) is date time stamped and shows the flight path and altitude. Also, oh btw Officer, would you like to see my video of the flight on the date/time in question. At that point the Officer may cite the old lady for filing a false police report. All I am suggesting is that with a little preparation and knowledge these types of "Peeping Tom" allegations are easy to disprove.
I would really not have the FAA define anything else for awhile if ya know what I mean.
True dat
I only have P1s with no flight logs. Now if I had a camera on it recording and carry the gopro lcd back with me all the time to view the video...which I don't always have the lcd back with me or record every time I fly. No camera...no spying...moot point. I haven't seen logs other than what people post here. Now, would the average cop be able to look at that stuff and understand it? Not sure I would at first. Are the logs date/ time stamped? How do you play the logs back. On the tx phone or tablet?
Similar threads
