Be safe, be legal - and be clever

[Uncle Stumpy]

My first question would be "WTH does an occupied building have to do with anything?" Nothing in the regs mention an "occupied building".

Unless there were people (other than yourself) on top of the building (say a dance party etc) the building has no relevance to the flight.

Surely Al, you must have come across people who like to assert authority even when they have absolutely none. I get it, some people have nothing going on and make themselves feel better by doing things like this. I feel for them.

 

[Uncle Stumpy]

I don’t want to be too specific because it would be be like blood in the water to Internet justice warriors — so let me put it like this: I didn’t want to tell the cop, look, you are wrong it doesn’t work that way, the FAA says I can do this.
It was easier to simply show I stayed on property I had authorization (owner standing next to me) to be on and I didn’t “stray”

I don't understand why some folks like to irritate cops. Are they too stupid to realize that there are consequences, or just arrogant? My encounters with cops ALWAYS include yes sir, no sir and thank you. I have never had a problem with a cop. Looks like you don't either - you get it.

 

[Droning About]

Thanks for sharing the foto's, they are great.

 

[Splinter]

While I agree we need rules & regulations, I am a JP, I often think of our pioneers who just went out & did it. By actually defying some norms and traditions to achieve a goal that is beneficial to most. Rules are mostly made by people with agendas, looking for votes maybe? If you keep the rules in mind when you are flying your drone you can still go to the edge so to speak and stay within them. I reckon the chopper pilot was the bully in the playground and went over the edge. They are the "Look at me" class of [Removed by Moderator]. Cheers.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

So, way too long a story but, I had to explain how I got this shot to one of those legal eagle rule hounds. “Surely,” I was told, “you flew over people and cars and occupied buildings! I’m gonna sic the FAA on you!”

I pulled the flight record and showed it to him. Straight up, turning in a circle to get shots in various directions, straight back down.

Over a building filled with people?

Nope. Took off, hovered over, and landed in my buddies, family owned and currently unused/empty, parking lot. Clever.

View attachment 106717

Nice photo ... BUT, hopefully the wind was not blowing, hopefully there were no drone phobics to make a 911 call to bring in the police, and hopefully you don't have to pay a very large lawyer retainer fee to show that you were flying legally. Believe me, paying thousands of dollars to prove you are right is not fun! My advice is, when in urban or suburban areas, in today's world, you are pushing a very high risk situation ... even if you are flying fully within legal FAA guidelines. It wasn't that way 2 years ago.

 

[THECaptainKirk]

All I have to say is you take beautiful photos and I think the FAA regulations in regard to flying over people is preposterous. I don’t seek to debate it - it’s just too much - over the top - like most of the regs they think they’re protecting everyone with.

 

[BigAl07]

..... I think the FAA regulations in regard to flying over people is preposterous. I don’t seek to debate it - it’s just too much ....

Well since this is a discussion forum someone (me in this instance) is going to take exception to your comment and debate it.

While I understand that for many of us we feel like we have a good handle on control of our aircraft in almost any possible situation but what about those times when the aircraft is genuinely out of our control?

Motor/Prop/Esc Failure?
LOS/Auto RTH?
Battery Error/Failure?
Bird Stroke?

While it's not likely that a DJI Phantom falling from lower heights will cause significant injury (being an optimist here for sake of this particular discussion) we have to realize that the sUAS industry is a lot more than just DJI Phantoms and the classification goes up to larger aircraft up to 55lbs. How do you propose the regulations be written in order to protect (or seem to) the public from possible sUAS danger from a falling sUAS over people?

We've got to think Big Picture and Long-Term here to realize that as soon as someone is mortally injured (not likely but possible) by one of our sUAS the public outcry and resulting Knee-Jerk reaction by regulators would be mind boggling. It's very possible the mere "suggestion" that sUAS over Gatwick Airport could bring harsher laws to operators around the globe and I'm not convinced there was even sUAS at the incident yet. Imagine what will happen if there is a fatality from sUAS to someone in the general public.....

 

[Drestin Black]

Nice photo ... BUT, hopefully the wind was not blowing, hopefully there were no drone phobics to make a 911 call to bring in the police, and hopefully you don't have to pay a very large lawyer retainer fee to show that you were flying legally. Believe me, paying thousands of dollars to prove you are right is not fun! My advice is, when in urban or suburban areas, in today's world, you are pushing a very high risk situation ... even if you are flying fully within legal FAA guidelines. It wasn't that way 2 years ago.

I took that photo 2 years ago ...

Franky, I DO try to follow the letter and spirit of the law as best i can. Sometimes, rarely, I’ll fly over the occasional car or person. Once in a while, even more infrequently, I’ll fly over a group of people (probably at the event I’m capturing). I do my sincere very best to exercise utmost caution and limit “exposure” but sometimes it’s a choice between nothing or something and I make individual calls on a case to case basis if it’s worth it. The FAA wants to prevent wanton abuses, they don’t have the time or will to fine every time someone’s spark flies over a pair of people standing in a large field. And, back to “frankly” they aren’t doing anything much beyond sending you a warning letter if someone rats you out.

I’m NOT promoting intentionally breaking the law for fun and profit, I’m saying, sweat it as much as you do speeding. Relax, go with the flow, it don’t be an idiot and don’t cause avoidable accidents!

 

[bhartwell]

Well since this is a discussion forum someone (me in this instance) is going to take exception to your comment and debate it.

While I understand that for many of us we feel like we have a good handle on control of our aircraft in almost any possible situation but what about those times when the aircraft is genuinely out of our control?

Motor/Prop/Esc Failure?
LOS/Auto RTH?
Battery Error/Failure?
Bird Stroke?

While it's not likely that a DJI Phantom falling from lower heights will cause significant injury (being an optimist here for sake of this particular discussion) we have to realize that the sUAS industry is a lot more than just DJI Phantoms and the classification goes up to larger aircraft up to 55lbs. How do you propose the regulations be written in order to protect (or seem to) the public from possible sUAS danger from a falling sUAS over people?

We've got to think Big Picture and Long-Term here to realize that as soon as someone is mortally injured (not likely but possible) by one of our sUAS the public outcry and resulting Knee-Jerk reaction by regulators would be mind boggling. It's very possible the mere "suggestion" that sUAS over Gatwick Airport could bring harsher laws to operators around the globe and I'm not convinced there was even sUAS at the incident yet. Imagine what will happen if there is a fatality from sUAS to someone in the general public.....

I have to admit, I agree with BigAl in this case. Sadly, one incident in which someone gets hurt by a UAV falling on them, rather if they were playing by the rules or not, will result in even broader bans and restrictions. I’ve posted on this a few times, even now the restrictions that have been applied are almost nonsensical.

In California, designated open spaces, nature preserves, most city parks, and now many of state parks have banned all forms of UAVs. Most of the local and state beaches have implemented bans, many cities have come up with restrictive ordinances. It was not this bad a year ago. I was just sited by a ranger in Monterey for flying around Garrapata state park, which unbeknownst to me, had adopted a complete ban (Point Lobos implemented a ban last year I believe).

When I stated there was no signage to support this, he told me a notice was posted on the main entry. I was flying from a parking spot off PCH 1 (the main highway along the beach in that area). Even though I wasn’t even technically in the park, he stated the road was on park land and sited anyway.

What I’m getting at here is that on our part, we need to play by the rules and avoid a situation in which someone getting hurts makes things worse. But, at some point, as a hobby and as a group if we don’t start pushing back, we won’t have a hobby to be worried about.

Just my 2-cents.

 

[JeffreyS]

Mr. Black, can you share the camera settings for that first image? Excellent!

 

[Drestin Black]

Mr. Black, can you share the camera settings for that first image? Excellent!

Allow me to surprise and hopefully not disappoint by telling you that I used Auto for that. And the TrueColor option. The only post processing I did was to adjust exposure and contrast then finally I used unsharp and noise (high iso) filters. I’m rather impressed that Auto does grab great photos quite often.

And, thank you, sir