Flight Legal Vs the Dangerous Pilots

[wmralls]

First to admit I am new. I have a Phantom 3S and have made a half dozen or so recreational flights over my residential property always in concert with FAA Part 107. Most missions have been conducted to let me inspect my roof and gutters without a ladder climb of which I have sworn off.

And, by the way, "DRONE" is not a dirty word. Call your device what you will but discounting "drone" as a dirty word is simply politically correctness gone haywire.

After deciding to conduct a recreational flight away from home, I first did my homework. I have read all posts on this site, and contacted parks departments in my local area with the following results.

1. My county (Johnson in Kansas SW of the greater Kansas City Metro) - prohibits all recreational drone activity in county parks, recreational facilities, sporting complexes.
2. My city prohibits all recreational drone activity.

To better understand this I have volunteered to participate in city discussions pertaining to allowing recreational drone activity in city parks. I meet with the city parks director next week.

My most disturbing experience to date has been this discussion site. Principally, the preponderance of posts from all experience levels, from folks with what appears to be significant sway touting the need to ignore the rules and put this sport/hobby at risk by condoning activity, yes, encouraging activity such as BVLOS. No, a flight out 4 miles is not cool even though the drone can do it. There are ample posts based on the need to or the result of flying past the limits of eyesight with no secondary observer. Maybe the FAA will capulet on its VLOS position in three years but it certainly has not to date and is showing no signs of changing its collective mind anywhere in the up coming future.

The need to ignore airport restrictions or flights at night or above 400 ft are also rampant. Again, I find this very disturbing as recreational drone piloting is an excellent and fun use of current technology that will come to a halt given not much more provocation due to reckless flying. If anyone believes there is some kind of bill of rights for drone piloting I assure you there is not. Further, my gut feeling is that a great many local and state governments are on the edge of banning an activity that has such potential for harm when conducted recklessly.

You think not? Just keep disregarding Part 107 and we all will find out soon enough the power wielded by a small population of dangerous drone pilots to end it for all of us.

PLEASE FLY RESPONSIBLY!

 

[GMack]

Good luck with your meeting. I ran into a wall with my local city councilman who seems to be on the "Ban the **** unsafe things from everywhere in the city!" bandwagon. I got a feeling there is some background city manager's publication out there that feeds them the "Ban the drone" info and they all follow that leader.

Problem is it won't stop people from flying them (illegally or not) and likely will lead to them flying them in areas which may be even more unsafe or unpopular than say a large public park that was set aside for them to fly or practice at. It's tantamount to saying to gun owners: "We're going to outlaw all shooting ranges so you cannot fire your gun anywhere now for practice." It ain't gonna stop them either so people will still shoot, albeit illegally.

I know when I took my 107, I asked the flight school teachers there where to practice flying at locally? "No where!" I even tried to get them to call the councilman or city manager to bug them for even a AMA insured practice field at maybe an unused soccer field, but they don't want to bother him because they already know the answer.

However, Arizona has some interesting local ordinances where you can fly your drone in some city parks. Some have maps posted as to where you can fly in a given park and where not too which is usually over nearby housing areas.

Probably good sites for your meeting would be these:
Local Parks and Rules - Phoenix Drone User Group (Phoenix, AZ) | Meetup
Parks and Recreation Radio-Controlled Aircraft in Phoenix Parks

Arizona State Parks are another matter and more strict:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ABOUT ARIZONA STATE PARKS & TRAILS | Arizona State Parks Interesting the say they are reviewing the policy so they may open up a bit.

California State Parks leave it to the local supervisor's decision which is often "No!" if it has any people or wildlife there.

I believe even Los Angeles has three parks set aside for flying RC too by their Parks Dept. Whittier Narrows, Apollo (I think?), and some other one (Sepulveda Dam?).

Good luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath getting an approval out of them.

 

[Fly Dawg]

Please allow me to chime in on this. One statement you made as follows:

"My most disturbing experience to date has been this discussion site. Principally, the preponderance of posts from all experience levels, from folks with what appears to be significant sway touting the need to ignore the rules and put this sport/hobby at risk by condoning activity, yes, encouraging activity such as BVLOS. No, a flight out 4 miles is not cool even though the drone can do it."

I politely disagree that the "preponderance" of posts tout the need to ignore the rules. In that fact I mean that is actually quite the opposite. The vast majority of those on this forum, myself included, follow the "guideline's" and "recommendations" per the FAA. Notice, I did not mention PART 107. That is a completely different issue and has nothing to do ( At Present) with hobby flying.

Second statement:

The need to ignore airport restrictions or flights at night or above 400 ft are also rampant.

The airport restrictions I am in complete agreement with. I often fly at night, although granted I have extra lighting for that and the 400ft ceiling is NOT a requirement for hobby flying and is only a recommendation which I adhere to personally. Bottom line is you are correct in most of your other statements but for the interim do not confuse PART 107 with hobby flying. For the time being they are separate entities, but I agree, that could change at any time. I will admit, there are a few out there who completely disregard "recommendations", but those are minimal in comparison of those of us who do Fly Responsibly. IMHO. Happy Flying!

 

[blackcrusader]

Also a lot of forum members are not in the USA so FAA rules do not apply to us.

 

[wmralls]

Good points and thanks for the clarifications.

 

[DocDiggler]

Hi there
Unless you have a spotter next to you does it mean you doing something illegal by flying with goggles on because it wouldn't be VLOS and how about using litchi with a planed waypoint mission in a appropriate area ?

 

[Loz]

Hi there
Unless you have a spotter next to you does it mean you doing something illegal by flying with goggles on because it wouldn't be VLOS and how about using litchi with a planed waypoint mission in a appropriate area ?

Hi Doc - in Oz where we are based, yes 'illegal' - VLOS precludes goggles, regardless of spotter. (Spotter wearing goggles & pilot flying VLOS is fine). Interesting question on Litchi - I suspect illegal (the word you asked about) as IMHO when in doubt revert to common sense and mine says expectation is pilot is always in control of AC.