how far do you fly?

[Vincea]

P3 Advanced stock antenna.

Sent from my SM-N920P using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Mimoid]

I think the correct answer for all of us here in the US is, "We all fly within line of sight."

Yep, and ours here in Sweden is that we have also removed the camera...

Usually I fly 500 - 1000 m out and 100 m up to avoid aggrevating neighbors and stuff.

/// Tom

 

[dgd3]

P2V+
Once: 1 KM out and 300 M high.
Normal photography: 400-700 M out at 20-200 M high.

 

[Andrewandron]

I fly 8-9km out and back under 400ft over water or green land only for safety.

What type of craft do you have? My P3P with windsurfers has been out 4.6 km but dingbat was sketchy and battery was a little scarce so I opted to return home just before it did.

 

[Bckmstr]

3.7miles stock P4

 

[NRJ]

I think the correct answer for all of us here in the US is, "We all fly within line of sight."

We sure do don't we neighbor? Hehehehe.

 

[NRJ]

Yep, and ours here in Sweden is that we have also removed the camera...

Usually I fly 500 - 1000 m out and 100 m up to avoid aggrevating neighbors and stuff.

/// Tom

Wow, really scary without a camera. Why would you do that? Is that the law there in Sweden? Thanks.

 

[t2adze]

Did my new record. Open field. 4.2km. P3A. Stock antennas.

Sent from my SM-G900FD using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Mimoid]

Wow, really scary without a camera. Why would you do that? Is that the law there in Sweden? Thanks.

It is illegal to fly a camera-equipped drone in Swedish airspace. So the drones you see flying around here are officially without a camera. In reality, who knows... ;-)

/// Tom

 

[NRJ]

It is illegal to fly a camera-equipped drone in Swedish airspace. So the drones you see flying around here are officially without a camera. In reality, who knows... ;-)

/// Tom

That's really interesting, but doesn't make much sense to me. In the interest of privacy (I'm guessing), they seem to give up safety. Are there any reasons that you know of for not allowing camera's? Thanks for your response.

 

[Mimoid]

That's really interesting, but doesn't make much sense to me. In the interest of privacy (I'm guessing), they seem to give up safety. Are there any reasons that you know of for not allowing camera's? Thanks for your response.

It makes sense to absolutely no-one. TBH I am not even sure if the people creating and driving through this law were fully sober and not totally deranged. Roughly here it goes:

In order to "protect the privacy of individuals", all non-hand-held cameras have been rendered illegal by the current Socialist government in Sweden.

There are some exceptions when the operator is in the "immediate vicinity" of the camera, like if it is mounted on a helmet or on a selfie stick. But for instance tripod based time-lapse photography is now violating the law, since the photographer is not holding the camera in his or her own hands, in which case it counts as a surveillance camera and as such is illegal.

The same applies for drones (or other remotely controlled vehicles). A drone camera is only legal as long as you are in "immediate vicinity", i.e. holding the drone in your hands and taking pictures or shooting video that way. If you release the drone to fly on its own, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter if you are actually recording or observing through the phone display, it is about the capability. If the drone has a camera and it is flying, it is illegal.

You may get a permission to fly a camera equipped drone, but you will need to apply for the permit in advance and only if it is done in order to prevent a crime in progress. Now that one is tricky. At this time, none (zero, null, zilch) of the applicants have been granted permit.

It is expected that nearly all private enterprises based in Sweden working with drone-based aerial photography will go out of business or will need to start using airplanes or helicopters instead. It is currently estimated that roughly 3000 people will lose their employments due to this.

Some will of course find means to circumvent the regulations. They can for instance register the company in another European country, in which case they can continue their business as before. Some photo companies working for real estate agents are replacing their drones with cameras mounted on long lightweight poles to capture "aerial" images. And some will simply break the law and allocate a certain part of their revenue to pay the constantly reoccurring fines and to keep replacing the possibly confiscated equipment.

/// Tom

 

[NRJ]

It makes sense to absolutely no-one. TBH I am not even sure if the people creating and driving through this law were fully sober and not totally deranged. Roughly here it goes:

In order to protect the privacy of individuals, all non-hand-held cameras have been rendered illegal by the current Socialist government in Sweden.

There are some exceptions when the operator is in the "immediate vicinity" of the camera, like if it is mounted on a helmet or on a selfie stick. But for instance tripod based time-lapse photography is now violating the law, since the photographer is not holding the camera in his or her own hands, in which case it counts as a surveillance camera and as such is illegal.

The same applies for drones (or other remotely controlled vehicles). A drone camera is only legal as long you are in "immediate vicinity", i.e. holding the drone in your hands and taking pictures or video that way. If you release the drone to fly on its own, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter if you are actually recording or observing through the phone display, it is about the capability. If the drone has a camera and it is flying, it is illegal.

You may get a permission to fly a camera equipped drone, but you will need to apply for the permit in advance and only if it is done in order to prevent a crime in progress. That one is tricky. At this time, none (zero, null, zilch) of the applicants have been granted permit.

It is expected that nearly all private enterprises based in Sweden working with drone-based aerial photography will go out of business or will need to start using airplanes or helicopters instead. It is currently estimated that roughly 3000 people will lose their employments due to this new law.

Some will of course find means to circumvent the new law. They can for instance register the company in another European country, in which case they can continue their business as before. Some photo companies working for real estate agents are replacing drones with cameras mounted on long lightweight poles to capture aerial images. And some will simply break the law and set aside a certain part of their revenue to pay the constantly reoccurring fines and the possible confiscation of the equipment.

/// Tom

Wow, thanks for that explanation. IMO, this law brings to mind the height of stupidity. Maybe if you were to try and fly high enough to get over the height of that stupidity. Not high enough. My drone only goes up as high as 1640 feet or 500m. Remind me not to move to Sweden.