These same structures like bridges have hundreds of vehicles daily but the drone is the concern. Sharing ideas with the terrorists like what material and how many grams is always a good idea.
Last edited:
I was told to stop flying.
- Thread starter WV. Rootman
- Start date
Yeah, there's a railroad switchyard and repair facility near where I work. Lots of engines parked there. So I went and asked if I could fly over it. Very cool. Well, got the same "security" excuse and a "no." I said that if, for some reason, someone really wanted to surveille the place, it would have already been done, and me with my quadcopter wouldn't be much of a threat. He agreed, but said something like, "Rules are rules, sorry." So at least it was pleasant, but so much for some cool video.
Do you think this was even a codified rule, or just something they had been told to say or made up on the spot? Once again - they don't control the airspace and unless there are specific provisions published by the FAA (as has been done for certain infrastructure locations), overflight is, by default, not prohibited.
Finding a different way to accomplish something in no way makes the other methods less dangerous. Even with what your saying being true, that does not lessen the danger with drones. Beyond that there is clearly a diminishing returns issue with not letting 18 wheelers drive over a bridge. The economy will not come to a screeching halt by not allowing drones to fly over important infrastructure without an exemption.
Kind of funny that many people fish right below the dam. There are many people’s homes within close view of the dam. It would seem easy to get access. I could be wrong. I haven’t flown a surveillance of the dam. Lol
Being in WV. I know neighborhood watch would catch someone. People here get real involved in ,”Howdy,what are you doing.” Or they are thinking,”Why do you look different than me, hum?”
Being in WV. I know neighborhood watch would catch someone. People here get real involved in ,”Howdy,what are you doing.” Or they are thinking,”Why do you look different than me, hum?”
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2017
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 142
- Age
- 67
No, it merely defines a punitive result of certain behaviors - it cannot and never will be a preventative measure. Deterrent - possibly depending on severity of sentence.
We're talking infrastructure surveillance here - not directly attacking people.
Information is already out there and simple to obtain - the horse is out of the barn - ridiculous to use that as an argument for existing infrastructure.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2017
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 142
- Age
- 67
The purpose of laws is punitive, not preventative.
Speaking of a culture that has members willing to die for their beliefs I somehow doubt punitive laws are much of a deterrent.
We are talking terroristic threats here after all...
Exactly. Laws, including these ones, are deterrents. But they also permit the easier identification of potential threats, since everyone else won't be doing it.
I completely disagree with your first statement. Laws absolutely are intended to be preventative.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Laws include the possible consequence(s).
The choice remains that of the individual to risk facing those consequences.
‘Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time’.
The choice remains that of the individual to risk facing those consequences.
‘Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time’.
Problem is, if the laws aren’t enforced then they become useless. I know people who are of the criminal element. They keep doing crimes and they keep letting them go. Pretty soon the police know them, and they don’t even bother them anymore. You can’t do anything to stop these people. They know what they can get on the way with. They then make a bunch of redundant laws which confuses everything and undermines the previous laws which weakens them. We all then become totally confused.
Don’t fly over the dam. Well, it’s OK if you fly over the dam if you’re certain elevation. Or it really in’t a law but it’s a strong suggestion, don’t do it. It’s OK if the site superintendent allows you to do it. Well you can do it in this state in a federal dam, But you can’t do it in that state in federal dam. How about,” hey man I took some great pictures of this dam isn’t it beautiful. Everyone should do it.” I only wish I could.
Found this thread a little late...
Hover Dam is also in Lake Mead National Park, so it is off limits because of that.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Laws are being enforced when folks are caught. Same as always. However the initial response is to inform and educate. Patience will soon wain and they’ll be more ‘enforcement’ I’d wager.
See post #12...
Are FAA Penalties a Myth?
Being a pilot you would think I would be savvy to regs on this subject, but I admit I sometimes operate in that grey area. My tail of the dragon by drone video, the Dragon road was the boundary for a national forest, and so I filmed trying to be mindful of my placement, but I also videoed 3 TVA dams whose waters were also the boundary of the national Forrest. My reasoning at the time if a helicopter can fly there why not my drone. Two of the dams did not have power stations and third stayed clear of generating station, but these rules are catching up with us and more to come along with probable future incidents with careless drone operators. If they would have kept up the registration process, there would have been a means to contact drone operators of rule changes, like “Notice to Airmen” pilots receive, though most is done electronically now.
I assume that you are aware that the registration requirement was reinstated by Congress, so it is available for that purpose.
We’re talking flying drones over infrastructure and why regulation exists. Clearly terrorism played a role in the regulations - including surveillance not available on google maps. It would be ridiculous to not take those factors into consideration.
I am about to travel to Palm Desert and want to bring my Mavic Air to capture interesting video and still images. Unfortunately, I feel the most overwhelming task for drone pilots today is doing research on where you can and cannot fly. It takes much of the fun and spontaneity from the hobby.
To my knowledge the FAA is the only agency that has jurisdiction over the airspace and what you can and can't fly over. I certainly wouldn't get in an argument with any public authority who thinks they can just arbitrarily make up a no fly stipulation over a certain structure as that would just create ill-will to us drone flyers. To ban drones flying over dams because of terrorists concerns is laughable as there are plenty of ways to get detailed info on a dam other than going to the trouble of flying a drone.
PS To help ensure id get my drone back if it went down somewhere, I came up with this idea(probably very effective) but my serious side took it off-guess i was in that grey area again
Similar threads
