I was told to stop flying.

[Method007]

Thanks for the data. Also fascinating to note the marijuana has just been legalized in California!

AKA - the beginning of nationwide legalization of Marijuana.

 

[Mundiboy]

Yes no doubt...and I expect the regulations on flying drones will get increasingly draconian such that amateur flyers will be all but excluded from the air...
Priorities very confused IMO....

 

[sar104]

The law specifically writes in the ability to have an exemption. So even if you don’t believe you can fly over 400 feet as a hobbyist, you can pursue an exemption.

Right - but firstly, since there is no 400 ft regulation under Part 101 there is nothing to pursue an exemption for and, secondly, there is no mechanism to get any exemptions against the few Part 101 regulations that do exist. Part 101 itself is an exemption (from Part 107).

 

[sar104]

Yes no doubt...and I expect the regulations on flying drones will get increasingly draconian such that amateur flyers will be all but excluded from the air...
Priorities very confused IMO....

I doubt that recreational flying will be banned but, like general aviation, I expect that it will be increasingly regulated - probably as it should be.

 

[Method007]

Right - but firstly, since there is no 400 ft regulation under Part 101 there is nothing to pursue an exemption for and, secondly, there is no mechanism to get any exemptions against the few Part 101 regulations that do exist. Part 101 itself is an exemption (from Part 107).

I agree with you except I don’t believe there is a loop hole. I personally believe the laws and regulations thus far are crafted quite well. I think the redundancies in the laws and regs are what are confusing people.

 

[potluckman]

Wow was worth the scare. Lets take over America and declare that our land and build a home
just down from the falls. Here in Missouri we have some nice views like that but they are way south
of me.

Some good thoughts.
I was at another area of the state and I was at least 10 mi. from the dam. There was a pretty little park with a falls. I checked Air map at home and it said it was clear to fly. There is no cell reception at this place. I have visited this place about 4 times and have never seen anyone here. I was a couple of minutes into the flight. My wife had taken a walk with my daughter. She than comes running," yelling this is a no drone zone". I had not stopped to check the posted park rules. I was still on the Army corp of Engineers property even though there was no dam or reservoir in site.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

. .

 

[sar104]

I agree with you except I don’t believe there is a loop hole. I personally believe the laws and regulations thus far are crafted quite well. I think the redundancies in the laws and regs are what are confusing people.

Right - loophole may be the wrong word if it was intentional in the sense that I was referring to in post #38. But there is still no FAA exemption from any provision of this particular law, either as a hobbyist or Part 107 operator, except (for Part 107) in the broader sense of an authorization or waiver if the facility is in controlled airspace and, as you noted, this law is redundant in that specific case.

 

[Brojon]

Laughable? A dam can be a target for terrorism, as the destruction of one can destroy towns and take dozens of lives. A drone can be used to spot the overall structure and highlight weaknesses Not particularly fun now, is it?
Also, there are multiple states with laws regarding structures like dams, so now it's even less laughable when you are in violation of state law. Hope this helps.

You don't think photos are already in existence? Plans?, Old articles about teh construction along with photos of progress?
This whole terrorist threat thing is getting absurd. They use the same BS arguments against photographers taking photos of public facilities.
Face it - some people are just authoritarian and like to inflict it on fellow citizens.

 

[Brojon]

"operates an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility and the unmanned aircraft is not higher than 400 feet above ground level"

AKA: You can't fly a drone over those facilities. If you fly within the state law, you're in violation of federal law (ok...you're in violation of an FAA regulation). If you fly within federal law, you're in violation of state law.

Good lord - there is no such "regulation" - only an advisement to follow best procedures per AMA.
Even with 107's you are told you can fly 400 feet over anything within 100 yards or so.

 

[N017RW]

You don't think photos are already in existence? Plans?, Old articles about teh construction along with photos of progress?
This whole terrorist threat thing is getting absurd. They use the same BS arguments against photographers taking photos of public facilities.
Face it - some people are just authoritarian and like to inflict it on fellow citizens.

The purpose of surveillance is to find security gaps, protocols, etc. not construction details.

 

[Paul Wingfield]

Just typical of anyone who thinks they have authority to stop something. I can just image your Phantom carrying a specially developed 10000kg bouncing bomb and can hear the theme music to the Dambusters as I write.

 

[Brojon]

The purpose of surveillance is to find security gaps, protocols, etc. not construction details.

And you can do that by other means than drones - plus, when did terrorists play by rules? You think a sign is going to stop them if that's their intent?
Then I can also say with a degree of certainty that effort is expended where it has the greatest effect - so not the backwaters of West-by-God-Virginia.

 

[nscaler2]

I recently travelled to the US from Australia. I have a Phantom 3 standard and was keen to fly it there and successfully obtained my FAADroneZone sUAS Registration so I could fly. Having avidly read all the posts on this site and then downloaded and checked the locations I wanted to fly on the B4U Fly app, I decided it was all too difficult and left my drone at home.
So my question is. How many people have been hurt or killed by adverse consequences of flying drones in the US? Compared to how many people have been maimed or kill by abuse of the 2nd amendments right to bear arms laws in the US?
In Australia we have more relaxed laws on flying drones and much more stringent laws on carrying weapons.
Gun laws in Australia - Wikipedia.
So my point is I believe the priorities adopted in the US to minimize harm from flying drones are misplaced when the main culprit of crime and accidental death in the US is misuse of too readily available fire arms.

Agreed 100%

 

[Brojon]

I recently travelled to the US from Australia. I have a Phantom 3 standard and was keen to fly it there and successfully obtained my FAADroneZone sUAS Registration so I could fly. Having avidly read all the posts on this site and then downloaded and checked the locations I wanted to fly on the B4U Fly app, I decided it was all too difficult and left my drone at home.
So my question is. How many people have been hurt or killed by adverse consequences of flying drones in the US? Compared to how many people have been maimed or kill by abuse of the 2nd amendments right to bear arms laws in the US?
In Australia we have more relaxed laws on flying drones and much more stringent laws on carrying weapons.
Gun laws in Australia - Wikipedia.
So my point is I believe the priorities adopted in the US to minimize harm from flying drones are misplaced when the main culprit of crime and accidental death in the US is misuse of too readily available fire arms.

Spare us the politics.
I'm a mod on several gun boards and I can assure you the gun owners in Oz are not a happy lot with the nanny state.
They had almost zero issues to begin with and see the government's actions as overreach - a solution to a non-existent problem.

 

[N017RW]

And you can do that by other means than drones - plus, when did terrorists play by rules? You think a sign is going to stop them if that's their intent?
Then I can also say with a degree of certainty that effort is expended where it has the greatest effect - so not the backwaters of West-by-God-Virginia.

Don’t move the goal posts.

My reply was aimed at the notion that drones are used to identify const. details when you clearly pointed out the info is available elsewhere.

 

[Brojon]

Don’t move the goal posts.

My reply was aimed at the notion that drones are used to identify const. details when you clearly pointed out the info is available elsewhere.

Granted - and my point that the terrorists wouldn't listen to rules is still valid.

 

[Method007]

Just typical of anyone who thinks they have authority to stop something. I can just image your Phantom carrying a specially developed 10000kg bouncing bomb and can hear the theme music to the Dambusters as I write.

Or 200 grams of powdered fentanyl. You don’t need bombs to kill people with drones. There is a very realistic need to keep drones away from infrastructure. They are terrorist magnets.

 

[sar104]

Granted - and my point that the terrorists wouldn't listen to rules is still valid.

That's a fair point, but the logical extension of that argument is that we don't need most laws (e.g. homicide), since good people won't break them anyway and criminals will ignore them. Clearly that's not going to work as a strategy for civilization.

 

[DigitalSkyPilot]

Lets make more laws that only affect our own citizens and we can all curl up in a corner someplace shaking in fear and watch the world go around. Or go to Google Earth to look at the same things and eat Tide Pods.

 

[Method007]

Granted - and my point that the terrorists wouldn't listen to rules is still valid.

The argument that people ignore laws so they shouldn’t exist is

That's a fair point, but the logical extension of that argument is that we don't need most laws (e.g. homicide), since good people won't break them anyway and criminals will ignore them. Clearly that's not going to work as a strategy for civilization.

Which is absolutely correct. The argument that laws shouldn’t exist because people don’t listen to them implies the only existence of a law is to pr

That's a fair point, but the logical extension of that argument is that we don't need most laws (e.g. homicide), since good people won't break them anyway and criminals will ignore them. Clearly that's not going to work as a strategy for civilization.

Agreed. Most capital murder is done in the heat of the moment, people don’t think “I shouldn’t do this because I can get 25 years”, yet no one argues with doing away

Lets make more laws that only affect our own citizens and we can all curl up in a corner someplace shaking in fear and watch the world go around. Or go to Google Earth to look at the same things and eat Tide Pods.

Google earth can’t kill people with weapons attached to it.