- Joined
- Apr 7, 2018
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 62
Thought this was interesting so I'm sharing it here:
Now you can help search for missing Seattle hiker Samantha Sayers
Now you can help search for missing Seattle hiker Samantha Sayers
Thought this was interesting so I'm sharing it here:
Now you can help search for missing Seattle hiker Samantha Sayers
Yeah, interesting, but "I hike up the mountain and can fly out about 3 to 4 miles from where I am standing," One of the reasons that I'm not renewing my Part 107 cert. is that I see certified remote pilots doing things like this that are obviously not within the scope of Part 107 requirements. It's not just hobbyists messing up the industry through illicit and ill-advised actions. I see news agencies using quads in national forest (almost certainly without prior permitting) and directly over the heads of people that, while they may be the subjects of the filming, are definitely not actively involved in the operation (flying and filming) of the "drone". I observed members of a club near me (one that offers classes for 107 certification) flying in the middle of a crowded craft fair much closer than the required 25' distance from non-participant individuals, including small children. They had no VO and no-one to control ground space beneath where they were flying. Also no designated landing area or alternate landing site. People, please leave your egos and self-entitlement at home when you go out to fly these machines, even if you think you are doing something for the greater good.
until it does LOLthe "what if" hazard analysis just doesn't happen for many people
One point though - if you were referring to regular USFS land (not wilderness) then, in general, no permit is required to fly under Part 101 or Part 107.
A permit to film or photograph in National Forest is required for any commercial operation, so while it is not required by Part 107, it is required by the Forest Service.
Thanks sar104 for the correction. The clip I was referring to was a human interest story not "breaking news", but I guess if the reporters call it news, it's news. They were still flying over unprotected non-participants.
I would think that many would not come against it because it is for a popular and a humanitarian like cause. You can get away with a lot on that count.
So, it's a published fact. Did he get a permit or waver? Will the authorities fine him? He is endangering other pilots lives if there is an incident due to his neglect to know what is flying around his drone. It wouldn't be fair to all the law abiding flyers.
Sure. A bright orange tennis ball on a green field. Easy Peasy. A hiker in heavy Pacific NW trees - not so much.There is a claim in the article that you can spot a tennis ball at 150ft.
Sounds ambitious to me.
There is a claim in the article that you can spot a tennis ball at 150ft.
Sounds ambitious to me.
Which is annoying when the trees are 150 feet high.....The 20 MP camera in the P4P has an 84° field of view, which means that at 150 ft the diagonal FOV on the ground is 270 ft. That comes out as 2 pixels per inch. A tennis ball has a diameter of 2.5 inches, so it would be represented by a circle 5 pixels across. Visible - yes - but not obvious.
For search purposes I've found that 150 ft is around the upper limit to be able to spot clues such as clothing or packs.
Which is annoying when the trees are 150 feet high.....
Sigh.
Wondering if this didn't get FAA attention what would. He's put himself right out in front.
Thanks sar104 for the correction. The clip I was referring to was a human interest story not "breaking news", but I guess if the reporters call it news, it's news. They were still flying over unprotected non-participants.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.