My thoughts on breaking the rules.

[Neon Euc]

Yeah, well, those who completely ignore the rules or claim that the FAA's regulations are mere "suggestions" piss me off just as much.

The FAA has stated more than once that the current 107 rules were a starting point and that they would be refined over time, and that overflight of people was the first rule under consideration for relaxation. I would think that the cited example - and I will refine it here to "flight less than 100' over a structure in controlled airspace" - would be under consideration as well. However, now with the "add one/remove two" Executive Order in place, maybe that will be impacted? I'm not sure if revising a regulation counts.

My issue is -- and always has been -- that those who violate the rules blatantly may cause more restrictive regulations for us all. If highlighting the actual rules and calling out those who are ignoring them makes me the "drone police", so be it.

Oh, and can we please stop with the "but everyone exceeds the speed limit and it doesn't hurt anyone" type comparisons? Yes, if you go to 410', no one is going to die. If you lose sight of your aircraft briefly (and then work to establish sight right away), the same. It's the people who fly way beyond LOS - like miles away - who will be the ones who get attacked by a bird, or back into a wire, or whatever else transpires because they had no situational awareness of what was going on around the airplane that causes it to crash into a highway and get people killed - or whatever. And that's when not only the FAA but the States and municipalities start over-legislating. Do you want a State to decide that you cannot fly a drone in that State at all? Because when people start dying because of reckless flying, that's what will start happening. The rules - as much of a horrific burden to some that they are - are there to TRY to keep things as safe as possible.

All I'm saying is quite simply that..

* I check I'm more then 5 miles away from an airport

* I check that I'm way below any planes flight path by a few thousand feet

*and I launch and stay above an empty golf course when it isn't open.

If I do that then I'm entitled to fly at 500 metres. I'm not putting anyone in danger at all so for me I do now fly safe and yes I admit... I did fly over a shopping centre before. I hold my hands up to that. But with the greatest respect I bought it for doing them kind of videos. To film in a different perspective.

If enough of us keeping doing that, and not cause any danger then sooner or later the government will see it's not as bad as they once thought it was, then relax the rules.

Where I am your not allowed to ride any electric vehicles in the high street (apart from mobility scooter) hover boards, electric skateboards, etc...

However I ride an electric unicycle and I rode past many many policemen and not once did I get stopped. Why? Because it's a new up and coming thing and I didn't ride careless, yet I see skateboarders getting pulled over all the time.

It's all about being blatant and in the open public but showing we can fly with care and caution. The more they see it, the more they accept and respect it. And until more people have balls to do that then we will forever be to scared to fly in case we get into trouble.

Neon Euc

 

[jmc67]

For those that think 400 ft limit is a rule/law, please go back and read section 336 (public law 112-95). There is nothing in the books that says 400 ft is the limit. Common sense is the rule. If you were compelled to register as a drone offender with the FAA, those points you agree on are just a guideline and nothing else.

 

[jmc67]

Within reason. If there were no rules of the road for example would you want to drive 70MPH +?

There are rules in place on speed limit... 99% don't follow it.

 

[Tenly]

For those that think 400 ft limit is a rule/law, please go back and read section 336 (public law 112-95). There is nothing in the books that says 400 ft is the limit. Common sense is the rule. If you were compelled to register as a drone offender with the FAA, those points you agree on are just a guideline and nothing else.

There are people here from many different jurisdictions. Quoting US law will definitely be incorrect for many.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Tenly]

If I do that then I'm entitled to fly at 500 metres. I'm not putting anyone in danger at all so for me I do now fly safe and yes I admit... I did fly over a shopping centre before. I hold my hands up to that. But with the greatest respect I bought it for doing them kind of videos. To film in a different perspective.

If enough of us keeping doing that, and not cause any danger then sooner or later the government will see it's not as bad as they once thought it was, then relax the rules.

Neon Euc

This is the point where I feel you are delusional. You state that you are "entitled" to do something that you're not - for reasons that only you know.

And your claim that you are thousands of feet below any other flight is also incorrect. There are small planes, ultralights, and helicopters that could all periodically be flying over your area at altitudes similar to - or less than your altitude. Just because you're below the routine, scheduled altitude of passenger flights that may cross that area doesn't mean that it's clear of air traffic.

I would have no problem with anything you are doing if you admitted that you are breaking the law by doing so - acknowledging that there *could* be other air traffic in the vicinity - and stating that you are prepared to take full responsibility for your violations if you are ever caught and charged - but incorrectly claiming that your flight path is thousands of feet below all other flights shows that you haven't thought things through completely - and I think that claiming an entitlement exists where it does not has to be either a lie or a delusion. I would hate for someone new to happen upon this thread and read your words and then think that for some reason they are also "entitled" to do what you're doing and then find out in a painfully expensive way that they actually were not.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[AlecW]

There are rules in place on speed limit... 99% don't follow it.

You missed the point. I was answering a question about no rules at all. If there were no rules at all for driving and people drove on whatever side of the road they wanted would you want to drive at 70 MPH?

 

[Neon Euc]

This is the point where I feel you are delusional. You state that you are "entitled" to do something that you're not - for reasons that only you know.

And your claim that you are thousands of feet below any other flight is also incorrect. There are small planes, ultralights, and helicopters that could all periodically be flying over your area at altitudes similar to - or less than your altitude. Just because you're below the routine, scheduled altitude of passenger flights that may cross that area doesn't mean that it's clear of air traffic.

I would have no problem with anything you are doing if you admitted that you are breaking the law by doing so - acknowledging that there *could* be other air traffic in the vicinity - and stating that you are prepared to take full responsibility for your violations if you are ever caught and charged - but incorrectly claiming that your flight path is thousands of feet below all other flights shows that you haven't thought things through completely - and I think that claiming an entitlement exists where it does not has to be either a lie or a delusion. I would hate for someone new to happen upon this thread and read your words and then think that for some reason they are also "entitled" to do what you're doing and then find out in a painfully expensive way that they actually were not.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

First of all, you may not be aware of the fact that I'm living in england so we have the CAA and not the FAA rules.

Also the flight path with commercial planes above me is 9000-12,000 feet so YES I am aware of the actual flight path

Also their is no flying for any electric para-gliders where I am.

So I believe your the delusional one for assuming you know what happens where I live

Neon Euc

 

[Nowelly]

Maybe living in Flor-I-Duh gives me a distorted perspective, but I still think there are a LOT more irresponsible Ducks, Herons, Canadian Geese, Egrets, Storks, Eagles, Ospreys, Swans and Hawks out there than there are drones. And every one of these big boys outweighs (and you'd think would cause more damage) than a pipsqueak drone.
Just trying to keep things in perspective. It's like my car complaining about the danger of all those bees flying too low.. The first drone that takes down a helicopter or jet, I'd betcha the Army, Navy and Marines would pay big BUCK$ to know his technique.

To be fair Kirby, you are trying to compare a piece of manmade technology against living things that have evolved with wings and are supposed to, and are known, to fly! That is a false equivalence fallacy I'm afraid.

 

[Tenly]

First of all, you may not be aware of the fact that I'm living in england so we have the CAA and not the FAA rules.

Also the flight path with commercial planes above me is 9000-12,000 feet so YES I am aware of the actual flight path

Also their is no flying for any electric para-gliders where I am.

So I believe your the delusional one for assuming you know what happens where I live

Neon Euc

Nope. It's still you. Unless there are no flying schools and personal small planes like Cessna's are banned and you have non such thing as medical evacuations by helicopter - or helicopter search and rescue when someone goes missing.

Also - I don't need to know where you live to know you're breaking a rule. Your earlier post said that you're entitled to fly as high as the device is capable of because the device is capable of it.

If you were not breaking a rule in your jurisdiction you would have just said I'm entitled to fly that high because there are no rules in my jurisdiction that prevent it...

As things stand, I'm just really glad that you're a long way away from my jurisdiction!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Monte55]

Remember the good old days when we just complained about the new forum format.

 

[Nowelly]

I do think it is important to watch the laws carefully, as they are fast evolving in multiple countries right now, and those who do REALLY take the p*ss out of the regulations (like these record height or distance attempts you see scattered across YouTube), as well as people who blatantly fly over densely populated areas, this will have a knock on effect to perceptions of drones, and will not help your fellow flyers in the long run besides just yourself. Fines are becoming insane to the point they are high enough to bankrupt people, and there are some countries that already have interim bans until they complete their reviews of the law.

I am another UK flyer, and am still learning (I haven't even figured out video editing yet, and the crap weather in the UK is keeping me grounded a lot at present), but I have deliberately taken some actions upon myself to at least demonstrate I am serious about what I am doing: I have a 500m horizontal and 122m verticle restriction set in my drone; I have public liability insurance to cover for the worst case scenario; have my drone registered with Drone Safe (a UK org), and if I fly in a location which COULD potentially be contentious, I phone ahead to let the police know in case of any silly attempts at public reports.

BUT: as a photographer historically and presently, I do understand why genuine drone platform users would be exceptionally annoyed at members of the public who object because it happens to carry a camera payload. If you are in public space, they have no right to tell you not to take pictures, unless the are blatantly breaking the regulations concerning drone distance to people (here in the UK it is 50 metres horizontally or 150 metres to congested areas). I do a lot of street photography using high quality full frame fixed lens rangefinders (for added stealth), but still get challenged doing that on occasion. These days, people are very highly strung over privacy, but this makes life harder for photographers when space is more and more at a premium to ply your hobby. In reality, unless you have a VERY expensive drone with a zoom lens or full DSLR rig on board, you are going to be restricted to a 20-36mm equiv focal length on drones like what DJI and Yuneec make in the consumer / advanced enthusiast space. So I have so far found that as long as I calmly interact with people explaining what I am doing, if they have any suspicion it turns to enthusiastic interest in the kit as the conversation develops. I often say I am doing aerial landscapes, and sometimes show them my taking a shot too. So, the camera aspect bugs me too, but I do wholeheartedly understand the safety issue: remember thar drones do not have full redundancy of all systems in any but the "big boys" (e.g. Battery failure = falling out of the sky straight away in a Phantom).

Personally I find the 122m and 500m distance very usable, and until I see evidence enabling me to do more in certain circumstances, I will remain doing that until further notice.

 

[Clipper707]

I couldn't agree more!! If you cannot follow easy to follow rules then please find another sport.

If this is a "sport," then we must all be athletes.

 

[AlecW]

If this is a "sport," then we must all be athletes.

I try to find somewhere nice and comfortable to sit when I'm "sporting" with my drone

 

[jmc67]

You missed the point. I was answering a question about no rules at all. If there were no rules at all for driving and people drove on whatever side of the road they wanted would you want to drive at 70 MPH?

 

[Kirby Johnson]

To be fair Kirby, you are trying to compare a piece of manmade technology against living things that have evolved with wings and are supposed to, and are known, to fly! That is a false equivalence fallacy I'm afraid.

Yeah I knew all that to begin with. But false equivalencies can be pretty convincing if they don't catch you.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

This is a post about United States Law:

Geese. Consider this as you quote the latest FFA Rules. The FAA has been working with environmental groups for a decade to bring back wetlands next to active commercial Airports. Do your own research. This information is not a secret. Yes, you read that right. The FAA has been working on a plan, that as a consequence attracts migratory geese into active airspace. They have concluded that the millions of geese in our skies are not enough of a threat to mitigate. Remember Sully Sullenberger and his miracle landing on the Hudson? His plane was brought down by geese, and there is a restored wetland less 1 mile away. Our Government and the FAA claim that drones can't be flown safely within 5 miles of an airport. Are you starting to see why these rules don't add up to safety, but to me, look more like slavery.

Geese, number in the Millions, 14 Lbs, fly in formation, bring down aircraft.

Drones, number in the Thousands, mostly 2 lbs or less, Don't fly in formation, never brought down an aircraft.

I'm not an anarchist, I believe you should be responsible for any harm you cause. I also believe that rules should make sense, be logical, and not stifle creativity.

a side note on future restrictions to our liberties:

I believe the next 911 will be a Cyber Attack against the infrastructure of the Internet. This will give our government the excuse to demand that everyone be registered that want to use this resource. We will no longer be able to surf and learn anonymously. Everything you read, download, and share, will be quantified. You will have a secret score to rate your threat level. This is a normal response from those who seek Authority.

I've written about his on my blog at: ZenParty

 

[joet]

There are people here from many different jurisdictions. Quoting US law will definitely be incorrect for many.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

That's why I try to qualify my statements by stating "US" or "FAA" and don't get uppity with those outside the US since I don't know the law anywhere else.

 

[jwmcgrath]

That's why I try to qualify my statements by stating "US" or "FAA" and don't get uppity with those outside the US since I don't know the law anywhere else.

That's another part of the problem. Does ANYONE really KNOW the law?

I'll go to Transport Canada's web site and there is no shortage of user-friendly web pages written with "recommendations", suggestions" and "guidelines"... none of which are "law".

However, the links to the LAW are there if you choose to redirect to them... and they are written exactly as you'd expect a law to be written... with a lot of "whereas the party in the first part of sec (2) part (b) 1-7" terminology.

And even then, if you CAN read it and THINK you understand it, it is still subject to interpretation if challenged in court.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[ukphantomclub]

Ok Tenly I am surmising not quoting an actual UK flight, so my P4 is set to fly 400m max height, the hill I am on is 407m, I come down 7m and take off.

The P4 would if I chose to fly 400m above the hill, so making it, compared to the land around the hill 800m high. Does the rule mean you can not follow the contours of the land? please try to answer my question in a cival man our Tenly! Its important to understand because finding a high point give the user an advantage with excellent signal.

If anyone has the answer the question can you please provide the Link to your source. Many thanks.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Kirby Johnson]

Geese. Consider this as you quote the latest FFA Rules. The FAA has been working with environmental groups for a decade to bring back wetlands next to active commercial Airports. Do your own research. This information is not a secret. Yes, you read that right. The FAA has been working on a plan, that as a consequence attracts migratory geese into active airspace. They have concluded that the millions of geese in our skies are not enough of a threat to mitigate. Remember Sully Sullenberger and his miracle landing on the Hudson? His plane was brought down by geese, and there is a restored wetland less 1 mile away. Our Government and the FAA claim that drones can't be flown safely within 5 miles of an airport. Are you starting to see why these rules don't add up to safety, but to me, look more like slavery.

Geese, number in the Millions, 14 Lbs, fly in formation, bring down aircraft.

Drones, number in the Thousands, mostly 2 lbs or less, Don't fly in formation, never brought down an aircraft.

I'm not an anarchist, I believe you should be responsible for any harm you cause. I also believe that rules should make sense, be logical, and not stifle creativity.

a side note on future restrictions to our liberties:

I believe the next 911 will be a Cyber Attack against the infrastructure of the Internet. This will give our government the excuse to demand that everyone be registered that want to use this resource. We will no longer be able to surf and learn anonymously. Everything you read, download, and share, will be quantified. You will have a secret score to rate your threat level. This is a normal response from those who seek Authority.

I've written about his on my blog at: ZenParty

Exactly Rod. I agree 100 percent. I am far from an anarchist, and am a Viet Nam Vet, by the way. But I see our government brainwashing the American people every day, and then on this site a lot of sheep go along blindly without ever raising an eyebrow. I question everything which affects me over which I had no say so. I posted a little proverb on here a while back about democracy being two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Liberty is if the lamb is carrying..