Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needle

[GoodnNuff]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

FAA rules are not to fly above 400', he did. He violated FAA rules.

You're trying to nitpick. Seattle Municipal code 18.12.265 does not specify that the model aircraft must take off or land in the park to be in violation. If the aircraft is over the park (as an aircraft is designed to be operated - airborne...) it is in violation of the code. Feel free to call the Parks and Recreation department in the morning and verify. Ask them if you launch your Yak 54 from the street (not the park), can you fly it over the park and be in compliance with the ordinance that bans RC aircraft from city parks? G'ahead and lemme know how that works out....

Why don't you check out http://uavus.org. You're membership would be appreciated and is needed.

 

[Gilbert Gomes]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

FAA rules are not to fly above 400', he did. He violated FAA rules.

Oops. You're making things up again. There are no FAA rules/regulations/laws that require that guy to stay below 400'. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

You're trying to nitpick. Seattle Municipal code 18.12.265 does not specify that the model aircraft must take off or land in the park to be in violation. If the aircraft is over the park (as an aircraft is designed to be operated - airborne...) it is in violation of the code.

Again. You are very confused.

The FAA has primary jurisdiction over the National Airspace System. The city cannot regate use of that airspace. See the recent NPS drone ban for a similar situation. They banned "launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS. You can still legally fly over a NP. You just have to launch and land outside it.

Please do your homework. Your claims are not truthful.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

Q. Is it currently legal to operate sUAS?

A. Yes, but for recreational use only. Since June of 1981 an FAA directive allowing for the flight of model airplanes less than 55 pounds and flying less than 400 feet high within sight of the operator for recreational purposes has been in effect. However, it does not allow for commercial applications.
http://uavus.org/frequently-asked-questions/

Hmm...from the FAA's website:
"FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. 1, 2
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... /?print=go

I could fill the page with links to citations regarding the FAA's guidelines, but I think you'd still be in denial.

Let me know how your call to Seattle Parks and Recreation goes tomorrow...

The FAA only controls "the air above the minimum safe altitude of flight (500 ft)..."

 

[GoodnNuff]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

Again. You are very confused.

The FAA has primary jurisdiction over the National Airspace System. The city cannot regate use of that airspace. See the recent NPS drone ban for a similar situation. They banned "launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS. You can still legally fly over a NP. You just have to launch and land outside it.

Please do your homework. Your claims are not truthful.

Everything I can find online says that as of June 20th of this year the National Park Service has banned drones completely?
"Drones cannot be launched from, landed in or FLOWN OVER land or water overseen by the agency, which manages 84 million acres of land and 4.5 million acres of oceans, lakes, and reservoirs."


Do you have a link to something that says we can fly over NPs as long as we don't launch or land there?

 

[ianwood]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

But by god lets stop flying our toy around taking cool videos...
Deaths by drone in the US - 0, deaths by drone in whatever country america is currently fighting - CLASSIFIED
I'm going to have to look up deaths by elderly...

Great post. One more stat: Number of deaths from helicopters in 2013 - 50. More drones, less helicopters.

Seattle is not a UAV friendly community. And when we have idiots flying like this in our city it does impact me and every other RC hobbyist in the area.

So, you're just going to hide out in the boonies? Is that the answer? Do that and your sending a much more powerful message that you are willing to be corralled and treated like a pariah. You're making it OK for people to call the cops every time a quad takes to the air in or near an urban area. Phantom users need to lead by example. Demonstrate the safe use of quads in places where it is legal to do so using common sense safety measures.

Sorry, I have to cal BS on this post. A helicopter is an inherently instable flying machine. When something goes wrong, it's gonna hit the fan. I don't care how many hours you have in the seat, 90 % of time the pilot is not going to have control. I guess we need to ban all news, police and hospital choppers because they fly over people too. Given a choice, I think I would much rather be hit by a Phantom, that's just me.

Agreed. No matter the skill of a pilot, a 1 ton hulk of metal full of jet A hovering 600ft above the ground is a far sight more dangerous than that of a 3lb piece of plastic. Helicopters crash pretty **** often.

 

[Gilbert Gomes]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

Q. Is it currently legal to operate sUAS?

A. Yes, but for recreational use only. Since June of 1981 an FAA directive allowing for the flight of model airplanes less than 55 pounds and flying less than 400 feet high within sight of the operator for recreational purposes has been in effect. However, it does not allow for commercial applications.
http://uavus.org/frequently-asked-questions/

Hmm...from the FAA's website:
"FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. 1, 2
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... /?print=go

Those are not references to laws/rules/regulations. Those are merely advisories.

Again, there are NO FAA laws on the books precluding flights above 400' nor flying over populated areas.

Please stop posting that nonsense. It serves no purpose other than giving folks a chance to have a cheap laugh at your expense.

Don't believe me? Check with this guy who acknowledged that there are no laws precluding flights above 400":

FAA and AMA guidelines/operating standards are that we fly below 400' AGL. Yes it is a guideline, not a law.

I could fill the page with links to citations regarding the FAA's guidelines, but I think you'd still be in denial.

Please don't fill the page with more nonsense. It doesn't help anyone and just makes you more and more dumb.

Instead of perpetuating that idiocy, you should be educating yourself so you can stop that insanity.

Start here:

http://www.dronelawjournal.com/faa-revi ... till-lies/

Please read the whole website and then, pretty please, think before posting. The community will thank you for putting a stop to your pollution.

TIA

 

[GoodnNuff]

Re: Police investigate drone spotted near top of Space Needl

Wow. Half of the posts you've made to this forum have been attacking me, putting words in my mouth, and denying the facts.
You can act an *** and insult me all you want but it doesn't change the facts.

You've stomped your foot and screamed that there are no FAA LAWS on the books.
Please go back through my posts and show one line, one post, one sentence where I said "laws" were broken.
Well?
As I've said from my first post, he broke rules/guidelines long established by the FAA and the AMA.
Never have I called them laws.
Flying over Seattle City Parks technically is in violation of our city ordinances as has been reported on the local news.
Calm your *** down and face the fact that there are restrictions already in place on where and how we fly.

Now back to my original point, which seems to have escaped you: he didn't fly in a safe manner as perceived by the public and the media. With the FAA currently working on laws that very well might further restrict how, where, and who can fly UAV's, his actions were stupid! Bad PR that potentially impacts all of us. My point has never been that this fool was a lawbreaker, since I've never said he "broke the law."

Are you even aware of the FAA's current recommendations for the laws they'd like to implement? Laws that will affect each and every one one of us who fly multirotors or FPV? Are you aware of the AMA working to prevent these laws?
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx

We don't need people flying over populated areas and buzzing tourist icons while the FAA is looking at our hobby with such increased scrutiny. That is my point.
Continue to insult me and threaten that my posts merely serve to embarrass me. It's silly and impotent.
Go bark at someone who has actually stated that the FAA "LAWS" were broken.