Ask the FAA to allow this!

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Roger Keay

... Over time, the manufacturers of equipment will assess the costs of fighting damage suits and probably modify the operation of the drones to improve product safety. Sensors and functionality can be added to ensure line of sight operation, prevent night operations, limit flying height above terrain, and avoid collisions with obstacles. With GPS and digital mapping, drones may be prevented from entering restricted airspace. These measures may be necessary for manufacturers to get product insurance or satisfy their shareholders and bankers that making a drone product does not run the risk of major financial losses...

Good points all. And this, for better or for worse, is how the free market regulates itself. It will take time to sort out but this process will result in better quality drones, the right insurance tools, and eventually well qualified operators. And no matter how long it takes it will happen exponentially faster than it would if the government tried to anticipate all that needed to be regulated.

Its interesting that DJI has added the ability to restrict flights from being conducted in prohibited areas and they require that you upgrade the firmware on your controller to install those restrictions. If you don't upgrade the firmware in a predetermined amount of time your drone won't arm. Kind of begs the question who actually own's the drone?

That's one of the many reason to never buy DJI.

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Here in Texas a couple years ago, they passed legislation that states you can't film someone's property without their consent. Now, I don't think that applies to a wide angle with many homes in view, it would be totally unenforceable. .

Usually a restriction like that has an exception for a 'not the focus if attention' sort of view.

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

Its interesting that DJI has added the ability to restrict flights from being conducted in prohibited areas and they require that you upgrade the firmware on your controller to install those restrictions. If you don't upgrade the firmware in a predetermined amount of time your drone won't arm. Kind of begs the question who actually own's the drone?

Reminds me of movies and songs. The company owns the movie/song. You bought a license. For instance, Amazon pulled a book off of Kindles because it turned out they didn't have the rights to sell it. Customers were very mad, but there was nothing they could do (I don't recall, but presume they got a refund/credit).

[Tim Paynter]

We are so afraid of the future, we might actually prevent it!

We used to fly over a nudist hot spring South of Denver. At 1000 feet AGL, you could not see anything, except people running. Of course, as some of you have pointed out, a stabilized camera could do damage. Most people, though, don't have that much to show, and really not that much to worry about. Most of us were born naked, anyway.

We will never move ahead as a society, Noa, if it takes a license to cross the street or to fly a kite.

I wrote somewhere before about Texas Equusearch which is finding people alive by using drones. The FAA considers life saving a commercial purpose. There was a hell of a beef in Texas about this. There should have been. Regulations are getting in the way of people's lives, and an industry that is ready to burst a seam.

[Noa Put]

My question still has not been answered what the difference is between me flying a kite in a city center and flying a drone :) or would you agree that in all these years before drones with camera's existed when people flew little radiocontrolled airplanes and helicopters it was wrong to strictly regulate where they could fly these things, did society not move ahead in those days either?

Or is it just us videographers that feel we have the right to do whatever we please?

[Jim Michael]

The difference between a kite and a drone is mass, inertia, range, etc. If a kite hits someone it's unlikely to cause serious injury. Radio controlled aircraft haven't traditionally been "strictly regulated" in the USA. A couple of years ago someone was decapitated in Central Park in NYC by his own toy helicopter - it's not unusual for kids to play with their RC toys in parks. But then you never saw folks flying them around downtown Manhattan, there's never been a presumption that it was a harmless activity I suppose. Now the quad/hex/octo capability has gotten so good that it seems harmless to fly one in an urban setting so folks are doing just that. When people feel at risk then they are going to demand some protection from that risk, and there is always that segment of the public who think the government can mitigate every risk to which they are exposed, which of course is nonsense.

[Noa Put]

If a kite hits someone it's unlikely to cause serious injury.

I fly a large kite which is considered a beginners kite but I like the brute force I need to apply to control it under strong winds where I can even let it pull myself forward, make no mistake about it's injury risk though, when I make a horizontal "flyby" I am sure I can knock a grown man out cold if I would hit his head even resulting in serious head injury.

A couple of years ago someone was decapitated in Central Park in NYC by his own toy helicopter

If I have to follow some arguments given here this is no big deal as much more people driving a bike die, shit happens, but that doesn't mean we should prevent everyone who wants to fly a large rc helicopter throughout the city. But maybe the difference is in the fact that it's ok when there is a gopro attached to it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against people flying drones as long as there are clear regulations, if I look at that video in this thread this should only be permitted if the operator can prove he is qualified and if he would have gotten a permission from the city.

[Tim Paynter]

When I started shooting protest videos the best advice I ever got from a photographer who always got his shot, was "don't ask". I wear a press badge when I shoot protest, if they don't have armed guards at the door or stairway, I go and I shoot. I got booted out of the Colorado senate once. But other than that, I have been able to get my shot.

Drones are kind of the same way. There is a regulatory scheme heading at us like a freight train and we will be caught up in it. I know the FAA well, and many of the photogs who think it is like getting a driver's license will soon enough find out the FAA has little interest in protecting the photog and a lot of interest protecting the public. Fines and seizures will be rampant. In fact, if you want to buy a drone cheaply, just wait until the public sales of seized drones.

Today's drone is very different from the hobby rotorcraft. They are much more stable, much more controllable, more dependable so an engine out is not as big a worry, more navigable.. The cost will put them out of the hobby market and into the hands of people who can create true works of art. The shots the guy who took the video got, and by the way, he is a fairly well known cameraman, would be illegal in the U.S. That is the difference between a drone and a kite. We won't be able to do what that guy did and I think it is tragic.

[Tim Paynter]

They are good at using scare tactics to stop valuable work with drones. Frankly, I am not too worried about the privacy of the "rich and famous". The stars asked for the publicity. When they get it they bitch.

I am worried about someone's kid not found in time. So it behooves me to post some of the positive things these machines can do.

We, as a society, have been under surveillance for a long time...in elevators, on the public walkway, and sure, even in public restrooms. Why all the fear about the eye in the sky?

What I am not happy about is not being able to do what the film maker did in the first video on a commercial scale. I am not happy the FAA is making a federal case out of something so simple. I am not saying there should be no regulations, but the FAA plan is too many.

Anyway, here is an article about an organization that might not find your kid, or Alzheimer victim father, or another person you care about because of over-regulation.

Some of us on this forum are in the business of taking beautiful videos. Drones could be a wonderful tool, but only when we stop being afraid.

Drone Team That Finds Missing People and Dead Bodies Would Like To Keep Doing That - Forbes

[Chuck Spaulding]

If you liked the OP video check this video out. All of the city overflight of this video is at the end.

Widokówki (Postcards) - YouTube

[Tim Paynter]

Pretty cool stuff, Chuck. These are exactly the kinds of shots I would love to do for some of my work, yet the FAA regs would prohibit them of a professional, while allowing them as a hobbyist.


Nice post!

Tim

[Noa Put]

Not in Belgium, it was on the news a few days ago as a new law was made to go into effect later this year describing drone usage, I have not read any specifics but they said as a hobbyist you where only allowed to fly in your own backyard and this max 30 meter high (and without needing a license) and you where allowed to fly on/over someone else property if you had permission from this person. For professionals you are allowed to fly max 90 meter high and you need to take a medical, theoretical and practical exam and your drone needs to be registered and checked, nothing though about where you where able to fly or what in regard to permissions.

I am not too worried about the privacy of the "rich and famous". The stars asked for the publicity. When they get it they bitch.

I"m sure some think that any publicity is good publicity but even the rich and famous have the right to privacy in their own homes, when they are on holiday or when they go out shopping. They have the right to bitch if they don't want to be filmed.

I am worried about someone's kid not found in time. So it behooves me to post some of the positive things these machines can do.

That's a task of the right authorities, not sure if it's being done yet but here I could understand if the police would deploy a drone to find a missing child back or to look in places they can't reach on foot.

[Tim Paynter]

You have a lot of trust in the "authorities" Noa.

In the U.S. the "authorities" will spend a certain amount of time looking for a missing person and then give up the fight and in some cases won't even begin a search until more information is had or certain time periods have gone by. Resentments broil over as the authorities never give up the fight to hand out traffic tickets while not having the time to respond to emergency calls or search for missing persons.

Texas Equusearch is a public private partnership in which the non-profit search organization deploys both man-power, boots on the ground, and high tech methods, to find people. They have been successful in finding hundreds of people the police gave up on...alive. Some, just in time. They have also helped many people with closure by finding people who have perished.

TEX is now using drones to find people. People interested in drone use as part of their profession might find this niche an important part of their business...if we can convince our government authorities to lighten up on the rules a little bit. This is the private sector at work doing what, in theory, should be done by the public sector, the "authorities".

[Noa Put]

We do live in different parts of the globe and I know they do take people that get missing where I live quite serious, but not sure what this has to do with the right to fly wherever you please with your drone for either recreational or professional use. It looks more to me you are trying to find reasons why we should give a free pass to everyone owning one.

[Bob Hart]

Here's what our CASA in Australia has to say on the matter.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

We do live in different parts of the globe and I know they do take people that get missing where I live quite serious, but not sure what this has to do with the right to fly wherever you please with your drone for either recreational or professional use. It looks more to me you are trying to find reasons why we should give a free pass to everyone owning one.

I guess it depends on your perspective, I'm one of the founders of ACUAS.org, an advocacy and trade organization for the commercial use of sUAS. We started with a simple premise, it is not incumbent on us to prove that we have the right to be in the sUAS business, its incumbent upon the government to prove that we don't and they can't do that arbitrarily or capriciously. There's a process they have to go through to regulate it, Fortunately the FAA has issued an NPRM that on the surface not only acknowledges the rights of sUAS but in the language of the NPRM took it step further and announced their intention to support it.

The primary concern for the FAA is to make sure drones aren't running into manned aircraft and are not falling from the sky injuring people on the ground. The FAA has nothing to do with privacy. Plenty of laws already exist to protect people's privacy from drones or any other means of invading it.

No one is asking for a free pass, we're simply asking that the regulations are not so onerous on small sUAS businesses that they can't afford to be in this business. The proposed NPRM strikes a great balance between safety and the rights of commercial sUAS operators. I think the FAA got this right.

The overwhelming number of airspace incursions, flying over highly populated areas, inside fireworks displays is being done by enthusiasts making youtube videos. If you want to quell that then regulate Youtube. Since that's not going to happen we're going to have to acknowledge that you can't regulate stupidity, there will always be idiots who may endanger people not even aware they are violating any regulations. Also, Noa, I'm a full sized helicopter and fixed wing pilot and I fly over large crowds pretty regularly. I do it legally and safely but if something went terribly wrong there's little doubt that people on the ground could get hurt. But its my job to make sure that doesn't happen. The public trusts professionals to keep them safe all the time, bus drivers, train engineers and airline pilots. Yes they all have varying degree's of licensing but as we have just witnessed in France that doesn't prevent bad thing from happening.

So I think the FAA has got the commercial sUAS regulatory framework in the US mostly right. I'm not sure why you think people shouldn't be allowed to fly drones wherever they like? I can drive my car, ride my motorcycle and with very few restrictions fly my plane wherever I like, why not my drone? That doesn't mean its a free-for-all, it just means that there are more responsible people than there are idiots. If we regulated anything based on keeping idiots safe we couldn't do anything.