Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson (Post 1894490)

I hadn't realised it was a political hotspot - so sorry for that.

Seriously though, the law in the US, if I have understood it, does within certain limits give people permission to do this. However, the law has no precise way of dealing with aerial objects. Let's assume you have a paid commission to overfly a property for the purposes of recording the layout and appearance - I'm thinking property sales (what we'd call estate agents, and you, I think realtors??).

This is a perfectly reasonable use, but angles are important - filling the frame probably pushes the height limit as they're usually wide angle devices. The drone is then flying at the legal minimum altitude, but probably below it, because 500ft is still pretty high. The cameras face forward and down, so a drone will be over somebody else property to take the shot, not over the target? Looking upwards, many home owners would assume it is they who are the target - they cannot see the frame!

If your laws allow it, the drone would be a legitimate target. Here, we would have an impossible job to locate the person with the control and get them arrested, and many police forces would not prioritise it as an essential immediate problem. So here, we can moan and groan, but in the US there would be a legal alternative. This case is obviously a distorted one, but Pythagoras is the problem. The camera is on the hypotenuse with the altitude (maybe the real problem) on the opposite side. The real subject is the distance away on the adjacent side. From the ground, this is not visible.

If overflying is banned, it will be impossible to take the kinds of shots people want. The people on the ground are understandably ignorant.

Somebody will produce a gun 'rule' and taking potshots on something over your own property could be more common.

Originally Posted by Ervin Farkas (Post 1894515)

Greg,

I was the original poster of the discussion you deleted entirely. It started as a clean discussion, fact based, with an official document I posted... a discussion about the legality of drones in GA.

Would it not serve better the purpose of this forum to delete only the offending post instead of deleting the whole discussion?

Respectfully,

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel (Post 1894540)

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

Roger

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel (Post 1894540)

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

Originally Posted by John Nantz (Post 1894561)

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.



There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Originally Posted by John Nantz (Post 1894561)

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.



There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel (Post 1894571)

Hi John,

As the poster who brought gun control into that thread, I have no objection to him removing that aspect of it. I feel very strongly about the subject which is why I posted, perhaps somewhat naively as a UK citizen, but fully understand why it could be seen as turning into a heated political debate, which may not be appropriate on this refreshingly amicable forum.

I also have no idea what else was posted following my post, as it had disappeared by the time I looked again, but Greg presumably felt it was heading in an unacceptable direction.

Roger