Banning use of drones at public open air events in RI

[bbrant]

First time seen an article in Little Rhode Island where they specifically talk about banning drones at public open air events.

http://www.providencejournal.com/br...f-drones-at-start-of-newport-bermuda-race.ece

 

[BMEWS]

gotta love it when a "corporation" decides what the law is. Obviously, the police are there to enforce corporate policy . I'm sure the founding fathers really envisaged that

Don't fret, the UK is going exactly the same way.

Bmews

 

[JamesD]

.
I am not sure how they'd even enforce the rule. Just hide or try to be inconspicuous! Don't be out in the open with your controller. Keep your craft high, say 200' or so.

Bring a printed copy of the FAA "rules" with you.

I see the organizers point. If there are 10 P2's flying in close proximity there are bound to be problems. It is also very windy there.

Jimmy

 

[IrishSights]

gotta love it when a "corporation" decides what the law is. Obviously, the police are there to enforce corporate policy . I'm sure the founding fathers really envisaged that

Don't fret, the UK is going exactly the same way.

Bmews

In the UK its OK if its less than 1000 people which is not too bad. Takes a long time to count them! And its easier from the air LOL. Makes you want to get your licence! I been looking into it recently...

 

[EMCSQUAR]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for flying but they are leaning to the side of caution. After seeing the rash of morons buying & flying you can't hardly blame them. IE: the clown flying over Staples Center. Add to that, "how many fall out of sky for no reason" threads have appeared lately... (Hello, DJI what's the Chinese translation for -DEPENDABILITY?)

I fly over concerts and other events and get permission from venue, promoter, band (if necessary) and local police. I also check w/venue & promoter the extent of their insurance just in case the worst was to happen. (I also don't fly directly over crowds)

I think we're going to see more & more these type of restrictions until the public doesn't see these as a threat, the media starts reporting more positively and people flying them fly more responsibly. It's that small% that don't, that giving this hobby a bad name.

 

[xavpil]

I think we're going to see more & more these type of restrictions until the public doesn't see these as a threat, the media starts reporting more positively and people flying them fly more responsibly. It's that small% that don't, that giving this hobby a bad name

I am very concerned with this pb...
Soon it might harder to buy a drone than a gun...

 

[BigTulsa]

I think in part it's the fault of the manufacturers of the vehicles, simply because, unlike RC aircraft back when I was learning to fly them, these things almost fly themselves, so pretty much any yahoo can fly one. There is a certain amount of responsibility that goes with flying ANY vehicle regardless of scale given the consequences of one falling out of the sky or even getting wrecked (as I did my fair share of RC aircraft in the day along with my dad).

It certainly bears reminding that these things, no matter how easy to fly, are not toys. I see far too many people treating them as such.

 

[Jaybee]

gotta love it when a "corporation" decides what the law is. Obviously, the police are there to enforce corporate policy . I'm sure the founding fathers really envisaged that

Don't fret, the UK is going exactly the same way.

Bmews

In the UK its OK if its less than 1000 people which is not too bad. Takes a long time to count them! And its easier from the air LOL. Makes you want to get your licence! I been looking into it recently...

According to current UK legislation, under 1000 people may be regarded as a 'congested area' which means legally you'd need permission from the CAA to fly over, or within 150m of such. Additionally you need permission from the land owner/s. Then there's air space class and data protection act to consider... fun stuff

I'm in the last stages of getting my NQE (National Qualified Entity) for CAA Permissions to Operate through Resource Group who I highly recommend (there is no licensing system in place at this time).

 

[IrishSights]

gotta love it when a "corporation" decides what the law is. Obviously, the police are there to enforce corporate policy . I'm sure the founding fathers really envisaged that

Don't fret, the UK is going exactly the same way.

Bmews

In the UK its OK if its less than 1000 people which is not too bad. Takes a long time to count them! And its easier from the air LOL. Makes you want to get your licence! I been looking into it recently...

According to current UK legislation, under 1000 people may be regarded as a 'congested area' which means legally you'd need permission from the CAA to fly over, or within 150m of such. Additionally you need permission from the land owner/s. Then there's air space class and data protection act to consider... fun stuff

I'm in the last stages of getting my NQE (National Qualified Entity) for CAA Permissions to Operate through Resource Group who I highly recommend (there is no licensing system in place at this time).

For our US friends this might be the way things will go for you eventually.

There is specific UK regulations about flying over people, @Jaybee, congested area is a different definition. Article 255 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2009 states that a ‘Congested Area’ means any area in relation to a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.

The people bit is:
Article 167(1)&(2) The person in charge of a SUSA must have permission from the CAA to fly ....— (b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;

This does not apply to SUAs with the weight of our Phantoms, however, except if you are flying where your craft is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition...Like what most of us would call FPV equipment. In this case there is an Exemption that applies, the details are in the CAA document ORS4 2011. This exemption also allows flights upto 1000ft with conditions.

Its complicated but I rekon the FAA will be looking at the likes of the already established UK regulations and other countries.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 8

 

[Jaybee]

There is specific UK regulations about flying over people, @Jaybee, congested area is a different definition. Article 255 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2009 states that a ‘Congested Area’ means any area in relation to a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.

It's under the same article and applies to all SUA under 20kg with surveillance equipment on board (can mean simply a recording camera or any device which collects data). Here is the whole thing:

Article 167 - Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft

(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.

(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:

• (a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
  (b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
  (c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
  (d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.

(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

(5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition

A 'congested' area is loosely defined, but it's very possible that, say a large group under 1000 of people, could still be classed an 'congested' and the CAA may expect a specific request for permission.

The exemption you mentioned is in here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No. ... rcraft.pdf. The exemption has the same restrictions as stated in Article 166 & 167 with the addition of EVLOS (Extended Visual Line of Sight).

Air Navigation Order 2009 Publication date: 23 April 2014 General Exemption E 3780
Small Unmanned Aircraft – First Person View (FPV) Flying

This exempts only from article 166(3). The other provisions of article 166 and the whole of article 167 continue to apply, so far as may be applicable. In particular, article 166(5) prohibits flight for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.

Flying (over the maximum allowed height of 400ft) up to 1000ft:

Air Navigation Order 2009 Publication date: 23 April 2014 General Exemption E 3780
Small Unmanned Aircraft – First Person View (FPV) Flying

3. (b) The person in charge is accompanied by a competent observer who maintains direct unaided visual contact with the SUA sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions and advises the person in charge accordingly.

This is where it gets tricky, a Phantom is hard enough to visually observe [unaided] at 400ft, let alone almost 1000ft! The RPAS-s course offers a separate flight test for EVLOS. If you intend on doing this type of work regularly, you need to have it defined exactly how your observer will maintain visual contact in your ops. manual.

 

[derrickduff]

According to "thedroneguy" the RI airport corp has stated there is no drone ban.

https://twitter.com/TheDroneGuy?origina ... 1627834369

This just about guarantees there will be drones at the event, the exact opposite of what they wanted.

 

[damoncooper]

We're screwed. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[bbrant]

Laws and regulations seem to be evolving by the day. Unfortunately the term "drone" for us has gotten a bad rap and people and quasi law enforcement agencies seem to be making their own rules for something they don't quite understand. I know I got mine to take aerial shots I could not get otherwise, I certainly didn't get it to spy on my neighbors but that and the fear we will crash into everything certainly is going to make it an uphill legal battle in coming years for us folks that want the quadcopters for legitimate purposes.

 

[ScottH]

This ban is all about the safety of the helicopters covering the race. They are operating low and in close proximity to the boats, and hardly able to see and avoid a Phantom being operated off a pleasure boat in the same place. A collision would be a serious thing.

I've flown in helicopters many times for these types of events, and with multiple aircraft it would be a confusing and dangerous thing if not for the fact that everyone is communicating their position and intentions all the time on a common frequency.

As an owner of several quads and an S1000, I hate to see an arbitrary ban like this, but as a pilot and aerial camera operator I think it's the only course of action available until there's some type of training or awareness program that at least teaches the basics of operating near full size aircraft.