Since we, or Californians technically, are already at this point, ALL Phantom pilots need to work to educate their govt.
California SB 142 - if it passes, what will you do?
- Thread starter Mathew Beall
- Start date
If California passes this law it will be tested in court and most likely shot down (pun intended). AGREE. If you wish to spend your time in court appearances and your $... go with God.
Great example! Thats the typical BS that the media loves to run with. Unfortunately, that's NEVER been documented as actually happening. There has NEVER been any legal action taking on that kind of behavior. Only false claims of assumed breach of privacy.
I just stated that hovering over someone's backyard is annoying and common courtesy should be noted. Did you read my post that you replied to? That 6' is governed by the FAA. So you are incorrect. Will there be laws? Yes. Will they be challenged? Yes. Will they be killed and rewritten? Yes.
No law (not even your personal feelings trump the federal government). Ask that guy in Kentucky that shot down a bird or that other guy in New Jersey who did the same. The guy in NJ was indicted.
This would be kind of like if I were flying my bird down the street and followed someone directly from behind or flew it into their face. Same principle. Why do that? It's not safe anyway, and safety would be priority 1.
I have liberties as an American and if you or anyone else want to challenge me feel free to do so, but be prepared for rebuttal and if the law is on my side (which it is thus far), then you're in for some education to say the least.
I wouldn't fly over your backyard on purpose, but if I did regardless of my purpose, you have no legal right to stop me. I always fly safely, responsibly, and with courtesy as I enjoy the hobby and I enjoy the technology that allows me to do it.
The west coast is all about litigation and BS harmony. There are a few other states that also fit that bill. I guarantee Kansas would never play that game! Privacy is a real thing, and its value is something you can almost taste! But there is no way that this kind of BS law would ever make it anywhere here.
@LUISMARTINEZ , I think we agree at the bottom line. I've read many of your posts over the months and I know where you're coming from. I am of the mindset that my personal liberty is invaluable and that my privacy is as invaluable. I don't use my bird for evil. I do all I can to respect others and attempt to be safe around them. I think you do as well.
Thats the key.. I WILL fly over your property. But doing that doesn't make it unsafe, nor does it imply an intent to violate your privacy! I can fly over your house in a real helicopter and wouldn't think anything about it beyond the noise. So why the, again, artificial assumption that I'm doing it to look at your yard? Do you REALLY think you're that important?
I think you've misunderstood me. By purpose I mean, let me hover and poke around your backyard. I will fly over it as I move from point A to B.
your attitude is very common, thus anti-drone laws are becoming common. You are sooo missing the point. I give up.
Seems that you could keep it above the streets on the way to you flying grounds. I have a large open area near my house and prefer to take off from my backyard. I do acend to 200 feet and keep it over the streets on the way to the open ground. At that altitude the quad is much less disturbing than the Bikes and trucks with loud exhaust systems. I could fly directly over my neighbors homes but why? I rather be in good standing folks and be able to show them in the flight logs that I am being respectful of their property.
You, sir, are respectful and considerate and a credit to your fellow fliers. A rarity. Kudos. If every quad flyer would adopt your attitude, we'd see less complaints and less whining for laws.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I think @III% Streve is making a valid point. The right to passage is afforded to other civil aviation. Why not drones?
Furthermore, the assumption of privacy invasion is very real. People immediately assume your only purpose is to invade privacy and spy on your neighbors. I still don't know of any cases where that has actually happened.
BTW, I've deleted some posts that were not productive. Let's keep it polite.
"The right to passage is afforded to other civil aviation. Why not drones?"
I never flew my Cessna or Beechcraft 50 feet over my neighbor's house. **** trees get in the way.. There is a huge difference in aircraft capabilities.
I never flew my Cessna or Beechcraft 50 feet over my neighbor's house. **** trees get in the way.. There is a huge difference in aircraft capabilities.
Altitude is irrelevant! The false sense of privacy invasion, as has been seen in both examples of idiots shooting at drones, was nowhere near 50 feet! And I've been much closer than 150 feet to homes in a Black Hawk! And we all see air ambulance flights just off the tree tops. Where is the fictitious outcry over that?
In actuality, those complaints DO come in. And they are managed as I prescribed earlier.. through education. NOT pampering!
In that case you'd be in violation of the proposed law. Is your post an attempt to show that you'd be flying lawfully?
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I see civilian and tour operated helis over my property all the time. One of the very few downsides of living near the Hollywood sign. We tolerate it although we have been pushing for legislation to curb it.
Similarly, I don't want to see a swarm of drones over my property either. But SB142 is not the answer. It's obtuse. 350ft is absurd. Not to mentioned dangerous considering the number of helis around here flying below 500ft regularly and most for no reason.
There needs to be a sensible middle ground. Maybe it's 200ft. Maybe 150ft. The height is less important than the intention. Any law should allow for two things to coexist as much as is possible:
If you're sunbathing nude, GA traffic can and probably will see you (at least they will in SoCal). If that GA traffic simply carries on it's merry way, no harm, no foul. Even if they got to see your boobies! If they descend and circle or otherwise linger, that's no bueno. Similarly, if they took a picture with a zoom lens and sold it to TMZ, that's also no bueno.
The same should apply to drones. And since the FAA insists drones are aircraft, let's keep it consistent and use the same local ordinances that already in place to protect people's privacy from helicopters and planes.
SB142 is unnecessary.
SB142 is in conflict with existing FAA regs for civil aviation.
SB142 is dangerous.
Similarly, I don't want to see a swarm of drones over my property either. But SB142 is not the answer. It's obtuse. 350ft is absurd. Not to mentioned dangerous considering the number of helis around here flying below 500ft regularly and most for no reason.
There needs to be a sensible middle ground. Maybe it's 200ft. Maybe 150ft. The height is less important than the intention. Any law should allow for two things to coexist as much as is possible:
- Quiet and reasonable expectation of privacy on your property.
- The ability for a drone to transit the airspace above your property.
If you're sunbathing nude, GA traffic can and probably will see you (at least they will in SoCal). If that GA traffic simply carries on it's merry way, no harm, no foul. Even if they got to see your boobies! If they descend and circle or otherwise linger, that's no bueno. Similarly, if they took a picture with a zoom lens and sold it to TMZ, that's also no bueno.
The same should apply to drones. And since the FAA insists drones are aircraft, let's keep it consistent and use the same local ordinances that already in place to protect people's privacy from helicopters and planes.
SB142 is unnecessary.
SB142 is in conflict with existing FAA regs for civil aviation.
SB142 is dangerous.
We are in agreement. We have enough knuckleheads flying over people's houses. Don't want the Ca. solution in my state, either.
Similar threads
