The ignore feature will prevent you from ever seeing a post by that person again.
You will find the option in the members profile you want to ignore.
Law Enforcement Contacted Me Regarding My Drone
- Thread starter Matty1551
- Start date
You will find the option in the members profile you want to ignore.
Agreed, I hope Matty does respond back and keep us informed.
To answer one of your questions, if he is the same Matty that posted the video linked above (and I believe he is, since the avatar photos are identical) it appears he does indeed hold a Part 107 certificate, and does business as Mr Videography (Intro). I've watched several of his videos, you can see his skill progress nicely, and he does really nice work. But this lead me to a couple of question that possibly Matty, or someone else here could elaborate on.
His other videos are of the New Apple Campus 2 construction at 19111 Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino, CA . I have family in the area, and have considered taking my Phantom 4 with me when I visit, but had noticed the airspace is very congested. Since I am studying for my part 107 certification, I thought I would use what I have learned to interpret the airspace where the campus is. With my limited knowledge it looks like it is in Class C (sfc) airspace. So flying there under part 107 would require a certificate of waiver or authorization from the FAA? As as a hobby flight, would this area be off limits, or could permission be granted by calling the San Jose Airport? I almost always fly in the middle of nowhere, so contemplating flying in the bay area makes things a lot more, umm, interesting.
Sorry for the minor derail on my first post (I'm a first class lurker). This just brought up some questions that I thought Matty, or someone else might be able to answer. I often learn more from real life situations that apply in some way to my life.
Now back to the video topic of this thread, and to query the knowledge of those who are better informed. Under part 107 flight, when flying over a location like the Tesla factory while people are there but not a lot of people. Would having a visual observer assisting you be considered taking appropriate safety precautions, or would you need to make sure anyone who might be in close proximity to your flight be informed prior to the flight?
Thanks in advance, and good luck to Matty!
Yes.. and you could always argue that there was no trespass as the law in NV violates your rights and is not legal. Lots of towns, cities and even states are making laws such as these... that does not mean that they are legal. That would need to be tested in court. Personally, I think as long as a person is not interfering with the property owners right to use their land, this law would probably not hold up.
Let me point out a portion of what anotherlab posted as the statue in question?
(c) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of:
(1) A law enforcement agency in accordance with NRS 493.112.
(2) A public agency in accordance with NRS 493.115.
(d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and
(3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.
It would seem that they are attempting to reference the Causby V US case in this regard. That is, they are saying as long as the person was flying legally otherwise _and_ was not interfering with the use of the land, then there is no case. So the plaintiff would need to prove that the flight was interfering with their use of the land. If not, the case gets dismissed. I suspect it they can, that damages are limited to that failure to use.
Personally, I think there will be complaints of property owner being done just to bully people into not flying over their land. IMHO, the first question from law enforcement to the complainant should be, did this interfere with your use of the land, and if so, how. If I was the person being contacted by law enforcement, I'd not admit to anything and ask them this same question. Lacking this, there is no law being broken.
I still don't agree that this law is legal. I do see the point and I'm not arguing against it. Personally, I think the OP was a little low in some of those passes but I'm not criticizing the flight.
Whether or not this law is valid, do you want to be the one having to contest it and paying the legal costs? It also gets back to the phrase "lawful activities of the business or surveyor" of 493.103 2.d.2 and the intent of the law. It's meant to protect the drone operator if they had a 107 license and was flying for specific job. Like being asked to survey the property for a utility company or being asked to video the property by the property owner. Or a realtor recording one house and briefly crossing the property line of a neighbor to get a better view. None of that applies here.
We just covered your case on a blog post on our website:
Part 107 2017: The Legal Landscape for Aerial Services; - Veuwr Aerials
Part 107 2017: The Legal Landscape for Aerial Services; - Veuwr Aerials
Having a VO is always a good idea.
Unfortunately, without having a 107.39 waiver , using a VO or informing people doesn't change anything regarding flying over human beings. If that is what you're getting at.
That said, having a VO to keep you, the pilot, informed about someone that might walk under your flight path so that you can pause or change direction is a marvelous idea. And informing people nearby of your flight path and asking them to avoid walking under is also very good but it is still your responsibility to avoid them.
What are you supposed to do when a belligerent type tells you to "kiss his a#%¥" and carries on doing his own thing. Totally unworkable except for you as the pilot to try and mitigate the risk.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
You avoid him, that's what you do. He has no obligation to accommodate you. You, on the other hand, following the rules must avoid him. The rules are very clear and saying you were mitigating the risk is no defense. Will avoiding him interfere with your flight ? Sorry, too bad. That's just the way things are.
Thanks for the clarification!
That is what I thought was the case, that you would need a waiver to fly over/near people. But after watching the video I was not sure. Obviously Matty didn't have permission to fly over the site from the owner, which means that when applying for a waiver, cooperation of people on the ground to avoid the AC could not be used as part of the safety plan. So I thought that possibly pilot diligence and the use of a VO might be a viable alternative. Or maybe in this case he was not close enough to anyone to need a waiver?
I guess the take home here for me is to follow what is written in the rules, and don't assume anything from the actions of others. The other take home is I have to not only focus on just passing the part 107 certification test, but also know all the rules by heart to avoid potential problems.
Sorry for all the noob questions.
Last edited:
Can't see the video now as it appears to be marked private.
I can tell you though that I personally try to keep my flights respectable to avoid scenarios where someone might think you are being a Douchbag. Here where I live I commonly send out my drone to the river for footage but I basically climb above my property to 300ft, then head out to the river. I don't hover around anyone's home, I don't look for people to bother, I just want to fly my drone in peace and get some good footage of the scenes around me.
I bothers me when I see videos of people buzzing beaches, parties, private property, etc. because I know it is just going to force more regulations in place that will most likely kill the freedom we enjoy with these things today.
I do understand, you can please everyone and there will be people who take offence to a drone being even in the vicinity of where they are at. I am find with this, as at any point in time if questioned can produce my footage which will clearly display my intent when flying my drone.
I can tell you though that I personally try to keep my flights respectable to avoid scenarios where someone might think you are being a Douchbag. Here where I live I commonly send out my drone to the river for footage but I basically climb above my property to 300ft, then head out to the river. I don't hover around anyone's home, I don't look for people to bother, I just want to fly my drone in peace and get some good footage of the scenes around me.
I bothers me when I see videos of people buzzing beaches, parties, private property, etc. because I know it is just going to force more regulations in place that will most likely kill the freedom we enjoy with these things today.
I do understand, you can please everyone and there will be people who take offence to a drone being even in the vicinity of where they are at. I am find with this, as at any point in time if questioned can produce my footage which will clearly display my intent when flying my drone.
Ya' know, even if you are in a party of 10 drone fliers, all it takes is for one person outside the group to go nutty and call the cops to shut you all down. The known 'squeaky wheel' theory.
Maybe we should call the cops on them first saying "They were hindering my flight" (i.e. Much as what a real pilot does with an unruly passenger on board.) before they get a chance to call?
2017 ain't gonna be any easier with new and hazy regs I fear.
Maybe we should call the cops on them first saying "They were hindering my flight" (i.e. Much as what a real pilot does with an unruly passenger on board.) before they get a chance to call?
2017 ain't gonna be any easier with new and hazy regs I fear.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 51
*I assume it is this videobut it may not be, just speculation on my part...
If so, it appears there are sections where you were less than 250' .
Your films are definitely something that will get attention. Judging by the web link posted, they appear to give you a one time exception. I would be extra careful to watch the altitude and stay above 250' and have your logs saved for proof. You don't want to become their poster boy by making an example out of you if they choose to.
What is the name of this vid? The link will not play for my iOS
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
AcC2ording to the FAA regulations anything above 80 feet and Below 400 feet is legal to fly in regardless of whether or not you are flying over a neighbor's house or not. There are restrictions you will have to check with your local laws to find out what they are. Obviously flying over any government building is not allowed. do not know what your exact circumstances were. If you are flying your drone and it passes over somebody's house who is opposed to drones as long as you are not stopped above their property video in it is legal to fly in that airspace. Obviously people get suspicious and paranoid when your drone is hovering over their house for periods of time.
Sent from my SM-G935P using PhantomPilots mobile app
This is just not the case. There is no such thing as 80 foot. Seems like ever time I open up a thread on this subject, someone has a new idea on what the height should be. Just above the grass is the real answer in case your wondering.
Nothing has ever been set, regulation wise, about stopping or filming over someone's home. Stop, hover, film, fly fast, ect., it makes no difference regulation wise.
Now you might think this is a good practice and that's great, but you can't tell someone as long as they stay 80 feet over a house while moving and not filming, they'll be fine. Your speed has nothing to do with the airspace. Doesn't matter if your stopped, or flying @ 45 mph.
I'd like to see any FAA regulation that spells out 80 feet. In above case, they are talking about trespassing for UAV specifically, which is entirely a different subject.
About aircraft and altitude - and I as a helicopter pilot should look it up again - there is an AGL limit that the FAA generally uses, which when you go below that, they consider as landing. If I'm in a full size helicopter and get within 5ft AGL, I can be guaranteed that to be considered a landing and hence in general, I always make sure that I have permission of the property owner.
Now, I am not sure that this Nevada state law would hold up in federal court because it is true that the FAA controls the airspace and yes, that starts above grass level, really. So for the state to regulate the airspace differently (there's the 250ft limit) for particular aircraft (UAV), I'm not sure that would hold up with the feds. But man, not sure I would want to go there. That being said: It's legally totally OK in not congested areas to fly below the 500ft with a helicopter.
That all aside, none of that above should concern you if it's the first "offence". Just don't do it again.
Yep....where I live (coastal south) they have not yet passed such a law but it is coming. If you are charged or sued consult an attorney. These days I have pretty much quit flying due to legal worries, and when I do fly, I only fly from the 3rd floor roof deck of my house to avoid calling attention to myself. I also got rid of all my videos on youtube since these can serve as a complaint against oneself. Not being able to share my footage takes a lot of the fun out of the hobby, but better than publishing potential evidence. For me though, the most freightening thing limiting my flying is the fact that both of my Phantom are programmed to take control away from the pilot and simply land in the most dangerous locations if the run into an airspace issue. If the robot decides to take control away and lands on the highway and causes an accident, it's still gonna be my fault. In my opinion it violates the basic laws of robotics too.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
What about the third law, "a robot may nklt allow harm to itself unless such action vio!ate the first 2 laws? Is that"obstacle avoidance?
Similar threads
