My thoughts on breaking the rules.

[Tenly]

Ok Tenly I am surmising not quoting an actual UK flight, so my P4 is set to fly 400m max height, the hill I am on is 407m, I come down 7m and take off.

The P4 would if I chose to fly 400m above the hill, so making it, compared to the land around the hill 800m high. Does the rule mean you can not follow the contours of the land? please try to answer my question in a cival man our Tenly! Its important to understand because finding a high point give the user an advantage with excellent signal.

If anyone has the answer the question can you please provide the Link to your source. Many thanks.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

I don't know what the height restrictions are around you - but in a lot of places, it's 400 feet (not meters) - and it's "AGL" or "above ground level". This would refer to your drones current distance above the ground that it is currently directly over top of - so yes, you can follow the contours of the land. If you take off at the bottom of a hill, you can fly it up over the hill until you are at the summit and flying 400 feet above the summit which may be 800 feet or more above your take off point. But as you start to move away from the summit, to remain compliant with the rule, you would have to descend such that you are never more than 400' above the ground that is beneath the drone.

There are also plenty of antenna upgrade options that are discussed on this site in other threads. They can help maximize your signal penetration through local obstacles and interference.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Nowelly]

I don't know what the height restrictions are around you - but in a lot of places, it's 400 feet (not meters) - and it's "AGL" or "above ground level". This would refer to your drones current distance above the ground that it is currently directly over top of - so yes, you can follow the contours of the land. If you take off at the bottom of a hill, you can fly it up over the hill until you are at the summit and flying 400 feet above the summit which may be 800 feet or more above your take off point. But as you start to move away from the summit, to remain compliant with the rule, you would have to descend such that you are never more than 400' above the ground that is beneath the drone.

There are also plenty of antenna upgrade options that are discussed on this site in other threads. They can help maximize your signal penetration through local obstacles and interference.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Yep, the rules are 400 feet from ground position as per CAA regs (122 metres). If you were on a hill, 400ft up from your position still applies. 400 metres is well up into commercial airspace and you could quite easily get into a tangle with light aircraft at that height. Horizontally it is 500 metres (or 1640 feet).

 

[Nowelly]

Yep, the rules are 400 feet from ground position as per CAA regs (122 metres). If you were on a hill, 400ft up from your position still applies. 400 metres is well up into commercial airspace and you could quite easily get into a tangle with light aircraft at that height. Horizontally it is 500 metres (or 1640 feet).

Just to clarify... It is not 400ft from sea level

 

[Nowelly]

Yeah I knew all that to begin with. But false equivalencies can be pretty convincing if they don't catch you.

Ha! . That's coolio then, just checking

 

[Nowelly]

Exactly Rod. I agree 100 percent. I am far from an anarchist, and am a Viet Nam Vet, by the way. But I see our government brainwashing the American people every day, and then on this site a lot of sheep go along blindly without ever raising an eyebrow. I question everything which affects me over which I had no say so. I posted a little proverb on here a while back about democracy being two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Liberty is if the lamb is carrying..

I do agree wholeheartedly with you there, and it is not just in the States (which I see a lot of enforcement insanity where drones are concerned)... Europe has been trying to implement similarly draconian civilian banning/ restricting regimes, but, consultation submissions wrecked that attempt - at least for now.

I think the vast majority of people are going to be safety first/ responsible, especially as no one intentionally wants to hurt anyone, or, wreck what is a considerable investment in a drone. Sure you will get idiots, like in everything ... but I wish common sense would prevail and these dealt with on a case by case basis. I seriously do not understand why you guys are banned flying in national parks. Such wide open spaces, what are you going to hurt? A tree? A rock?!

 

[Nowelly]

Geese. Consider this as you quote the latest FFA Rules. The FAA has been working with environmental groups for a decade to bring back wetlands next to active commercial Airports. Do your own research. This information is not a secret. Yes, you read that right. The FAA has been working on a plan, that as a consequence attracts migratory geese into active airspace. They have concluded that the millions of geese in our skies are not enough of a threat to mitigate. Remember Sully Sullenberger and his miracle landing on the Hudson? His plane was brought down by geese, and there is a restored wetland less 1 mile away. Our Government and the FAA claim that drones can't be flown safely within 5 miles of an airport. Are you starting to see why these rules don't add up to safety, but to me, look more like slavery.

Geese, number in the Millions, 14 Lbs, fly in formation, bring down aircraft.

Drones, number in the Thousands, mostly 2 lbs or less, Don't fly in formation, never brought down an aircraft.

I'm not an anarchist, I believe you should be responsible for any harm you cause. I also believe that rules should make sense, be logical, and not stifle creativity.

a side note on future restrictions to our liberties:

I believe the next 911 will be a Cyber Attack against the infrastructure of the Internet. This will give our government the excuse to demand that everyone be registered that want to use this resource. We will no longer be able to surf and learn anonymously. Everything you read, download, and share, will be quantified. You will have a secret score to rate your threat level. This is a normal response from those who seek Authority.

I've written about his on my blog at: ZenParty

All good and valid points and I agree. But, we don't have the power to stop the authorities implementing what they want, so until these idiots work out the facts about drones (which they really need to understand better, e.g. That FPV gives far better control natively rather than looking up, then down at the screen in bright conditions all the time, redundancy and the hi - tech stability and GPS/ GLONASS control in these things) the risks of serious failure or serious mistakes are significantly reduced compared to, say, cheap little helicopters you buy from toy stores that stall all the time!

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I think cameras just piss people off in general. If drones didn't have a camera on them, then I suspect the public wouldn't be as alarmed about them flying around. No more than someone flying an RC aircraft around the neighborhood or an RC car racing down the street. The interim mayor of Huntington Beach, CA brought up the instance of a drone flying over his backyard pool area and it "Made him mad enough he wanted to slap it out of the sky" so they were hunting out ordinances so the police could arrest drone operators.

Imagine driving by someone standing on the corner with a large DSLR camera and telephoto lens pointing it at you and everyone going by. If it were on a tripod it might even make you more uneasy. It would probably make you angry as well. I had that happen once and it did make me wonder what the heck the guy was doing and maybe enough to go back and confront him about it.

But people will always break laws. Can't fire off gun in the city either, yet my neighbor will sometimes pump off a few shotgun rounds at night for whatever reason. Close enough I can hear the pump action too. Some people do not care about laws and seem to enjoy breaking them.

I find quite the opposite. After showing curious by-standers some of the work I've done, they get very interested and excited about what drones can do. Only once, did an attractive woman feel drones might be "peeking through her window". Then I mentioned how unlikely that would be, but when I told her that, at least drones announce their presence with lots of noise vs. a guy with a long lens at a distance. She laughed.

 

[Tenly]

Cars are powerful and can be dangerous if misused. Same with drones. They've already designed a system to deal with cars. I really don't see why they don't just implement the same system for drones.

License the owner. A written test to demonstrate you know the rules and a proficiency test to demonstrate that you know how to control the drone. Insurance should be mandatory if you want to operate it off of your own property. Drones should also be licensed like cars are. Then - there need to be some *reasonable* rules re: protected air space and no-fly zones to avoid interfering with commercial air traffic - but the rules about flying over built up areas, groups of people, at night and within VLOS should be abolished and left up to the discretion of the licensed operator and his insurance company. If he hurts somebody or damages their property - he pays or his insurance company pays. Maybe he gets a ticket, earns some demerit points or goes to jail depending on the severity of the incident.

This model has worked for decades for the automobile industry. I fail to see a reason why it wouldn't also be sufficient for the drone industry. Obviously it would require a few tweaks - but not very many.

The people who quote the worst case scenario - a drone plummeting into a schoolyard at recess need to suck it up and realize that yeah - although that's "possible" - it's extremely unlikely. It's far more likely for an automobile or school bus to lose control and drive through the playground or through the walls of the school itself.

The activity doesn't have to be "perfectly safe". It only has to be "reasonably safe" and provide a way to identify the pilot and hold them accountable for their actions and the actions of their drone.

Until we get to a reasonable model like that. Many of us will be persecuted/prosecuted for doing things that *should* be allowed - but as part of society, whether we like it or not - there is a price for breaking the rules (even the stupid ones) and it is our choice every time we fly whether or not we want to risk having to pay it.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Nowelly]

View attachment 77263
I find quite the opposite. After showing curious by-standers some of the work I've done, they get very interested and excited about what drones can do. Only once, did an attractive woman feel drones might be "peeking through her window". Then I mentioned how unlikely that would be, but when I told her that, at least drones announce their presence with lots of noise vs. a guy with a long lens at a distance. She laughed.

I think you both have good points, but it is true double standards exist where it comes to camera devices. Most people don't bat an eyelid when folk are talking pictures with a smartphone, but get out a big (professional looking) DSLR, or a device - like a drone - that they feel powerless against (possibly because they feel they cannot easily swat it away maybe?)

But it is true photographic equipment gets discriminated against, especially down on the ground. Drones: I have only had relatively good, healthy interest expressed thus far. Touch wood! Best to advise women like that they have a fixed wide angle lens, not a giant telephoto lens that can see 10 x magnification like a papparazzo . 20-36mm - ish tends to be the FOV, and I have sometimes had to explain that

 

[Nowelly]

View attachment 77263
I find quite the opposite. After showing curious by-standers some of the work I've done, they get very interested and excited about what drones can do. Only once, did an attractive woman feel drones might be "peeking through her window". Then I mentioned how unlikely that would be, but when I told her that, at least drones announce their presence with lots of noise vs. a guy with a long lens at a distance. She laughed.

Lovely shot Russ43Phantom

 

[That Cicero Guy]

Yep..... and another reason why the "drone police" on here pisses me off too. Saying we shouldn't do this or that and gives us "evidence" of something that isn't even real. Really don't understand some people sometimes *slaps head* [emoji55]

Neon Euc

I'm usually not fooled by this stuff. Sorry about that! That looks really convincing. :-O

I still stick to what I said, though.

 

[Nowelly]

I'm usually not fooled by this stuff. Sorry about that! That looks really convincing. :-O

I still stick to what I said, though.

I don't think anyone is trying to make **** up or act as "drone police" Cicero... We are all under the same jack boot, and until common sense prevails (hopefully) we just have to watch our step because otherwise, eventually, someone will end up doing something truly stupid (e.g. Like getting their drone sucked into a jet engine, as an extreme example) and then the REAL drone police hit us all even harder. Whilst these laws are being drawn up, it is everyone's right to express objections, opinions, and even complaints (as I have done on response to the UK consultation process ending this end-March, entitled : "the benefits of the drone industry to the UK economy") to help avoid laws/ restrictions getting even more stupid than they are already. But, fact is, if people are seen to take the piss out of the laws - and there are plenty who regularly do do this on YouTube and even post exactly what they are doing in breach of regulations! - the police can easily find out who you are, knock on your door, take the flight logs off your drone (which get recorded), and confiscate your kit, slap you with a prosecution or hefty fine or both, and then go on to use that as an excuse to punish others too. That is all I am saying in my opinion.

 

[That Cicero Guy]

I don't want to trivialize your post because I'm in favour of reasonable rules regarding the operation of a drone. But you posted a video and claim that it's proof that "the rules are important".

But at best - it's only proof that SOME of the rules are important. It does nothing to prove that ALL of the rules are important.

Labelling an entire region as a no-fly zone is a catch-all that eliminates a lot of activities that are not dangerous to the general public and could even create more danger for specific individuals. A good example of this would be a roofer who wants to use a drone for roof inspections. He only needs to fly 20' above the roof of a house to get the video/photos he would need in order to determine whether there is an obvious problem that should be addressed - but because the house he has been hired to inspect is within 2 miles of an airport - the rules say that he can't do that. So he's forced to get on a ladder and climb up - which is significantly more dangerous. That's an obvious situation in which the existing rules are a fail.

It's a lot harder (but not impossible) to write a set of rules that are reasonable and allow for situations like this so instead of trying - they just declare entire areas to be complete NFZ's. Its lazy and overly restrictive. Some of the existing rules are good, necessary and required. Others - the result of laziness and pandering to fear-mongers and ignorant members of the general population who think the only reason to own a drone is to spy on their kids!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Yeah, that video got me.. I admit it.

As far as the reg's, yes, 20 feet doesn't seem like it would be a big deal, but what if the drone malfunctions and flies away into oncoming air traffic? That seems to be happening more often now with more people buying drones. My guess is that's what they are worried about. All it takes is that to happen one time and cause one accident, and all hell breaks loose with regulations. I think it's unfortunately inevitable with as big of a market this is becoming. It would be nice if they did have some kind of lower cieling for that kind of work, though. I agree with that.

 

[GMack]

I think you both have good points, but it is true double standards exist where it comes to camera devices. Most people don't bat an eyelid when folk are talking pictures with a smartphone, but get out a big (professional looking) DSLR, or a device - like a drone - that they feel powerless against (possibly because they feel they cannot easily swat it away maybe?)

But it is true photographic equipment gets discriminated against, especially down on the ground. Drones: I have only had relatively good, healthy interest expressed thus far. Touch wood! Best to advise women like that they have a fixed wide angle lens, not a giant telephoto lens that can see 10 x magnification like a papparazzo . 20-36mm - ish tends to be the FOV, and I have sometimes had to explain that

Ain't that the truth!

I could write a book on the number of times I've had security or police called on me. Refinery night shots were first no-no. Later, lost model showed up at wrong location and I got a visit by two cops as the wrong place she first went to assumed "Oh no! Porno in our neighborhood. Call the cops!" so I got a visit. Big gear assumes commercial gains so they can boot you too without a permit as you are assumed guilty first. One guy who shoots for the newspaper has been arrested (detained) for shooting photos at a crime scene. The term GWC isn't appealing either (Guy with camera.). Put a tripod with a camera up next to a granny's easel who is painting the same scene and see who gets the boot first. Granny sits there all day blocking the sidewalk, and I get the boot in 10 minutes.

One working pro told me, "If you haven't had interaction with the police while shooting, you haven't been a pro long enough." He just passes any fines off to the client to pay, like shooting a 4x5 on a corner of some new building in dusk/dark two-exposure sequence and people call the cops on him being there "impeding the flow of traffic" by looky-loos, even though he is on the sidewalk.

 

[Nowelly]

... I just want to clarify to all: I am on your side - I want to be left alone to use my drone without interference of paranoid schizophrenic governments and authorities attempting to strip me of my right to do this exciting hobby, which it is

 

[dwallersv]

The people who quote the worst case scenario - a drone plummeting into a schoolyard at recess need to suck it up and realize that yeah - although that's "possible" - it's extremely unlikely. It's far more likely for an automobile or school bus to lose control and drive through the playground or through the walls of the school itself.

I strongly disagree.

First, no need to bring children and a school in to this. The problem is the same when flying over people, anywhere.

Second, the risk is far greater. When a ground vehicle has a mechanical problem, the vast, vast, vast majority of the time it simply comes to a controlled stop (usually pulling to the side of the road as well). Equipment failure is a non-issue.

When a drone fails, it falls out of the sky, out of control. Drones already have had failures and hit people on the ground.

The risk, and consequences, are far greater. This is why something like this can't just be treated like cars.

Finally, a remotely operated device is NOT as easily, or well-controlled as a directly piloted aircraft. The same applies to ground vehicles -- there would be a lot more crashes if we had remotely driven cars running around the streets.

 

[Nowelly]

Ain't that the truth!

I could write a book on the number of times I've had security or police called on me. Refinery night shots were first no-no. Later, lost model showed up at wrong location and I got a visit by two cops as the wrong place she first went to assumed "Oh no! Porno in our neighborhood. Call the cops!" so I got a visit. Big gear assumes commercial gains so they can boot you too without a permit as you are assumed guilty first. One guy who shoots for the newspaper has been arrested (detained) for shooting photos at a crime scene. The term GWC isn't appealing either (Guy with camera.). Put a tripod with a camera up next to a granny's easel who is painting the same scene and see who gets the boot first. Granny sits there all day blocking the sidewalk, and I get the boot in 10 minutes.

One working pro told me, "If you haven't had interaction with the police while shooting, you haven't been a pro long enough." He just passes any fines off to the client to pay, like shooting a 4x5 on a corner of some new building in dusk/dark two-exposure sequence and people call the cops on him being there "impeding the flow of traffic" by looky-loos, even though he is on the sidewalk.

I always make sure I have a copy of my LEGAL rights to hand to refer to when I am out with a "serious looking non-selfie type camera!", especially when on a tripod. Fact is, if you are on public land and you are not deliberately impeding others, they should not have a right to tell you to stop photographing... Even the police who try that line

 

[GMack]

Was reading this month's AMA magazine and they say there are 600,000 drones out in the USA now. Bad stuff is just going to happen.

I saw too that the NPS is now having 10 days a years for free admission to the National Parks. I'd also like them to set aside maybe 4 days, one for each season, for "Drones allowed days in the National Parks." Set aside some low attendance day like a Tuesday and maybe even some $10 fee that day if they need the cash. They could have a ranger as a monitor for small groups for areas that might be popular.

 

[That Cicero Guy]

I don't think anyone is trying to make **** up or act as "drone police" Cicero... We are all under the same jack boot, and until common sense prevails (hopefully) we just have to watch our step because otherwise, eventually, someone will end up doing something truly stupid (e.g. Like getting their drone sucked into a jet engine, as an extreme example) and then the REAL drone police hit us all even harder. Whilst these laws are being drawn up, it is everyone's right to express objections, opinions, and even complaints (as I have done on response to the UK consultation process ending this end-March, entitled : "the benefits of the drone industry to the UK economy") to help avoid laws/ restrictions getting even more stupid than they are already. But, fact is, if people are seen to take the piss out of the laws - and there are plenty who regularly do do this on YouTube and even post exactly what they are doing in breach of regulations! - the police can easily find out who you are, knock on your door, take the flight logs off your drone (which get recorded), and confiscate your kit, slap you with a prosecution or hefty fine or both, and then go on to use that as an excuse to punish others too. That is all I am saying in my opinion.

Yeah, there have been alot of stories about that YouTube situation. And you're right. Somebody is going to do something stupid eventually pushing their luck. That's why I said I understand and respect the rules, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of them. I understand why they have them, at least here in the US, but there's always going to be people who do careless things, always. That's just in life!

From what I've been reading from all of you UK folks, it sounds like the UK is a little ridiculously extreme in some areas.

There was someone who said there is no such 400' rule; Yes, there is and this is the excerpt from the official Part 107 FAA regulations:

107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft. A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:

(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.

 

[Nowelly]

I strongly disagree.

First, no need to bring children and a school in to this. The problem is the same when flying over people, anywhere.

Second, the risk is far greater. When a ground vehicle has a mechanical problem, the vast, vast, vast majority of the time it simply comes to a controlled stop (usually pulling to the side of the road as well). Equipment failure is a non-issue.

When a drone fails, it falls out of the sky, out of control. Drones already have had failures and hit people on the ground.

The risk, and consequences, are far greater. This is why something like this can't just be treated like cars.

Finally, a remotely operated device is NOT as easily, or well-controlled as a directly piloted aircraft. The same applies to ground vehicles -- there would be a lot more crashes if we had remotely driven cars running around the streets.

I strongly disagree too. The difference with anything like that is there are strict regulations in place for motorized vehicles. You have to learn how to drive. You have to pass an officially approved driving test, you must acquire a license to operate a motor vehicle. And, when you have done so, you must also have appropriate insurance and other obligations (e.g
Regulated official regular servicing of the vehicle to prove it is safe and roadworthy, for jnstance). None of this currently exists for drones, and that is why they are looking at it. A 1.5 kilo rock falling from the sky onto someone's head from 400 ft is likely to do someone a very serious injury at best, or kill them at worst... So it is easy to understand why this is being looked at, objectively. And it doesn't matter how much any of us might happen to moan about it either: in the US, for instance, if as many peope bought drones as they buy guns eventually, you are talking about seriously congested air space at some point. I don't think the drone craze has caught on quite as profoundly in Europe yet as it has in the states as millions of owners are talked about there. So, as a pragmatist, I,say I am riding this storm out, I have contributed my dollar's worth to the debate, and I hope for common sense to prevail. I also commented about companies like Amazon and Google being given preferential treatment to try and HOG the lower airspace for commercial gain, freezing out us hobbyists - something that I am highly opposed to