Predators can conduct surveillance, as well as deploy their lethal payloads, from tens of thousands of feet. There isn't a lot of air traffic immediately above the city infrastructure, & a 3 pound Phantom is hardly much risk to buildings.
- Status
Here's an excerpt from FAA's Overview of small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
'Proposes a microUAS option that would allow operations in Class G airspace , over people not involved in the operation, provided the operator certifies he or she has the requisite aeronautical knowledge to perform the operation.'
I doubt any major city would fall under class
G airspace considering the proximity of major airports.
A new directional trend may be micro UAS that are capable of obtaining shots like in the video.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
'Proposes a microUAS option that would allow operations in Class G airspace , over people not involved in the operation, provided the operator certifies he or she has the requisite aeronautical knowledge to perform the operation.'
I doubt any major city would fall under class
G airspace considering the proximity of major airports.
A new directional trend may be micro UAS that are capable of obtaining shots like in the video.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Flying in busy air lanes and around buildings, over congested areas, and damage to other aircraft and pedestrians is the topic under discussion. Damage to buildings is not the issue.
Mr facts is back.
Link 1: over stadiums. We all know we are not allowed to do that.
Link 2: he was flying commercially without a license.
Link 3: Actually the same story as link one.
How many people have been taken to court since these few examples have been made?
Regulations apply to corporations, businesses and Trading entities.
Legalisation applies to the general public and is given force of law by consent.
Common sense applies to all.
However some people are so afraid of authority they would gladly support laws restricting flying of quadcopters to fields miles from anywhere on a wet wednesday only with leaving the confines of said field punishable with life imprisonment.
These people will never be happy until they scream and shout for the hobby to be banned, they do not seek safe flying, the seek power over others.
11 people died in the UK last year due to items falling from buildings and 104 were injured.
Nobody was prosecuted for crap buildings.
They were no deaths from hobby drones.
Legalisation applies to the general public and is given force of law by consent.
Common sense applies to all.
However some people are so afraid of authority they would gladly support laws restricting flying of quadcopters to fields miles from anywhere on a wet wednesday only with leaving the confines of said field punishable with life imprisonment.
These people will never be happy until they scream and shout for the hobby to be banned, they do not seek safe flying, the seek power over others.
11 people died in the UK last year due to items falling from buildings and 104 were injured.
Nobody was prosecuted for crap buildings.
They were no deaths from hobby drones.
Great Video!
Yes, he should just sell it and not take excellent video "best I've seen" or just make videos of fields & trees & rivers like everyone else. [RACIST AND/OR RELIGIOUS CONTENT REMOVED]
Last edited by a moderator:
If anything we should use this video to show the ones that make the laws, just how safe Drones are. This video is quite good and this shows that drones really are safe. We let the media tell us what is safe and what is not.
I see nothing wrong here.If the pilot is watching for other aircraft, and not hovering over crowds, then he is being safe . Sher you got to fly over some people to get the shot, but I think it safe to do so. We do this all the time, and it is perfectly safe.
Try driving past a golf cores in Texas some time. Now that is dangeas.
I see nothing wrong here.If the pilot is watching for other aircraft, and not hovering over crowds, then he is being safe . Sher you got to fly over some people to get the shot, but I think it safe to do so. We do this all the time, and it is perfectly safe.
Try driving past a golf cores in Texas some time. Now that is dangeas.
They will be flying commercially so will have to be licensed and abide by all the appropriate laws and ATC.
How am I deflecting? How is anything I have said irrelevant? And please for the love of god how is it off topic?
Get a grip man!
Drones are capable of some incredible footage unavailable any other way. But flying that so obviously violates common sense, as this video does, ---------needs to be prosecuted. As to "getting away with it", so does flying a full-size plane to get this exact same footage would, until the pilot ends up IN JAIL immediately upon landing.
Hey, how come no one is complaining about people and their distance records? I'd say half of them are over populated areas, and we seem to have some laws/rules we want to defend and others we cheer for...
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
UK law is clear on this: if you're under 7kg, like all phantoms, you can't fly within 150m of a congested area. London is the most congested city in the UK so without a permit this flight is illegal. Mind you there is a slim chance that a permit could have been obtained for this. Otherwise this was an illegal flight. Opinions are not relevant to the law and this footage shows the challenge of actually enforcing drone legislation.
P.S. let's not forget that the UK has some very good regs in fact, you can fly in the countryside without registration and these is scope to apply for permission for most other places. I'm glad I don't live in the US and can dodge the FAA!
P.S. let's not forget that the UK has some very good regs in fact, you can fly in the countryside without registration and these is scope to apply for permission for most other places. I'm glad I don't live in the US and can dodge the FAA!
Perhaps I misunderstood your point then. So what was your point, in relation to this discussion? How does the use of licensed UAVs by licensed police pilots in compliance with appropriate regulation bear on this case?
I was replying to a previous comment where a user had mentioned police using drones in the future. Perhaps you missed that although I'm sure I quoted his/her post
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 244
- Age
- 67
Am I the only one that doesn't think this video is amazing? There are several jerky moves that just pull me out of the moment, sections that could have been edit out.
And having the props in the shot is big no-no for an audience outside of this community... unless it was the intent for it to only be of interest to other flyers.
As for you cowboys: ignoring the rules and calling them 'for pansies' ... well, you're the reason those rules were made. No harm, no foul? I'm sure several people were hurt before those rules were made, and I know for a fact people have been hurt after they were enacted.
I'm no angel — I've taken my chances over congested areas. That doesn't mean that I don't understand the rules; and if I were to cause harm, injury, or damage, I would know why it would be my responsibility to pay restitution.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, people CAN make videos like this legally. They have to have an appropriate certificate that says "I know the rules, I'm very experienced and am less likely to cause harm than your average recreational UAV operator, and I am insured in case something goes bad."
Several months ago in my urban area, a DJI Inspire operator got tangled in some expensive municipal high-voltage infrastructure, turned off power for the homes of 10s of thousands of citizens for several hours, but he left the scene.
Today, he would have had to have been registered and that number would have been on the craft, which he couldn't reach from the ground.
That little stunt, aside the problems for those that lost power, cost the city $30,000. I don't know if they were able to collect.
And having the props in the shot is big no-no for an audience outside of this community... unless it was the intent for it to only be of interest to other flyers.
As for you cowboys: ignoring the rules and calling them 'for pansies' ... well, you're the reason those rules were made. No harm, no foul? I'm sure several people were hurt before those rules were made, and I know for a fact people have been hurt after they were enacted.
I'm no angel — I've taken my chances over congested areas. That doesn't mean that I don't understand the rules; and if I were to cause harm, injury, or damage, I would know why it would be my responsibility to pay restitution.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, people CAN make videos like this legally. They have to have an appropriate certificate that says "I know the rules, I'm very experienced and am less likely to cause harm than your average recreational UAV operator, and I am insured in case something goes bad."
Several months ago in my urban area, a DJI Inspire operator got tangled in some expensive municipal high-voltage infrastructure, turned off power for the homes of 10s of thousands of citizens for several hours, but he left the scene.
Today, he would have had to have been registered and that number would have been on the craft, which he couldn't reach from the ground.
That little stunt, aside the problems for those that lost power, cost the city $30,000. I don't know if they were able to collect.
Sorry I'm not going to mince words or feign PC for a barbaric 7th century cult whose charter calls for the death of all non-believers & conquest of the entire world under their "religion."
Good Lord, I asked you a direct question, you refuse to answer.
You continue to deflect.
I'm done.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
- Status
Similar threads
