Drones banned in Sacramento County parks...

[mamayda]

Bummer overreaction:

Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to immediately add drones to the list of "flying model airplanes" prohibited from the county's regional parks.

"People who aren't skilled in flying their aircraft can injure others," said Michael Doane, chief ranger for county's regional parks. "We are making this clear also to avoid conflicts between wildlife and humans."

The ordinance had already prohibited flying model airplanes except in designated areas or by permit from the regional parks director. Tuesday's amendment clears up an ambiguity of whether a drone can be categorized as a model airplane, Doane said.

Thomas Bartlett, CEO of Image in Flight, a drone photography service based in Rancho Cordova, worries that the amendment will impact his business and the public interest in flying drones. Image in Flight is the largest drone service in Northern California, Bartlett said; it has worked with Toyota and Golden 1 Center in the past.

"I sort of understand why they want to prohibit it, but this seems a bit excessive," Bartlett said. "Sometimes there are events held in parks, so we are asked to work there. That will be a problem."

First-time violators will receive a $50 fine followed by a $100 fine for a second offense. Additional violations will cost $250 each.


}%**|€>^?!£$@!!!!!

 

[Cutaway]

Booooooooo

 

[Cyberpower678]

"**** this ****, I'm out! **** this ****, I'm out! Gonna get the **** up outta here. **** this ****, I'm out!"

EDIT: That above was a quote of a song. Seriously though, this is getting out of hand. If inexperienced flying is a concern, we should add licenses for hobby and 107 flyers. Demonstrate that they can fly safely, get a license, and that an be shown to concerned authorities to demonstrate that you are an experienced safe flyer, and that you aren't one of those idiots that lose a drone every week. This isn't to say licensed flying is a requirement, yet. The license to operate would demonstrate your ability to safely operate the UAV in areas like parks without causing an incident.

 

[mamayda]

"**** this ****, I'm out! **** this ****, I'm out! Gonna get the **** up outta here. **** this ****, I'm out!"

EDIT: That above was a quote of a song. Seriously though, this is getting out of hand. If inexperienced flying is a concern, we should add licenses for hobby and 107 flyers. Demonstrate that they can fly safely, get a license, and that an be shown to concerned authorities to demonstrate that you are an experienced safe flyer, and that you aren't one of those idiots that lose a drone every week. This isn't to say licensed flying is a requirement, yet. The license to operate would demonstrate your ability to safely operate the UAV in areas like parks without causing an incident.

Totally agree. A few ignorant and/or careless users cause grief for the informed/careful fliers. Bummer. Still, I think this a knee-jerk overreaction.

 

[ccpopham]

How many news reports have there been of drones hitting people and causing injury. All of these towns, and counties are highly recommended to contact the FAA before implementing any new laws or regulations as the air space is federal jurisdiction. The state and local laws can only impact where drones take off and land from. For example, several people take off from outside of national parks and fly over them to record, the national parks hjave stated they cannot prevent that and cannot fine the person and this would be the same fo state and local as the FAA has stated numerous times all airspace is federal jurisdiction and doesnt matter if it is 1 inch or 50000 feet above the ground. Now most are probably like me and cant fight these laws in court as it would be very expensive, but maybe someone will at some point.

 

[Dale]

Anyone know of anywhere we can find written documentation of this? I would like to know if it is just regional parks and my neighborhood park is still OK. Of course using common sense about being courteous and away from people.
Any other thoughts on the Airspace aspect, fly in from a public space, and maintain LOS.

 

[Achilles]

Most regional parks in California classify drones as RC aircraft, which are not allowed in the park grounds. You best bet is state parks.

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

"**** this ****, I'm out! **** this ****, I'm out! Gonna get the **** up outta here. **** this ****, I'm out!"

EDIT: That above was a quote of a song. Seriously though, this is getting out of hand. If inexperienced flying is a concern, we should add licenses for hobby and 107 flyers. Demonstrate that they can fly safely, get a license, and that an be shown to concerned authorities to demonstrate that you are an experienced safe flyer, and that you aren't one of those idiots that lose a drone every week. This isn't to say licensed flying is a requirement, yet. The license to operate would demonstrate your ability to safely operate the UAV in areas like parks without causing an incident.

I agree, but only because it seems the industry is doing a pretty lousy job of educating pilots. DJI seems to think that throwing a bunch of tech at a problem is the fix, but when aluminum foil is all that's needed to disable the NFZs there's not much it can do. And then they introduce FPV goggles that are designed to control the aircraft, even though the camera's field of view is only about 75 degrees or so.

But I honestly believe most of these "drone incident" stories are blown way out of proportion by local media that is desperate to keep their monopoly over aerial photography.

 

[regdawg]

"**** this ****, I'm out! **** this ****, I'm out! Gonna get the **** up outta here. **** this ****, I'm out!"

EDIT: That above was a quote of a song. Seriously though, this is getting out of hand. If inexperienced flying is a concern, we should add licenses for hobby and 107 flyers. Demonstrate that they can fly safely, get a license, and that an be shown to concerned authorities to demonstrate that you are an experienced safe flyer, and that you aren't one of those idiots that lose a drone every week. This isn't to say licensed flying is a requirement, yet. The license to operate would demonstrate your ability to safely operate the UAV in areas like parks without causing an incident.

I think in the not too distant future some type of license or certification will be needed to fly a UAV as a hobbyist. Would I welcome it, I think so. If it means backing off some of these rules and regulations, absolutely. I mean you need a license to drive. You need a license to fly a plane. You need a license to ride a motorcycle (on public roads at least). I just hope that getting a license, as a hobbyist, won't be as extensive as the Part 107.

 

[Dw911]

I think in the not too distant future some type of license or certification will be needed to fly a UAV as a hobbyist. Would I welcome it, I think so. If it means backing off some of these rules and regulations, absolutely. I mean you need a license to drive. You need a license to fly a plane. You need a license to ride a motorcycle (on public roads at least). I just hope that getting a license, as a hobbyist, won't be as extensive as the Part 107.

Not sure licensing is the answer, just more red tape and expense - and in the UK at least a good excuse for the government to dream up yet another thing to tax - for all us genuine drone owners who already play by the rules.
As for the idiots who do stupid things that give quadcoppters a bad name, well it will be business as usual, can't see them bothering to get a licence or certification , you only have to see the amount of people who don't bother with getting a licence for a vehicle/ motorcycle/ dog etc, so hardly likely to bother with getting one for a drone