Video: 2 mile flight over Dense city

[NickB]

Wow, what a massive lady garden...

 

[chad7218]

Wow, what a massive lady garden...

Rallysoob seems to enjoy stirring up the forum then bails on his posts.

The moderator should pull this thread.

 

[Wombat55]

This is the same dude that posted the video tracking the jogger and called her a "psycho" when she seemed to not be cool with it.

Sheesh. I thought that this was the same person.

 

[Kawboy12R]

Anybody else notice that the hospital he flew to has a helipad? Naturally, he called them in advance to make sure there were no expected life flights because he can't see an approaching chopper from three sides of the Mavic because he was two miles away.

 

[Strafe1]

No we won't!
What you are doing is illegal. Recreational flyers cannot fly over freeways and fly bvlos!
Read the rules!

You can't help yourself. There is no law or regulation about flying over freeways. Please stop posting fake rules. Put your money where your mouth is....post the regulation!

 

[Grey Wolf]

You can't help yourself. There is no law or regulation about flying over freeways. Please stop posting fake rules. Put your money where your mouth is....post the regulation!

Whether there is a rule about it or not, its wrong and irresponsible to fly over streets. Even if it's just a suggestion. In Canada, it's illegal. That is my point!
No more posts on this topic for me. I already said I wouldn't earlier but your post forced my hand.

 

[Strafe1]

On a different note, that doesn't look like a good flight path to take. Also, I'm not sure I would call that a dense city, looks suburban to me. Good thing no people on the ground. Bad thing to post this when other potential dangers are apparent!

 

[Strafe1]

Whether there is a rule about it or not, its wrong and irresponsible to fly over streets. Even if it's just a suggestion. In Canada, it's illegal. That is my point!
No more posts on this topic for me. I already said I wouldn't earlier but your post forced my hand.

Then stop saying ILLEGAL to embellish your point. You lose all credibility when you state facts that are actually NOT. Also, post something other than criticism once in a while.

 

[SteelFlyer]

Not a LAW, an FAA RULE. There is a difference.

WRONG.

Public Law 112-95 section 336(c) which is the basis of the FAA "rules" on model aircraft specifically states:

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; H. R. 658—68 (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

In the interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, FAA states the following:

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2). 1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. 2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id. (emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.

And, for the record, the regulations that FAA issues DO have the weight of the law. The law passed by Congress enables the FAA to write the specific regulations which carry-out the law. Break the regulation and you are breaking the law.

 

[armoredsaint]

 

[iajetpilot]

While the video of this flight is clearly highly irresponsible I wanted to say thanks to Strafe1 for pointing out when the internet drone police are crying illegal when things aren't. As a new participant in this hobby it is hard enough to sort out the real rules without a bunch of people telling everyone else things are illegal that aren't. If the rules were as restrictive as some would have you believe I think many people would say "screw it I can't figure all this out or fly anywhere legally so I'm just flying." I'm going to get the license so that much more airspace is open to me and mitigates the requirements to try to call every uncontrolled field and helipad before I fly near them.

Thanks Strafe1

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

Then stop saying ILLEGAL to embellish your point. You lose all credibility when you state facts that are actually NOT. Also, post something other than criticism once in a while.

Have you read my posts? Although I agree with Grey Wolf, my posts have never stated the flight was illegal. I only asked if the pilot followed procedure as to Part 101, and if he's so positive that he's right, then why not put this thread "to bed" and post the local FAA's response? The pilot has stated that he has done "nothing illegal", so why won't he respond, that he will investigate with the authorities
and post their response, upon hearing back from them, whether it's legal or not?

 

[Strafe1]

This is the same dude that posted the video tracking the jogger and called her a "psycho" when she seemed to not be cool with it. Bro, sell your effen gear, this hobby is not for you. Law or not, you are clearly not responsible enough to understand that you are going to ruin this for everyone. At least stop posting videos of you acting irresponsibly (honestly they're super boring anyway)

I haven't seen this posting. Can you point me to the link so I can see this? If it's as you say, I need to give your comments 5 likes!

 

[Strafe1]

Have you read my posts? Although I agree with Grey Wolf, my posts have never stated the flight was illegal. I only asked if the pilot followed procedure as to Part 101, and if he's so positive that he's right, then why not put this thread "to bed" and post the local FAA's response? The pilot has stated that he has done "nothing illegal", so why won't he respond, that he will investigate with the authorities
and post their response, upon hearing back from them, whether it's legal or not?

I don't think I ever replied to your postings, have I? I think I was responding to Grey.

 

[Strafe1]

While the video of this flight is clearly highly irresponsible I wanted to say thanks to Strafe1 for pointing out when the internet drone police are crying illegal when things aren't. As a new participant in this hobby it is hard enough to sort out the real rules without a bunch of people telling everyone else things are illegal that aren't. If the rules were as restrictive as some would have you believe I think many people would say "screw it I can't figure all this out or fly anywhere legally so I'm just flying." I'm going to get the license so that much more airspace is open to me and mitigates the requirements to try to call every uncontrolled field and helipad before I fly near them.

Thanks Strafe1

Sure thing! But won't the license be even more restrictive for you? You'll definitely need it if your flying benefits you financially.

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

I don't think I ever replied to your postings, have I? I think I was responding to Grey.

No you have not. I've been following this entire thread, and I realize you were respond to GW. However, my request as to the pilot verifying with the local authorities definitely will verify whether the flight is legal or illegal; so it's related to your post.

 

[iajetpilot]

Sure thing! But won't the license be even more restrictive for you? You'll definitely need it if your flying benefits you financially.

In some ways the license will be more restrictive for things like the 400 AGL limit but the ability to fly in class G airspace without having to try to contact the myriad of unmanned and uncontrolled airports, helipads etc...will be a huge benefit. I was planning on taking my drone to Oahu soon and much of the shoreline is scattered with these little fields. If you look at a sectional almost the entire north shore is class G and thus flyable. Even near my house in Ohio the landscape is littered with these small airports.

 

[Forrest]

Can I ask A question without any smart *** responses. .... we will see..lol..... Isn't the whole flying in line of sight a recommendation , not a rule? I ask because i sometimes definitely go out of line of sight, i mean why have a product that you can't fully use at times? I don't agree with going miles away in a city , i know how quick you can loose connection, but i live on edge of city and have a habit of flying around the woods and obviously I'm way out of line of sight. BTW, I didn't view the video, just the comments posted and thats why I'm asking?

+1

 

[_milo_]

I was just about to post the same as Strafe, more latitude to Hobby flyers,

With hobby flyer operations, I've only seen the FAA concerned with Reckless operation, most of the reckless flights, (like hitting the space needle, or the one guy slamming into high rises in NY), were local charges, like the Oregon Code I posted earlier, its used when there may not be a specific criminal charge, but the actions were defined as reckless and could have injured someone. Its kind of a catch all.

For instance in Oregon there is a Reckless Burning Charge, in Illinois there is not, take for example someone intentionally setting fire to a large dumpster, its not Arson because there is no value, nor damage to property, however the fire could have enlarged and caught the building on fire, that could have resulted in Injury or death, Illinois would use their Reckless Conduct charge in the case, this is the most common use of the statute that I've seen.

If the MP had crashed onto the interstate and caused injury or damage, and it wasn't a fly-away, most likely charges would follow, more likely by local authorities, but possibly with civil penalties of the FAA.

Just use a little forethought and have fun.

Happy Flying,
Milo

 

[Gary cato]

Line of sight..... need I say more

Why makes drone that flies 4 miles if u cant fly 300 m iS DJI the irresponsible party for making the dtone. ever driven over the speed limit anywhere risking lives which is a law not a rule. Driven without a belt or a loose kid or dog in your car or even held any device while u drive . Oh really no one ever did any of that. Guidelines are exactly that if u dont want drones to fly 4 miles go tell dji Not to make them or sell them to anyone without a licence. See what response u get from them.