Aerial Journalism - Cited/Confiscated

[Citizen Flier]

Apologies if this has already been posted. Encouraging to see aerial journalism at work. But so much for Freedom of the Press.

Photographer cited, had drone confiscated for documenting Hart Island mass burials

George Steinmetz, whose aerial photography work appears in National Geographic and the New York Times, was cited for flying his drone over a massive burial ditch on Hart Island.

www.dpreview.com

 

[DoomMeister]

Depending on his launch point even if he was not on Hart Island itself he would have been in Class G airspace and legal to fly the drone.

 

[DanMan32]

I'm wondering if that 1940 law was related to WWII. There werent drones back then so the law couldn't have been in consideration from that. The outer boroughs were quite rural back then too From FAA perspective, there are many areas today in the 5 boroughs of NYC that are safe to fly.

Now if by "NYC" that means Manhattan, that is a different matter.

 

[Hegemone]

Depending on his launch point even if he was not on Hart Island itself he would have been in Class G airspace and legal to fly the drone.

The law the citation referencs limits take offs and landings from within city limits. I think I saw he was flying from City Island. The FAA has sole control of the airspace. 95 % of city island is ok per b4ufly bit the northern tip is restricted class B so the FAA is out of the picture. If he had launched from outside city limits then the outcome might have been differnt. Lots of places restrict take of and landing. Like the blue ridge parkway. I can launch from outside the parkway and fly over it and land outside the park but I can't launch or land on a scenic overlook.

From the article the photog either rolled the dice and lost or was ignorant of the law. As a part 107 pilot those are typically seen as bad things.

After looking at the map I do question VLOS was maintained and people working could have posed a problem if he got to close to them. (That's for folks who may not understand portions of the combo).

 

[Citizen Flier]

I live in a highly restricted county. NFZ's everywhere. There is a lot of negative energy directed at our beloved pastime, and I won't do anything to fan those flames. Professional journalists are a completely different category however, and I'm a supporter of Freedom of the Press. This is new territory. I wonder if press credentials would have gotten a legit reporter access for land based photos.

 

[Hegemone]

I live in a highly restricted county. NFZ's everywhere. There is a lot of negative energy directed at our beloved pastime, and I won't do anything to fan those flames. Professional journalists are a completely different category however, and I'm a supporter of Freedom of the Press. This is new territory. I wonder if press credentials would have gotten a legit reporter access for land based photos.

But is breaking the law to get footage/images ok? Photographers have been dealing with general harassment for a long time. People get pissed when you take their picture in a public space so on and so forth. But I can't break into a politicians house to get the scoop. I firmly agree with protecting the press but don't yell fire in a crowded theatre (reference to limits on freedom of speech).

Just thinking out loud and playing a bit of the devil's advocate.

 

[DoomMeister]

Do the launch and landing restrictions apply to private property? I can understand them controlling public property, but how can they restrict such from private property?

I won’t deny that VLOS would be a stretch but with good lighting that could be negated. I seriously doubt someone with those credentials was flying over workers and interfering with their job.

Documenting this type of thing is part of free journalism.

 

[Mavic Mac]

Not that long ago a member here posted a video of Hart Island. HERE is a link to that video

 

[Hegemone]

Do the launch and landing restrictions apply to private property? I can understand them controlling public property, but how can they restrict such from private property?

I won’t deny that VLOS would be a stretch but with good lighting that could be negated. I seriously doubt someone with those credentials was flying over workers and interfering with their job.

Documenting this type of thing is part of free journalism.

I agree it needs documented.

I don't believe there is any private land on city island or near enough to Hart to get that footage from privately owned land. Could be wrong though.

So many folks got so scared of drones and "national security" that lots of crazy **** gets done. Just not enough money in our hobby to lobby and protect the individuals with drones. The money gets the protection. [emoji38]

As soon as that all comes down where will the documentation come from? The forest for the trees...

 

[Hegemone]

Not that long ago a member here posted a video of Hart Island. HERE is a link to that video

I think I was thinking about some of those comments. Must have been where I got the name city island stuck in my head.

 

[Thomas B]

Do the launch and landing restrictions apply to private property? I can understand them controlling public property, but how can they restrict such from private property?

I won’t deny that VLOS would be a stretch but with good lighting that could be negated. I seriously doubt someone with those credentials was flying over workers and interfering with their job.

Documenting this type of thing is part of free journalism.

Even if they can why not hand launch and catch?
Of course if NYC police take you downtown they’ll find some ordinance.

 

[Hegemone]

Is hand launching some sort of proven loop hole? You are acting as the landing gear when it lands on the restricted property. Seems like a weak defense to me. Guess we will need to see if the charge leads to conviction in front of the judge.

Again seems like a roll of the dice but what do I know. I am definitely no expert. Freedom of press is not the issue here, it's how the material was obtained.

 

[Thomas B]

Is hand launching some sort of proven loop hole? You are acting as the landing gear when it lands on the restricted property. You are still standing there. Seem like a weak defense to me. Guess we will need to see if the charge leafs to conviction in front of the judge.

Again seems like a roll of the dice but what so I know. I am definitely no expert.

Agree with the general thrust. But I’d mention that someone’s hand is not a landing gear, but a landing/ TO place...

 

[Hegemone]

Agree with the general thrust. But I’d mention that someone’s hand is not a landing gear, but a landing/ TO place...

True but you are standing there facilitating the landing. It's all shaky to me. Might as well just land on the roof of your car. That way you don't have to disable to downward sensors. It's all symantics in the end and I guess that's what the laws are built on, words.

The rulings will definitely send a clear message.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Not that long ago a member here posted a video of Hart Island. HERE is a link to that video

That was a good little video that, pre covid and those related burials.

I guess authorities can book a pilot in a number of miscellaneous ways if it fits their definition of an offence.
Up to judges then to sort the chaff from the wheat.

 

[snapdog]

As a long time commercial photographer I carry this document in my camera bag. Flying drones as a photographer, which I do, the same should apply. I realized these are the worst of times, and a lot of bad things are happening, but there's no need to ignore rights, as long as you follow the rules on the ground as well as in the air. The second is one issued by the NYPD.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Apologies if this has already been posted. Encouraging to see aerial journalism at work. But so much for Freedom of the Press.

Photographer cited, had drone confiscated for documenting Hart Island mass burials

George Steinmetz, whose aerial photography work appears in National Geographic and the New York Times, was cited for flying his drone over a massive burial ditch on Hart Island.

www.dpreview.com

I don’t see how this has anything to do with the freedom of the press. NYC has a drone law for better or for worse. I’m sure the photographer is fine and most likely the charges will be dropped.

 

[Hegemone]

I just saw the little clip of this dude on the today show. Why didn't he just to make the chopper fly over? It just seems like this guy knew he was violating regulations and didn't care. That isn't good for our community. I would like to think he was 107 and capturing compelling images for commercial use legally for the good of the community's reputation, but at the end of the day he didn't like the law and made and judgment call on the intent of the law rather than following the letter of the law.

He knew enough not to try and paraglide and had a commercial helicopter pilot. I just wonder if the drone part was intentional to drum up some controversy. He probably has the cash to just eat the fine. He really didn't look comfortable with that mavic. Just so many wierd things at play here.

 

[DoomMeister]

I just saw the little clip of this dude on the today show. Why didn't he just to make the chopper fly over? It just seems like this guy knew he was violating regulations and didn't care. That isn't good for our community. I would like to think he was 107 and capturing compelling images for commercial use legally for the good of the community's reputation, but at the end of the day he didn't like the law and made and judgment call on the intent of the law rather than following the letter of the law.

He knew enough not to try and paraglide and had a commercial helicopter pilot. I just wonder if the drone part was intentional to drum up some controversy. He probably has the cash to just eat the fine. He really didn't look comfortable with that mavic. Just so many wierd things at play here.

Did it divulge the launch site and whether it was public or private property? I am so glad I don’t live in that miniature nanny state called NYC! If a person is on private property in Class G airspace there is literally nothing a government entity can arrest you on for launching or landing your UAS.

There was another recent thread involving the “Drone Police” in the NYC metropolis. The drone was launched from private property and was traced using drone tracking technology. The area was Class G airspace and no TFR’s were in force at the time. The flight was illegal from an FAA standpoint as it was a BVLOS flight, but that was not the issue when the ‘SSNY’ squad showed up at the residence.

I am really curious how New York is going to deal with drone flights when BVLOS delivery flights become a reality.

 

[Hegemone]

Parking lot in the Bronx is all they said. I am still not sure about if the launch from public or private property applies to this city ordinance.

His kids or grandkids were with him. Not a great lesson to teach the kids in my opinion.

I question the confiscation of equipment the most here though. I guess they did have probable cause for search and seizure. I just wouldn't have put myself in that position.