Alas "No drones allowed"

[Paasche]

I just came from Mexico. I asked if it was ok to fly and they told me they encourage it! I was flying near a Church, but had a spotter and was flying safely, had two armed police come close by, take a look and walk away. It was so awesome to be able to fly and take photographs. Now back here in the Bay Area and ao many no fly zones.
Maybe something like a fly between these hours would be cool? They could have a one to two hour window where people could fly-maybe early in the morning so less people traffic-and we could use areas that are restricted. Just a thought since I just see more and more no fly zones popping up.

 

[Oracle]

Wrong.

You can thank the idiots who are creating these restrictions.

"Stupid things" are inevitable to some extent, they will ALWAYS happen and they do NOT justify these kinds of restrictions.

In the states every township has its own regulations, its pathetic

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

Guys, you need to start ruling yourselves! Thought you were the land of the free??

Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep making dinner plans.

 

[Static8]

Mexico is great place to fly and they are so friendly. The rest of the world need to mirror their open minded attitude ,engaging in multi-rotor flying because they kow its a hobby, and provides incredible video footage of the area, talk about free advertising for any region. Every state of the union should have more quads in the air and filming to show off the beauty of each state,or province in Canada, this will increase tourism 10 fold..but I guess they don't see it this way. WHy do yo think Mexico encourages it....

 

[Hostage42]

There's signs posted at southern California beaches now. Electric signs that say no drones allowed. Laguna is the one I saw it at. I'm assuming it's all orange county beaches. It sucks cause I went there specifically to fly my mavic.

 

[Arthur H H]

Interesting stuff in this thread but I think your missing 1 aspect of the No Drones situation.

It has more to do with assurance of air worthiness than privacy or disruption.

The manned aircraft situation has to jump through loads of checks and certification procedures to ensure they will fly and stay flying, Drones do not have that (as yet).

It is a deep and complicated subject and no one has gotten the right set of rules yet, doubt we ever will due to the scale (and it grows every day) of it.

 

[Reed]

I just came back from a trip to France. Certainly, I did not take a footage of Mt. Saint-Michel, because in the basemenet a police station is installed and an anti-terror unit was present, because Mt ST. Michel ist one of the most-visited places in France. In general, all NFZ are marked on a map in the internet, see Géoportail

But on all other occasions when I asked people before, they allowed it, especially places which are not frequented. Small, very old churches in the country, or rural museums do not care. One guard told me "Recently, there was a drone team of the tourist office here. So, why not?".

 

[RabieL]

Drones are also not allowed in most national parks here in South Africa due to rhino poaching. Poachers use drones to track rhinos, [emoji22][emoji22][emoji22]

 

[hostage1]

Hi, The places in Iceland where you see those signs are their because drones outnumbered the tourists .

 

[Maxheadspace]

Um. I actually saw this sign, or one like it, in person a few weeks ago in Iceland. It is in a national park where thousands of tourists go to see the most powerful waterfall in Europe.

Not allowing flying in a national park at a feature being swarmed by hordes is not exactly unusual. And the sign even tells you how to get permission.

Lots to film by drone in Iceland, there are amazing waterfalls and volcanic activity outside of parks.

Even so, I filmed there just like I do every where. I assume someone will complain if I get in their space.

My flights in Iceland could not completely avoid people, so I employed tactics both out of respect for others and personal defense.

I take off away from people (don't be obvious), approach the shot quickly, execute my shot according to plan and get the **** out.

I plan my flight and my shots to minimize sound or visual contact, both with the drone and with me. I respect your space, minimize my time in the air, and make it difficult to engage me in a conflict.

You won't know I have a drone with me (knapsack). You won't see me unpack or take off. You probably won't see me pass, and if you do I won't be there long before I disappear out of your sight. If somehow you still manage to see me land (because I did maintain visual contact) it will probably be too far away from you to interact with me.

The higher the risk, the less likely I am to even make a second pass, let alone start a second session with a fresh battery.

If the risk is too high, why fly? A one in a lifetime shot doesn't count if you end up losing to drone or initiating an encounter- even if you are "within your rights."

It's like leaving no visible impact when hiking or camping. I know some idiot will ruin it someday, but it isn't going to be me.

My tactics exactly. That’s why I use a Mavic when I have so many other drones with better cameras. It’s small and nearly invisible when in the air.

 

[raymo]

Mexico is great place to fly and they are so friendly. The rest of the world need to mirror their open minded attitude ,engaging in multi-rotor flying because they kow its a hobby, and provides incredible video footage of the area, talk about free advertising for any region. Every state of the union should have more quads in the air and filming to show off the beauty of each state,or province in Canada, this will increase tourism 10 fold..but I guess they don't see it this way. WHy do yo think Mexico encourages it....

I see great UAV footage, and I want to go there. That's just me. And while on the topic of great drone usage, and the prospect of terrorists derailing trains, why not get sport UAV operators to monitor railroad tracks, even randomly would be better than nothing. Same thing with shark monitoring on beaches. People are just not that creative. Put UAVs to work and have fun at the same time.

 

[OCsurfer411]

I'm in the process of reading the Laguna Beach ordinance right now and truly understanding it and its limits and my rights as a FAA Certificated Drone pilot.

Yesterday, while at Laguna Beach (I've flown and filmed there many times), I had 2 different lifeguards (note NOT police officers) approach me. The first was right behind me at the first beach I launched it near Heisler park. He was more inquisitive than general, asking me if I was a "licensed pilot" I calmly informed him that I have my FAA UAS certificate and that, as required, my FAA UAS Certificate number is marked on the hull of my drone. He reminded me to keep it in line of sight and not to fly over large gatherings of people or the park itself, and thanked me and went back to his station. After I landed, I showed him my FA number on my hull, and he thanked me again and said I was the first drone pilot he'd met that actually had their drone registered.

I then went maybe 100 yards down to a different rock outcropping (still below Heisler park, but nearer to Diver's Cove). I'd been flying for maybe 10 minutes (and my drone was at the time 1,000 feet out over the ocean circling a small fishing vessel), when another lifeguard who clearly had taken the time to abandon his station at Diver's Cove to scramble over the rocks just to confront me, started yelling at me that I couldn't fly.

I calmly informed him that I was familiar with the City Ordinance, and that I was not violating it nor FAA guideliness for flying a UAV. He said I was incorrect and that I wasn't allowed to fly on any beach in Laguna Beach. I informed him he was incorrect.

Lifeguard: "I'm not going to argue with you, land your drone."
Me: "I'm not violating any city, state or federal law. I have a properly registered craft, and I'm operating it lawfully. You are not a police officer, you have no authority to order me to land my craft. If you wish to contact Laguna Beach PD and make them aware of the situation, that is of course your right, but I do not recognize your authority to order me regarding my drone."
Lifeguard: "Okay" (and he left).

I flew for about 10 more minutes, then calmly packed up and left (I was about done anyway). I never saw any Police Officers.

This exchange has me now wanting to study the ordinance in greater detail, and, if my understanding of the ordinance is correct, to keep a copy of it in my drone kit, along with a printed copy of my certificate. I may have to escalate to the City Attorney so they can clarify with their lifeguards what is and what isn't in the ordinance. I'll keep you all posted.

 

[OCsurfer411]

Okay more info.

Laguna Beach Municipal Code 7.80.40 (f) states:

“No person shall operate any model airacraft or civil unmanned aircraft system within the airspace overlaying Heisler Park, Main Beach Park, Treasure Island Park, Irvine Bowl Park, Crescent Bay Park, Bluebird Park (only on Sunday summer concert events in July and August), or a City Beach (with the exception of over the ocean), without a valid Remote Pilot Certificate (RPC) issues by the FAA pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 107. An Operator may present a copy of his or her RPC to the City, along with other information, on forms provided by the Laguna Beach Police Department.”

Now, there are a number of ways to interpret this. One might interpret it as any pilot, registered or not, can fly a drone in the city as long as it is over the ocean. One could also interpret it that as long as I am an FAA certificated pilot, I can fly at city beaches AS WELL AS over the city parks listed above. One might interpret that only pilots with their Part 107 license can do as listed above, but I think the word “Certificate” is important here because Part 107 is not a certificate, it is a “License”, whereas simple registration of your drone grants you a 3-year “Certificate.”

Regardless, I’m fairly certain that if I keep a copy of the ordinance with me as well as a copy of my FAA UAS certificate, I can de-escalate any future confrontations with lifeguards. I’m also guessing most Police Officers aren’t aware of the distinction between simple registration and Part 107 Licensing, but this does give me cause to think about getting my Part 107 Licensing.

The complete text of the ordinance, along with other Laguna Beach Staff instructions can be found here:

http://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=662&meta_id=50065

 

[OCsurfer411]

This quote from a Laguna Beach City Councilman disturbs me greatly (Source: OC Register)

'Councilman Rob Zur Schmiede suggested the council revisit whether a person could disarm a drone that came within 20 feet of them.

“I agree; it’s self-defense,” said Councilman Steve Dicterow.'

Self Defense? From a drone flying 20 feet from them? How is that drone 20' from them a threat? How many people have actually been injured (seriously) from a civilian UAV? To my knowledge the number is ZERO, and it's hard to even find more than handful of injuries reported from Civilian Drones in the U.S. - I found this article: 12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones - But of those 12 "disasters" only 4 of them resulted in injuries, All minor, and the other 8 were drones flying NEAR things that COULD HAVE caused problems, but which didn't actually cause a problem. A few of the reports were foreigners illegally piloting their drones in the U.S.

But what's even worse, is that the FAA has stated quite clearly that interfering with a drone while it is in flight is against FAA regulations and a violation of federal law. You're not allowed to shoot at drones, take control of somebody else's drone, or take part in any activity that would impair or impede control or flight of somebody else's drone BY LAW, unless you're a properly trained and authorized LEO.

So Councilman Dicterow's comment is not only factually untrue, it's in fact unlawful. Unfortunately, there's not enough education among the MSM to point that out.