Auditors

[Felix le Chat]

Please describe a "good" auditor in the context we're discussing.

Legitimate "auditors" provide a valuable service that others seek them out and hire them for. For example financial records auditors, or cyber security auditors.

There are no legitimate drone-rights auditors. No one is interested in hiring them to test someone else's fidelity to flying rules. Further, their behavior is anything but professional, rather clearly prioritized for sensation and public dissemination.

This is not how an "auditor" worthy of the term operates. It's how hooligans and social reprobates behave. A real audit in virtually all situations is something you and I would never know about. It's private, sensitive information, collected to uncover deficiencies with the goal to correct and improve.

Should a PD undertake an audit to determine the knowledge level of drone flying rules among their officers, it would not consist of some pilot flying over the PD headquarters and then getting in an aggressive argument with whoever came out to talk to them, and posting it to YT.

That's exceedingly unlikely to result in an education program at the department.

The idea that there are ANY "good" YT drone "auditors" is laughable, and I'm holding back 'cause this is a family site The truth is, all these idiots do is make things harder for the rest of us enthusiasts, poisoning relations with LE, and advancing knowledge not at all.

A post later on in this thread features one of the Brit "auditors" who cycles around the west midlands of England making himself an arrogant, supercilious pain in the nuts to all and sundry. What he does is pointless, antagonistic and fails to have any educational or social relevance.
There are, however, (as you pointed out) rare instances where oversight is justified, absolutely necessary and both morally and legally defensible.
A large scale infrastructure project (that shall remain nameless) was recently forced to undertake significant archaeology when a series of historically unknown features were unearthed in an area they were pushing through. These features were described by the lead archaeologist as being "...of National importance..." but the dig was rushed due to developer pressure. The hard features uncovered were significant enough to warrant being classified as a Scheduled Monument. An Elizabethan building close by which was the only surviving Estate structure was also scheduled for demolition.
In order to document the handling of this site, a series of drone survey and close detail flights was undertaken which captured photographic information detailing the systematic destruction of the exposed discoveries. This entailed the use of heavy machinery ripping the intact foundation courses of a Tudor turreted gatehouse apart and the dumping of the rubble in a big pile at the rear of the site (well out of sight). The flights also captured the entire process of the demolition of the surviving intact building, which could have been archaeologically disassembled and relocated as a local heritage asset.
Without this "oversight", there would not have been a comprehensive digital record of both demolition processes.
While not permissioned by the developer consortium, all flights were completely legal, using public access for TOAL, images taken during overflight were from waypoints on a longer A-B flight path, no persons were present on-site, local ATC was given detailed notification of all flights in advance, minimum safe distance from target was maintained and all photographs taken did not breach privacy or data protection laws.
The reason I know what I'm doing is that this process is part of what I do professionally, the surveying of heritage assets to document state: condition and disposition.
These monkeys who justify themselves as "auditors" make my job harder every time they post a new video. They make my teeth itch.

 

[MS Coast]

Rewind the tape. You and others referred to "auditors" as despicable human beings who create and post nothing educational, informative or of any value to anyone. I agree with you that the personalities and tactics of so-called auditors may be offensive but I would not throw out everything they post as garbage. In my opinion, if you intend to continue flying drones as a hobbyist in the USA, it behooves you to study very carefully the laws and regulations and think about how you will handle public and police interactions should they occur.

The challenge was made here to post an example of one video by an auditor that was educational and informative. I accepted the challenge and explained why I thought that one video fit the bill. The auditor and the police discuss two critical issues:

1. can drones commit aerial trespass if they fly over private property lines?
2. does a person have any reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in their private, fenced backyard but visible to a drone flying overhead?

In my opinion, the parties do an excellent job presenting their arguments. Yes, the auditor is a wiseacre and disrespectful but he is making the very same arguments made by the FAA, law enforcement and many others to this day. The video is unique in that the typical roles are reversed and law enforcement is arguing we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our fenced backyard and if you fly your drone over our property line then you are trespassing.

BTW I am sorry you feel I have wrecked drone flying in the United States. Hopefully it will come back.

There was a contrived confrontation. They had a discussion. But what was resolved?

 

[patcarty2]

Can I ask when was the last time you watched one? Also, why should you have a say over what I or others watch - if what is shown is legal?

Who the ****** are you anyway wearing the type of shirt you do? You could give others the wrong impression

 

[Robert Prior]

The Pilot told the officer he would fly "within 5 feet of the power lines if he wanted, it isn't illegal" or something along those lines.

I don't know about down south, but up here that would be illegal. I'm pretty sure it would fall under CAR 900.06, but there are likely other regulations as well.

900.06 No person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger aviation safety or the safety of any person.

Aviation safety is very much focused on "what might have gone wrong and how to we prevent it happening", as opposed to the "no harm no foul" attitude that ignores potential problems until something actually occurs.

Not to mention the laws regarding critical infrastructure. Pretty sure flying a drone low over a substation would be treated as negligence (at minimum). Lots of potential for damage.

 

[Chip]

There was a contrived confrontation. They had a discussion. But what was resolved?

The guy asserted his right to fly drone over police department parking lot. Police objected. Guy's drone battery ran out so he landed. Police warned him okay for today but do it again and we will cite (and possibly arrest) you for trespass. That was the resolution that day.

 

[Chip]

I think I am being fair by not directly offering my thoughts or opinions on the topic because I consider myself an "activist" (not an auditor, not an advocate) and I understand many will disagree with me even when I keep it totally legal and civil. Instead I can only offer real life examples that are recent and again, I don't have an opinion on this video one way or the other besides letting you know this is not me and these are not my videos and I consider it somewhat relevant to the conversation; some may find it interesting:

Activist, auditor, or advocate...how would you classify this guy Shark? He flies over private property to document by drone what he believes to be animal abuse. This activity would be illegal in Texas which has a law prohibiting drones from flying over private property to conduct surveillance. Law was recently upheld on appeal.

 

[mavic3usa]

Activist, auditor, or advocate...how would you classify this guy Shark? He flies over private property to document by drone what he believes to be animal abuse. This activity would be illegal in Texas which has a law prohibiting drones from flying over private property to conduct surveillance. Law was recently upheld on appeal.

At the very end of the scale is a terrorist and one step above that is an extremist. My opinion, I put this guy somewhere between an activist and extremist; closer to an extremist. His cause may be noble but it sounds like he is willing to bend or break a few laws to justify getting to the ends. He's no different than the folks on the opposite side of the coin who are willing to break or bend a few rules or policies or laws to get to their end (re: his incident with authorities in NY). It doesn't matter if you are in TX (where a law might exist) or any other state (where a law might not exist), this guy was in NY and he still got arrested/violated by the people on the opposite side of the coin.

 

[MS Coast]

The guy asserted his right to fly drone over police department parking lot. Police objected. Guy's drone battery ran out so he landed. Police warned him okay for today but do it again and we will cite (and possibly arrest) you for trespass. That was the resolution that day.

So, nothing was settled or resolved? The legal issue wasn't addressed? Neither party was found to be wrong; the question remains open.

He asserted his right? Does he indeed have a right to fly over a police station? I know I don't have a right to fly over the AFB across the bay or the county prison.

 

[Droning on and on...]

A post later on in this thread features one of the Brit "auditors" who cycles around the west midlands of England making himself an arrogant, supercilious pain in the nuts to all and sundry. What he does is pointless, antagonistic and fails to have any educational or social relevance.
There are, however, (as you pointed out) rare instances where oversight is justified, absolutely necessary and both morally and legally defensible.
A large scale infrastructure project (that shall remain nameless) was recently forced to undertake significant archaeology when a series of historically unknown features were unearthed in an area they were pushing through. These features were described by the lead archaeologist as being "...of National importance..." but the dig was rushed due to developer pressure. The hard features uncovered were significant enough to warrant being classified as a Scheduled Monument. An Elizabethan building close by which was the only surviving Estate structure was also scheduled for demolition.
In order to document the handling of this site, a series of drone survey and close detail flights was undertaken which captured photographic information detailing the systematic destruction of the exposed discoveries. This entailed the use of heavy machinery ripping the intact foundation courses of a Tudor turreted gatehouse apart and the dumping of the rubble in a big pile at the rear of the site (well out of sight). The flights also captured the entire process of the demolition of the surviving intact building, which could have been archaeologically disassembled and relocated as a local heritage asset.
Without this "oversight", there would not have been a comprehensive digital record of both demolition processes.
While not permissioned by the developer consortium, all flights were completely legal, using public access for TOAL, images taken during overflight were from waypoints on a longer A-B flight path, no persons were present on-site, local ATC was given detailed notification of all flights in advance, minimum safe distance from target was maintained and all photographs taken did not breach privacy or data protection laws.
The reason I know what I'm doing is that this process is part of what I do professionally, the surveying of heritage assets to document state: condition and disposition.
These monkeys who justify themselves as "auditors" make my job harder every time they post a new video. They make my teeth itch.

Thank you for this example of a legitimate, necessary "audit" using drones. A fascinating example.

Several things are noteworthy relative to this thread:

• No one's understanding of flight regulations was being tested.
• This audit did not include forcing some confrontation then sensationalizing on YT.