I’m so sick of these PROHIBITED signs everywhere I go in Los Angeles

[Redlabel89]

Since these are laws they are merely suggestions. I don't really care where I am except for an airport or out to sea.. Magic isn't going to do as much damage as fear mongering news. My friend meant to buzz me like Top Gun and hit me full speed. The Mavic had way more damage.the quick release all fell right off. They can be dangerous but if we're going to bam everything dangerous technology wouldn't exist. Just don't be stupid like my idiot friend. He threw the axis off the gimbal and broke every quick release, and I had a little bump. I've read the laws and my secret is (shhhhh) go to the top of the SMC garage. No one ever parks there unless it's a school day at 1pm, and the security guys think I'm doing school work since they have drone classes anyone can take. Clear view to promenade and pier. Hollywood sign, Venice and basically anything since its the highest thing West. I did a panarom on New year's and got fireworks in every direction at midnight. Now the secret is out I have never seen anyone there before . The promenade garages have police that are clueless so they tell you to stop. It just hover and put down the controller. SMC garage topographically is the highest point for miles I live a block away so I love it there. Sunrise with the blood moon was awesome. Welcome

 

[AMann]

Can I throw darts?

Lawn darts, heck yes! More fun than javelin throwing, fun for kids of all ages.

Anyone remember those? I was grounded for puncturing my brother’s basketball and denting a patio table with them.

 

[AMann]

Out of those 5 best places to fly in Los Angeles, you can actually just fly on 1 of them.... the Apollo XII airfield in Van Nuys part of the San Fernando Flyers. I fly there but have to spend 40 minutes in traffic each way.

McArthur park and Lake Hollywood are a no no now

Hermosa beach pier - cannot fly there unless you get a permit from the city of Hermosa Beach at the tune of $140 a year

Point Vicente Lighthouse in PV - you have to get a permit for $10 from the city of RPV, join AMA, and join SCORCH (an ama sanctioned RC helicopter club) for $50 a year more.

Can also fly on Lot H in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, but that’s far as hell from me.
[Removed by Moderator]

Sorry, that article didn’t have a date on it.

 

[The Editor]

It was determined that the caa govern the airspace above and so long as you are flying according to the ANO flight over is permitted, same as for aircraft.
I stand to be corrected on this but that was the CAA official response to the same query.

Who did you speak to at the CAA?
They have advised you incorrectly if they have not pointed out that bylaws are also enforceable under English law.
So are you saying, if you took off outside Hyde Park (EG R157) and overflew it, that would be OK so long as you didnt land or take off from within the park?

 

[The Fat Controller]

Lawn darts, heck yes! More fun than javelin throwing, fun for kids of all ages.

Anyone remember those? I was grounded for puncturing my brother’s basketball and denting a patio table with them.

Lawn darts, great fun. Aren't they banned now, health & safety etc?

 

[Camielleon]

Who did you speak to at the CAA?
They have advised you incorrectly if they have not pointed out that bylaws are also enforceable under English law.
So are you saying, if you took off outside Hyde Park (EG R157) and overflew it, that would be OK so long as you didnt land or take off from within the park?

Hi, this is one of the sources from where I have gathered this information, this has also recently been questioned relating to national trust and English heretige sites where they ban drones from flying overhead,
Also as a qualified private pilot I am allowed to fly overhead if it’s not a nfz.

Here’s a reply from the CAA to one of our guys who was enquiring about prohibition of flying over private land owned by English Heritage

 

[The Editor]

Hi, this is one of the sources from where I have gathered this information, this has also recently been questioned relating to national trust and English heretige sites where they ban drones from flying overhead,
Also as a qualified private pilot I am allowed to fly overhead if it’s not a nfz.

Here’s a reply from the CAA to one of our guys who was enquiring about prohibition of flying over private land owned by English Heritage

He says 'other airspace restrictions' which would include by-laws I mentioned earlier. He is wrong in saying that a NOTAM is a restriction - it isn't, so I would question his knowledge of the NAS.
It’s bad when the CAA give out wrong advice!

As a private pilot yourself perhaps you could point out what a no fly zone is in respect of manned aircraft? I assume you are VFR qualified, in which case you would be talking about FRZ, RA and Danger Areas.

As a qualified pilot how would you approach an overflight of EG R157?

 

[Camielleon]

I would not overfly EG R157 it is a restricted area that would require non standard flight approval from atc in fact I personally would not fly over any part of London, if I did it would be at an altitude sufficient that in the event of engine failure I could glide to safety, the min of 1400ft Amsl would not allow this ,all flights would require atc approval
No fly zone is as it implies applies to all, cannot fly in or over the the geographically assigned area.
But that is determined by the CAA in the Uk, not by landowners they can only govern launching, controlling from and landing on said land.
It appears you seem well versed on this subject probably more so than I, and if you still consider I am wrong in my conclusions then I bow to your superior knowledge in the matter.?
Perhaps as most agree the ano can appear quite conflicting especially when the response given to questions to the caa appear ambiguous.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Magic isn't going to do as much damage as fear mongering news. My friend meant to buzz me like Top Gun and hit me full speed. The Mavic had way more damage.the quick release all fell right off.

Nice anecdotal story, but here in Iowa we had a teenager lose control of his drone in a public park (they are banned in this particular park) and he hit a little kid with it. It cut the kid's face open pretty bad and put him in the hospital, requiring plastic surgery to fix.

So, it's not all "fear mongering." Flying in close proximity to other people who aren't involved can be a bad idea, and it can end up with worse than broken props.

 

[AMann]

Nice anecdotal story, but here in Iowa we had a teenager lose control of his drone in a public park (they are banned in this particular park) and he hit a little kid with it. It cut the kid's face open pretty bad and put him in the hospital, requiring plastic surgery to fix.

So, it's not all "fear mongering." Flying in close proximity to other people who aren't involved can be a bad idea, and it can end up with worse than broken props.

Similar true event in England; a young boy lost his eye due to a drone. They are not safe around soft tissue!

 

[BigAl07]

First off WELCOME to the forum. That's a fairly bold post for your very first post on the forum.

Since these are laws they are merely suggestions.

Laws are "merely" suggestions? Please cite your source on that statement.

I don't really care where I am except for an airport or out to sea..

With all due respect, that speaks volumes about you and your character in relation to our industry as a whole.

Magic isn't going to do as much damage as fear mongering news. My friend meant to buzz me like Top Gun and hit me full speed. The Mavic had way more damage.the quick release all fell right off

You do realize that not everyone on the planet is flying micro/mini sUAS? The rules are for ALL sUAS (at least in the USA) weighing less than 55lbs. Just because you're toy sUAS is micro doesn't mean you shouldn't play it safe as if it could do damage.

Also (I cringe even bringing this VERY controversial video up but I can't help myself apparently) have you seen the video of the airplane wing and the Phantom?

Drone vs. aircraft wing testing

In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft. The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the...

mavicpilots.com

Ok what about the Phantom and the UH-60 Blackhawk Helo that cost hundreds of thousands of $$ to repair?

Drone far beyond sight during Black Hawk collision

www.aopa.org

The above article goes into details and even has pictures to show what damage the Phantom did to a Combat Ready Aircraft.... I can't help but think what difference it might make if this had been a non-Combat built aircraft.... or what if it had impacted the Tail Rotor Assembly?

 

[Rich Sugden M.D.]

This city really sucks for this hobby ?

View attachment 78665

They can’t prevent the flying, only takeoff and landing on their property ... Takeoff outside the park.

 

[raymo]

Wow!! I used to think CA would be a good place to live.

ALL of my friends have moved out of California.

 

[firstbase]

I was more blown away by his knowledge of what the materials are that makes up the sign and how it can be taken down but *right this second* I think I’m understanding it’s a joke at California’s expense.
Kinda slow over here.

I assume you are not in the US of A as literally every item sold here has the statement "It contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer." printed on it somewhere. Everything. I haven't checked but would not be surprised if cans of pressurized air and bottled water had it on them as well. Hopefully the Big One will come and CA will quickly slide away from the mainland and become it's own country.

 

[Classic flyer]

And throw in the “never admit guilt” position?
This will get us all in trouble, ya think?

righ

And throw in the “never admit guilt” position?
This will get us all in trouble, ya think?

right...let's just give up on following the rules

 

[hiflyer201]

One thing you learn when you come to California is that people here do pretty much as they **** well please ..maybe it's because of all those warnings..

 

[ajkm]

Put that restriction down to the “hobbyists” who don’t follow any rules. Personally, given that the restriction is alongside noise, alcohol, narcotics, smoking, and animals, I have no problem with it. Just as at the lake, jet skis and speed boats are an irritant that should be restricted, so are drones (and the rest of those items) in parks where one goes for peace and quiet.

 

[Classic flyer]

No kidding!

No kidding!

One thing you learn when you come to California is that people here do pretty much as they **** well please ..maybe it's because of all those warnings..

sounds as though it sux to live in Cali.

 

[Galopin]

Wow!! I used to think CA would be a good place to live.

Am I still reading a forum on mavicpilots.com? Just go flying guys...ahahah

 

[Bobgossen]

I make signs everyday...
The materials to make about anything have the prop 65 warning for it to be sold in California.

The warnings have become somewhat of a joke as even coffee now has to have the warning:
Cancer warnings to be served up with coffee in California

In 1988 the Proposition 65 law that passed was there to help people know if they were in danger of chemicals. Now, because of suits, everything has to have it and the law itself has become harmful. All chemicals have the same label, yet some are dangerous, and others are not. For instance, acrylamide, specifically mentioned in the link above, has to carry the warning. It's not an added chemical but is made as a reaction to cooking just about ANY food. So if you buy food that has been cooked, you are getting this chemical agent. The FDA says it's a normal process of cooking and has not been shown to cause cancer, but California, due to attorneys, is not taking any chances and putting the same label on as they do RoundUp, which is truly harmful with direct contact.

So, I guess I was making light of the law that had good intent to start but now is not much more than an ignored joke.

There have been over 40 studies on Roundup Does The Herbicide RoundUp® Cause Cancer?
The studies in toto show no increase in non-Hodges lymphoma for normal use and a possible slight increase for farm works of 45% which science usually considers 100% or more to be really significant anything less is questionable significance. What that means is: the rate of non-Hodges lymphoma in the normal population is about 2.5% for normal people and 3.5% for farm workers using Roundup. That is out of 100 farm workers there would be 1 more case of non-Hodges lymphoma than the normal population. I would not consider that a significant risk. My father died of this cancer and did work with Roundup, but he was 88, I would never consider any liability on Monsanto’s part. Before you say I don’t know what I’m talking about, I worked in medical laboratories and toxicology labs for most of my career. I my not be completely correct, but I think it is a shame that lawyers can manipulate a jury’s emotions and cause the elimination of truly useful products from the economy, California is an extreme example of what can go wrong when lawyers get overly involved.