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

[DoomMeister]

Put that restriction down to the “hobbyists” who don’t follow any rules.

I am about up to my eyes with people blaming “hobbyists” for all the restrictions on sUAS flights!!!

Admittedly, there are many that buy a drone unbox it and immediately take to the skies anywhere they feel. But, on the other hand there are those that take the time to learn the rules and abide by them. I spent the better part of a month perusing the FAA website and the other sites referenced via them before I ever lifted my first drone off the ground under its own power.

Moderating on three forums, I see plenty of posts by supposed 107 certified pilots flying well beyond VLOS and other infractions. So your blanket statement blaming “hobbyists” for all the clamp downs on flying in many places is quite unfounded.

I’m actually looking forward to the future testing for recreational pilots, as it is well overdue. I would even be agreeable to requiring a document proving a person passed the test before they could purchase one.

 

[Earthman]

Umm NEGATIVE! IT does not say ,"Launch/Land" it saying Flying From... if you are standing on their property, you are in control of the aircraft (hence flying) from their property. That argument has long since sailed many moons ago.

In fact you even called it that in your post "while flying your Mavic air".... the sign specifically says "Flying"

Yes but, what if you set the drone down on the ground and it takes off and flies autonomously? Who’s “flying it” then? All you did was program the flight and push a button. Once the program is run, no person is “flying it, ” the machine is flying itself.

Of course I’m just having fun for now, but someday this is going to come up in court and signs and laws are going to be rewritten (there’s always more signs and laws). In fact, this is a real issue that courts and attorneys are struggling with now for autonomous cars.

By the way, if the sign isn’t backed up by a law or ordinance, it’s more of a request or suggestion. ?

 

[kensteele]

I’m actually looking forward to the future testing for recreational pilots, as it is well overdue. I would even be agreeable to requiring a document proving a person passed the test before they could purchase one.

agreed with you up until here: providing government test scores at point of sale in order to complete a purchase from a private business isn't capitalism. really, you would cave in to that just to stop the finger-pointing?

no retailer in his right mind will take part in such a program. how exactly is this supposed to work over the internet? all this does is cause more fraud, create a black market, drives up prices, stifle the industry innovation and advancement, and more importantly it makes everything worse for the recreational pilot and recreational pilot testing won't change anything; nothing.

 

[The Editor]

Yes but, what if you set the drone down on the ground and it takes off and flies autonomously? Who’s “flying it” then? All you did was program the flight and push a button. Once the program is run, no person is “flying it, ” the machine is flying itself.

Of course I’m just having fun for now, but someday this is going to come up in court and signs and laws are going to be rewritten (there’s always more signs and laws). In fact, this is a real issue that courts and attorneys are struggling with now for autonomous cars.

By the way, if the sign isn’t backed up by a law or ordinance, it’s more of a request or suggestion. ?

You are still the PIC and therefore fully responsible for the flight. You would be the individual classed as flying the aircraft - not any software.

 

[Redlabel89]

Take off from public right away, don't fly over peeps. And you're legal if airspace is clear.

I spoke with, or emailed the president of the A.S.C. and talked to my buddy that does helicopter shota for features, and the helicopter guy said the same thing. Airspace is Federal, and it's illegal to not follow airports and federal government officials, but shooting in Louisiana and California he has gotten a lot of flak and has a 100% win rate in anyone calling the police or lawsuits. Moving forward , soon there will be concrete rules, but as of now, only the federal government can tell you where to fly. If you are snooping in someone's window or are physically on property that is different, but that is the answer from the CA union for Cinematographers 600, and a professional helicopter pilot who may know a bit too. So follow the FAA rules and don't listen to anyone else. There is no such thing as local airspace. Just the facts jack

 

[gnirtS]

Not quite that simple I'm afraid.

Although there are specific sections within CAP393 appertaining to SUAS operations, within the UK certain entities also have the power to prohibit flight over their property by way of bylaws.
The National Trust is one example whereby the flight of powered model aircraft (which includes UAS) is prohibited.
These bylaws were introduced when the land was gifted to the people by the crown.
I have undertaken work for some National Heritage sites but there were hoops to jump through regarding permissions, site surveys (which had to be supplied) and a member of their staff had to be present when risk assessments were completed.
In all cases they also required an uplift in liability cover over £5million

That isn't correct for a few reasons.

Firstly when people used FOIA and other methods to get disclosure it turns out the vile organsation "national trust" (words cant desctibe the contempt i have for this body and its policies from everything to car parking to rights grabs to photography restrictions to UAVs) has no bylaws pertaining to overflight. The only bylaw related to operation of model aircraft from their land. With a £25 fine as a theoretical maximum. (Which isnt bad for a day "permit" which makes it almost worth doing just to irritate the jobsworths there).

NT are good at making claims, especially on their website about things not being allowed but the reality is a lot of the claims they make arent correct and its misleading legally to even make them. Usually when pushed they ignore requests for specific law and guidelines and when legal/foia means are used to procure them you find no such law exists.

Secondly, the CAA have themselves confirmed the airspace and airspace restrictions are solely their domain and as such provided the ANO is followed and there are no flight restrictions applied by them or via NOTAM overflight itself is perfectly ok.

The part you refer to applies to PfCO commercial operations where further restrictions such as planning, risk assessments, insurance (and operation from their land) DO come into play just as they would for any other commercial job anywhere.

 

[BigAl07]

Yes but, what if you set the drone down on the ground and it takes off and flies autonomously? Who’s “flying it” then? All you did was program the flight and push a button. Once the program is run, no person is “flying it, ” the machine is flying itself.

Of course I’m just having fun for now, but someday this is going to come up in court and signs and laws are going to be rewritten (there’s always more signs and laws). In fact, this is a real issue that courts and attorneys are struggling with now for autonomous cars.

By the way, if the sign isn’t backed up by a law or ordinance, it’s more of a request or suggestion. ?

I see the direction you're going with this but ultimately you're still the one responsible. Saying "It was technically FLYING itself is an empty argument. That's not going to hold any weight should an "incident" happen.... answers these questions and see in which direction the responsibility is pointed:

• Exactly WHO did the programming?
• Who is responsible for the flight?Who put the aircraft on the ground?
• Who initiated the autonomous flight to being with?
• Who is holding the Remote Control to take over the flight if something goes wrong in the air?
• Who is monitoring the aircraft while it's in flight for problem?

You is the correct answer for all of the ABOVE and YOU are still responsible for flying the aircraft!! Just because you're not moving the sticks doesn't mean you're not responsible for FLYING The aircraft.

 

[jagraphics]

I don’t think they would allow it to be flown in a park, so it doesn’t count.

And if I want fly my GlobalHawk (with it's Helfires) who is going to stop me?

Can you imagine a Park Warden saying "get that drone down...." and as it comes in to land realising it was a bit further away and a LOT bigger than he thought.

 

[jagraphics]

You is the correct answer for all of the ABOVE and YOU are still responsible for flying the aircraft!! Just because you're not moving the sticks doesn't mean you're not responsible for FLYING The aircraft.

Absolutely!! If a pilot sends the aircraft off on autopilot the pilot is responsible as he selected the autopilot..
If the pilot says "i didn't know the airctaft would fly there" the the pilot is still responsible and now incompetent.

 

[kensteele]

I see the direction you're going with this but ultimately you're still the one responsible. Saying "It was technically FLYING itself is an empty argument. That's not going to hold any weight should an "incident" happen.... answers these questions and see in which direction the responsibility is pointed:

• Exactly WHO did the programming?
• Who is responsible for the flight?Who put the aircraft on the ground?
• Who initiated the autonomous flight to being with?
• Who is holding the Remote Control to take over the flight if something goes wrong in the air?
• Who is monitoring the aircraft while it's in flight for problem?

You is the correct answer for all of the ABOVE and YOU are still responsible for flying the aircraft!! Just because you're not moving the sticks doesn't mean you're not responsible for FLYING The aircraft.

you're absolutely correct.

if a remote-controlled drone loses a blade and cuts a kid on the playground, the drone pilot across town might get arrested and charged with reckless conduct.

if a remote-controlled car blows a tires and enters the school yard and breaks a kid's leg, the car's owner and operator will be charged as well.

right?

 

[BigAl07]

you're absolutely correct.

if a remote-controlled drone loses a blade and cuts a kid on the playground, the drone pilot across town might get arrested and charged with reckless conduct.

if a remote-controlled car blows a tires and enters the school yard and breaks a kid's leg, the car's owner and operator will be charged as well.

right?

You're going off on a tangent that doesn't serve this topic/thread what so ever. We could ride that "hypothetical" bus all day long but what good does that serve? We're talking about Flight Restrictions and who is responsible for the FLIGHT of the Aircraft.

 

[jagraphics]

We could ride that "hypothetical" bus all day long but what good does that serve?

It's easier to sell tickets on a hypothetical bus than any real one

 

[Earthman]

I see the direction you're going with this but ultimately you're still the one responsible. Saying "It was technically FLYING itself is an empty argument. That's not going to hold any weight should an "incident" happen.... answers these questions and see in which direction the responsibility is pointed:

• Exactly WHO did the programming?
• Who is responsible for the flight?Who put the aircraft on the ground?
• Who initiated the autonomous flight to being with?
• Who is holding the Remote Control to take over the flight if something goes wrong in the air?
• Who is monitoring the aircraft while it's in flight for problem?

You is the correct answer for all of the ABOVE and YOU are still responsible for flying the aircraft!! Just because you're not moving the sticks doesn't mean you're not responsible for FLYING The aircraft.

I appreciate your response and agree with everything you and others have said about the PIC being responsible. Please don't get too passionate about my comments as I was being rhetorical with respect to "drones;" however, think about this if you ever get into a self-driving car (also agreed, this is off-topic).

 

[jagraphics]

however, think about this if you ever get into a self-driving car (also agreed, this is off-topic).

That is a whole different ball game. I have been to conferences on that. As you say it is way off topic for this thread.

 

[Flyicaptain]

Umm NEGATIVE! IT does not say ,"Launch/Land" it saying Flying From... if you are standing on their property, you are in control of the aircraft (hence flying) from their property. That argument has long since sailed many moons ago.

In fact you even called it that in your post "while flying your Mavic air".... the sign specifically says "Flying"

Good point! I guess that would prevent one from launching and walking into the park.
I wonder....Do they allow kite flying in that park? Probably not.
Seems like the California governmental bodies want control over anything people do while outside of their homes.

 

[sar104]

Good point! I guess that would prevent one from launching and walking into the park.
I wonder....Do they allow kite flying in that park? Probably not.
Seems like the California governmental bodies want control over anything people do while outside of their homes.

You mean like virtually all National Parks and other State Parks? Texas, for example, prohibits flying in State Parks. I guess it's much more fun to pretend California is some kind of outlier though.

 

[GadgetGuy]

You mean like virtually all National Parks and other State Parks? Texas, for example, prohibits flying in State Parks. I guess it's much more fun to pretend California is some kind of outlier though.

As far as I know, CA is the only state that State Farm won't insure drones against damage. That makes CA an outlier for State Farm!

 

[Thomas B]

As far as I know, CA is the only state that State Farm won't insure drones against damage. That makes CA an outlier for State Farm!

My SF agent in AZ declined to write insurance specifically on my drones.... OL though, their covered and my insurance is safe from the claim/cancel problem.

 

[GadgetGuy]

My SF agent in AZ declined to write insurance specifically on my drones.... OL though, their covered and my insurance is safe from the claim/cancel problem.

Never have figured out why an entire state would be excluded from a personal articles policy specifically covering drones. If your agent declined, that is different than a company policy prohibiting any agent from including them in CA. Have you tried any other State Farm agents in AZ? Some State Farm agents in other states don't know of the coverage, or don't want to write it, unless you have other policies with them, but that is an agent decision. Not much profit on a $75 policy.

 

[Thomas B]

Never have figured out why an entire state would be excluded from a personal articles policy specifically covering drones. If your agent declined, that is different than a company policy prohibiting any agent from including them in CA. Have you tried any other State Farm agents in AZ? Some State Farm agents in other states don't know of the coverage, or don't want to write it, unless you have other policies with them, but that is an agent decision. Not much profit on a $75 policy.

Don’t plan to pursue. Got it covered anyway, and 2.5 million liability plus medical (injury) liability coverage through AMA for $65/yr... plus all the others AMA benefits.