Ignoring no fly zones.

[Cafguy]

Are you suggesting this would apply even to a drone like the NEO? Even if you were to hit someone with it, has to be a freak accident for someone to actually get seriously hurt. Local authorities can say any drone, no matter what, is a safety hazard issue and ban it for safety reasons simply because they are *unable* to make a law restricting how close you can fly to someone? That's not going to fly (no pun intended) and it won't take a drone flyer with deep pockets to fix this, the law will have to change due to factors beyond their control. Problem is, most of us don't have that kind of time, and it's unfortunate for those who have to pay up in teh meantime...

I have been told to leave places with my Tinyhawk!

 

[CadrePilot]

I agree but it is not flight safety as much as You hitting someone or something if you should crash the Drone.

That is flight safety.
If it's too crowded for TOAL, a responsible pilot doesn't. If it's too crowded to fly safely without being over people, don't.

 

[Felix le Chat]

To be a legal sign those code numbers must be specific and state where you can find the specific wording in the law. The park we are talking about allows nothing lol I would not be surprised if talking too loud got you thrown out of that park.
There are museums and historical sites all over that park.

LOL! It seems that whoever penned that jolly little notice missed out the important restriction... which is "...and DON'T feed the f***ing monkeys!..."

 

[Max Headroom]

Except those little letters and numbers under all those "NO's". (LAMC .........)
Those indicate the actual codes or Ordinances you will be breaking if you Fly in that Area. Any sign without those indicators is NOT a true "no Drone" Zone,

ONLY the FAA can tell you where you can and can't fly BUT Local Governments can place restrictions on where you fly for public safety. If you are not sure you don't want to learn the hard way.
If you come to cali and see such a sign you are better off moving on.

Thanks for posting.

So as i said and was told by others here i was wrong he was an idiot to fly there and for bragging about it on SM!

 

[Dale D]

The idiot below thinks its clever to ignore the request then openly brags about it on a public Drone Facebook page.

View attachment 177461

The easiest thing to do is get back in your car and go where you are able to fly. California is a big place. Unless you are looking for police confrontations or worse.

 

[Max Headroom]

Exactly Dale why risk it, I have seen many videos of tyrant police officers who would be more than happy to use whatever power they have to ruin your day don't give them a reason to do it.

 

[orionshooter]

Not exactly.

Lower jurisdictions can control TOAL, but have NO authority over the air. [period]
Any reference to public safety is misguided.

I'd really love for someone with much deeper pockets than me to challenge the TOAL restrictions some places enforce. If their justification deals solely with TOAL, and not flight, I suppose it could hold up. But they all seem to justify themselves with flight safety. Guess what, that's up to the FAA. So their restriction of TOAL, justified by flight safety, is a de facto ban on flight and thus an overreach.

I don’t think it gets said better than this.

The other glaring problem I see with this attempt to control airspace over the park is notice. How does someone launching from a block away and doing a flyover have any idea what this sign prohibits?

 

[orionshooter]

Not exactly.

Lower jurisdictions can control TOAL, but have NO authority over the air. [period]
Any reference to public safety is misguided.

I'd really love for someone with much deeper pockets than me to challenge the TOAL restrictions some places enforce. If their justification deals solely with TOAL, and not flight, I suppose it could hold up. But they all seem to justify themselves with flight safety. Guess what, that's up to the FAA. So their restriction of TOAL, justified by flight safety, is a de facto ban on flight and thus an overreach.

It doesn’t get said better than this.

I’m gonna guess that the legal citation on the sign refers to Section 56.31 to Article 6 of Chapter V of the Los Angeles Municipal Code enacted in 2015.

Assuming that’s correct, nothing in that code prohibits the flyover of any park provided it is not within 5 miles of an airport.

 

[Captblygh]

Cant fix stupid

 

[Cafguy]

A couple of points to make about that park and that sign
It is very sad indeed that we have such a homeless problem in our country and in California its Extreme. We are the State every Homeless person in the country wants to live due to our nice climate ( here in Bakersfield it is rare for the temps to get near freezing) These signs with all these rules are posted in almost every Park here to keep the homeless from gathering and erecting a tent city ( it only takes a few hours!) If you want to go into technicalities- It is actually unlawful to eat your lunch in some parks in L.A.. This would require a permit to picnic. Now do the citizens have their lunch and picnics here without such permit....Of course they do! and the police say nothing.... However gather two or three homeless together and now with Rules like permits to picnic or gather in place the police can now legally question the "offender" if this is right or wrong is up to you. but If someone is not breaking a law you cannot question them.

 

[CadrePilot]

It is actually unlawful to eat your lunch in some parks in L.A.. This would require a permit to picnic. Now do the citizens have their lunch and picnics here without such permit....Of course they do! and the police say nothing.... However gather two or three homeless together and now with Rules like permits to picnic or gather in place the police can now legally question the "offender" if this is right or wrong is up to you. but If someone is not breaking a law you cannot question them.

That's crap. Making a law and selectively enforcing it is crap. Who 'selects' the enforcement?

 

[Cafguy]

That's crap. Making a law and selectively enforcing it is crap. Who 'selects' the enforcement?

YES it is! who judges what a "gathering" is really too BUT the sad thing is these things happen in our society because these things happen to the "thems" and not to the "us'es" no one learns from history.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Except those little letters and numbers under all those "NO's". (LAMC .........)
Those indicate the actual codes or Ordinances you will be breaking if you Fly in that Area.

Clocks are stopped worldwide. Lions are laying down with lambs. Lightening has just struck Bob twice. @Droning on and on... is agreeing with @mavic3usa

There is this pesky little law thing called jurisdiction. The LA city council don't have it when it comes to the airspace, as we all know.

No ordinance can actually restrict you flying over anything. Only the FAA can.

Despite that reality, everyone believes they can, and pass local laws constantly trying to control where we can fly, when the only thing can do is regulate where you can take off and land.

 

[Cafguy]

“Public Nuisance” Laws can. the FAA grants local jurisdictions the right to restrict aircraft flying above certain events or areas. California law defines a Public nuisance as ANYTHING that can cause harm to persons or property. You will not be breaking any FAA rules that I can see. BUT They are within their right to ask you to roll up and leave and to designate NO FLY Zones..If that were not so I would not be shelling out 300 a year plus to the AMA.

 

[Zbip57]

sanpedro.com/san-pedro-area-points-interest/korean-bell-friendship/

 

[mavic3usa]

“Public Nuisance” Laws can. the FAA grants local jurisdictions the right to restrict aircraft flying above certain events or areas. California law defines a Public nuisance as ANYTHING that can cause harm to persons or property. You will not be breaking any FAA rules that I can see. BUT They are within their right to ask you to roll up and leave and to designate NO FLY Zones..If that were not so I would not be shelling out 300 a year plus to the AMA.

unfortunately that just isn't true. the faa doesn't grant anything; they don't have that kind of power please don't make it out like the faa has some type of extra powers they can hand off to the local police to do all kinds of things outside of their span of control. they can designate no fly zones all you want but they have no power to enforce them (drones that are flying in the airspace).

i get it, cali has public nuisance laws just like the uk has anti-social laws. in many places, a nuisance has a strict definition and it doesn't mean "being a nuisance." A nuisance is a gambling joint, a den of inequity, loitering and prostituting. not flying a drone; flying a drone is not a crime and it's not a nuisance. but i can see how it can be abused and misused against the drone flyer because flying a drone is not a right which means you fly at the pleasure of your government; good luck with that.

 

[Dronecation]

That's crap. Making a law and selectively enforcing it is crap. Who 'selects' the enforcement?

Sometimes those enforcements [and particular law] is to stem other situations that can arise. Our city is dealing with encampment issues for years that have gotten severely out of control:

A homeless camp is pictured in Strathcona Park, Vancouver

A homeless camp is pictured in Strathcona Park close to the downtown core of Vancouver, Tuesday, March 9, 2021. The homeless camp at Strathcona park developed after city officials shut down the homeless encampment at Oppenheimer Park in late 2020 in Vancouver's downtown eastside. THE CANADIAN PRESS/

www.rcinet.ca

Vancouver park that was a homeless encampment reopens to the public

VANCOUVER — The site of a former homeless camp in Vancouver reopened Tuesday for its original use.

www.coastreporter.net

 

[Cafguy]

A nuisance is a gambling joint, a den of inequity, loitering and prostituting.

A nuisance can also be:
Bowling in a public street
Inviting CAKE over for a front yard jam.
Having an RC car Grand prix in your neighborhood. (boy they don't like that)
Lawn darts
Decorating your yard with swords
All of these can get you into trouble even tho they are not a crime ...per say.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Not exactly.

Lower jurisdictions can control TOAL, but have NO authority over the air. [period]
Any reference to public safety is misguided.

Not widely understood but factual nonetheless local authorities DO have jurisdiction over what you do with a camera, regardless of whether it's in your hands, mounted on a pole, or a drone.

Local laws regulating surveillance activities are entirely legal and enforceable. A city has the authority to prohibit photographs or video of any area. Visitors with a Nikon can, and have been fined for taking pictures where prohibited. The camera being on a drone makes no difference.

So, while can not control where you fly, they can control what you do with the camera. A local authority can prohibit any live view FROM A CAMERA on a drone flying over areas they have control of. FAA jurisdiction only saves you here if you're flying an aircraft without transmitting any imagery, but being flown strictly VLOS.

This is a twisty loophole in the tapestry of law and regulation w.r.t. hobby RC aircraft, a few locals have figured this out, ordinances restricting imagery taken above a certain height over the ground (the ones I've seen discussed are usually 30ft), saying nothing about flying.

 

[mavic3usa]

A nuisance can also be:
Bowling in a public street
Inviting CAKE over for a front yard jam.
Having an RC car Grand prix in your neighborhood. (boy they don't like that)
Lawn darts
Decorating your yard with swords
All of these can get you into trouble even tho they are not a crime ...per say.

Oh, the joys of living in California.