Instant No Drones Sign.
- Thread starter Player-Pe
- Start date
did you see that sign? is that posted at the entrance of a "county park" or at a military installation, i couldn't tell? tell me they aren't looking for a million ways to restrict people's fun activities, that sign has several dozen of them...where else are you suppose to do those things?" there are dozens of other parks across the country where everything on this sign IS permitted which basically leads me to believe they ARE being overly restrictive; it's a city/county park not a National Park. i bet years ago, they probably use to restrict cellphone usage....until everybody got one and people started using them to save lives....in a park and beyond.
growing up (a nod to the other thread), the local park is where you went to fire your slingshot or bb gun at a target instead of the corner of 5th and main, ride your mini bikes on the trails instead of taking over a city street, light off fireworks in the parking lot instead of in the driveway almost burning down the neighborhood, or pitching a tent in the woods at night to watch the stars instead of under a bridge alongside the homeless. gone are those days.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Rhetorical statement or really want references?
The science of how drones can affect wildlife is proven and factual, and they do diminish natural and wilderness quality for most people, that’s why open-space nature parks are prohibiting them.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
What action? Conjure law out of thin air?
If I complain I don't like my neighbor exceeding 5mph in our neighborhood where the legal speed limit is 25mph, can my LEO friend post a 5mph sign on my street and then start citing people?
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
The science of how Raptors can affect other wildlife is proven and factual too. Applied to drones in general, it's a stupid argument.
Talk to me about specific behavior, and we're likely on the same page. Observing wildlife from a reasonable distance is no more disturbing to the critters than you doing so on the ground, and in that scenario too you can exceed reasonable limits of harassing and disturbing wildlife.
Target what's troublesome.
Basically but only under certain circumstances. There are already laws that cover what is required to set the speed limit on most roads, how to legally post most roads, and police have pretty strict rules on how to enforce speed limits. So a complain will usually take a little more time and action to accomplish the goal. The state has put into place certain rules and regulations to protect this from potential abuse and make sure it is based on safety.
Drones don't enjoy such protection. No one has stepped up to make sure drones cannot be "abused." The FAA has put out a statement that says they exclusively own the airspace but frankly, practically nobody believes that and nobody cares what they say because the FAA has failed to enforce their claim in a legal setting. Therefore, it is pretty easy to control drones and drone flying in areas under your control which includes the air over the heads of your citizens and your properties. Any city can simply include drone flying and operating a drone inside the city limits and disorderly conduct, careless/reckless endangerment, breach of peace, and/or invasion of privacy and instantly, drone would be prohibited by any *existing* statute already covering those areas without have to resort to long and complicated processes to pass new laws or change existing wording.
The FAA hasn't made it clear that flying a drone can't be deemed as an illegal activity so you find local governments go on the attack and effectively control drones in their jurisdiction. Perhaps in the long run this may be settled but in the meantime, you'll see more signs go up and more laws "adjusted" to include drones whether it's one complaint or any other reason you can think of which basically amounts to "conjuring law out of thin air." Unlike other protected activities such as protesting, which is already covered by law that specifically exempts peaceful activities as excluded from being sanctioned; you can't add it to a list of other prohibited activities. This mean anything that is important can't simply benefit from being not addressed and protected by the law, it has to be addressed in the affirmative or else it is subject to adverse action on a whim.
Last edited:
I found this about flying drones especially in CA.
California State Parks
It states drones can be flown in State Reacreation Area (SRA), but can be subject to change based on who's in charge. It recommends checking with the Park District to see what they say. The Hidden Falls area is a regional park (according to a web search) so their department head must have decided, probably based on complaints or citing the harm to wildlife. This could be a "right now" thing given that it's spring and many species could be mating. The presence of a drone may disrupt that process, which could affect the longevity of a spcies.
I'm no authority when it comes to these matters - it's just my opinion.
California State Parks
It states drones can be flown in State Reacreation Area (SRA), but can be subject to change based on who's in charge. It recommends checking with the Park District to see what they say. The Hidden Falls area is a regional park (according to a web search) so their department head must have decided, probably based on complaints or citing the harm to wildlife. This could be a "right now" thing given that it's spring and many species could be mating. The presence of a drone may disrupt that process, which could affect the longevity of a spcies.
I'm no authority when it comes to these matters - it's just my opinion.
EssenYVR
Well-Known Member
Well, there's laws and there's regulations, and there are people or authorities that are delegated with the authority to impose regulations. Maybe that applies here, maybe not. I'm a Canadian, so what do I know?
And while a police officer can't change the speed limit, I imagine the city council can.
If one really wanted to object to this, the first thing they need to do is to figure out exactly who imposed the restriction. Pretty sure it's not us here on this forum.
DARKSeifer
Well-Known Member
Just pick a Mavic 3 (the original with the two lenses, not the classic or the pro), install the DH firmware to removes Aeroscope and RID, takeoff from 1-2 Km of your intended flight location and enjoy the hobby.
If authorities find you (you didn't follow my previous advice and flown a drone with Aeroscope and RID enabled or were flying VLOS with the drone nearby) don't confront, be nice, play the dumb a bit, move away and goodbye to fly another day.
If authorities find you (you didn't follow my previous advice and flown a drone with Aeroscope and RID enabled or were flying VLOS with the drone nearby) don't confront, be nice, play the dumb a bit, move away and goodbye to fly another day.
Last edited:
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Well of course they can. They're a proper legislative body.
The issue here is someone posted a sign newly banning drones, citing the relevant code; the actual cited Placer County Code does not ban drones, nor has the Placer County Board of Supervisors (the relevant legislating body) changed the code to ban them.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Unsanctioned signs installed along San Francisco's Wiggle bike route
"Early on Tuesday morning, members of the road safety activist group Safe Street Rebel installed makeshift road signs and safety posts on Steiner Street, aimed at slowing down cars."
Digitized Life
Well-Known Member
Actually they cannot blanketly say "NO DRONES". They can say no takeoff and landing of drones. ONLY the FAA can say no flying as ONLY the FAA has control of the airspace. They have control of the ground.Another park off-limit based on a city code or ordinance.
They can say anything they want and it's up to the FAA to stop them from enforcing it. So far the FAA has said nothing significant about it (except on paper) and the FAA is sending the message to local agencies and communities to carry on, we'll let you know if we have a problem.
The way most laws work in America if you don't defend them vigorously, they soon lose their power and become unenforceable. If you have a couple of legal cases where the FAA has put down any local government that has proclaimed "NO DRONES" I would love to see it. Honestly, I think many governments know they don't have that power and have been told they don't have that power by their own legal teams but have chosen to do it anyway based on the thinking they have "states rights", the law is not settled, and FAA is absent. Just like there are many jurisdictions all over America that ban curse words in public and arrest people for it. If I knew I could go to that park and fly a drone against their will and get fined/arrested and could challenge it in court with a competent legal team to create a meaningful legal precedent, I would do it. But unfortunately it's not that easy, there are tricks and loopholes abound working against us. My case would be dropped, the fines rescinded, I would be given a trespass notice, and they'll just pop the next guy.
Digitized Life
Well-Known Member
Have a look at this, then maybe you will understand what I said:
FAA - State Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Fact Sheet
Digitized Life
Well-Known Member
I know all about that and I know exactly what you said. That's just a piece of paper. It's toothless. Fact sheets mean nothing to most governments and even less in a court of law. That bulletin is basically the FAA best effort to state their position and stake their claim and then leave it at that, meaning that's about as far as they intend to go with this. The FAA is not so incompetent that they completely ignore the situation so they had to publish this "guidance" to give interested entities the option to get it right. Unfortunately too many local governments are ignoring this (wouldn't be the first time the Fed govt is ignored). What do you think the High Command in NYC said when they read this letter? Well, let's read between the lines:
"States and local governments may not regulate in the fields of aviation safety or airspace efficiency but generally may regulate outside those fields."
"...but legitimate state and local interests in health and safety exist in other contexts."
These clauses give you an out, they give you the opportunity to get creative. When the FAA publishes a frank document that says "The US airspace is 100% federal and 0% state and we don't share" then I'll be satisfied. The vast majority of what we'll see is a "No Drones" sign and you would think this bulletin could have at least used the most popular example as a reference. "States, please do not post a sign that says NO DRONES because it isn't legal." But no they didn't say it which means they condone it.
This sign is a defacto ban of flying drone in the park, at the same time trying to stay legal to avoid a challenge. Easy for them to say when the park is basically so large and isolated that sticking to the law is still effective for them to prohibit flying. Why force the issue by posting a sign that says "No drones period?" This will suffice. If they see a drone flying within most of the park, they'll claim it is illegally flying VLOS. Obviously they have to say take off and landing because it's the same code 7-13 for all aircraft. Read 7-12 and 15-3.
Here in England we have similar BS rules, regulations and restrictions suddenly appearing on home-made looking signs in parks and private land.
Non of it is actually "the law".
I take off from half a mile away in a hidden place so I don't ever encounter or be seen by unwanted "officials" and park wardens.
Non of it is actually "the law".
I take off from half a mile away in a hidden place so I don't ever encounter or be seen by unwanted "officials" and park wardens.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
To amplify @mavic3usa's point, there are all manner of ways local authorities can regulate drone use in an area so as to effectively ban them without taking control of the airspace.
For example a "disturbing the peace" type ordinance for which no drone passes muster.
In the end, though, if the FAA isn't going to come to your defense, guess who wins, and who has consequences?
For example a "disturbing the peace" type ordinance for which no drone passes muster.
In the end, though, if the FAA isn't going to come to your defense, guess who wins, and who has consequences?
AMann
Well-Known Member
The good side of drones helping wildlife:
Drones Take Off as Wildlife Conservation Tool
UAVs are poised to revolutionize ecology and even save scientists’ lives.
And the bad…
What it really takes is an educated person to do this, as the general public may have no idea if there are sensitive species nesting and might be disturbed in natural areas, or various other issues that might result from flying their drone.
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Air 3 My Year in Europe with the DJI Air 3- Started by VegardBerland
- Replies: 0
-
DJI Mavic air 2 needing second activation after repair(issue)
- Started by ASD7
- Replies: 2
-
-
Forum statistics
