Is this guy for real ?
- Thread starter Desert-Flyer
- Start date
frankiez
Well-Known Member
Just like these idiot punks that will rape a girl and film it and then put it on YouTube. Same with people ganging up on someone and beating them down all the while filming it.
Ebruce
Well-Known Member
Agreed-- in the end I would imagine that it is all about the way each individual perceives this video. My opinion is that he is just being reckless with altitude . And of course that's just my opinion as there is no proof of ALT.. Droneworx has a lot of valid points and I am for certain not wanting to be argumentative . So apologies if I sound that way.. again just expressing opinion.
Kestrel
Well-Known Member
You're right I don't, the area just looks richy around there, that's why I said what I said.
mikey201
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2017
- Messages
- 93
- Reactions
- 21
- Age
- 33
lol wow was just watching that vid this morning cus i found his channel yesterday from a youtuber i watch..check out his video he flies over the richest house in the US. in Bel Air.security comes after he ended up getting the approval to fly there.. then he flys over the playboy mansion and basically into the front and back yard .you could almost see in the windows
Kestrel
Well-Known Member
And people wonder why drones will be heavily regulated soon. This idiot is one of those few that ruin it for the rest of us.
People keep thinking that drones flown for a hobby are limited to 400 feet. This isn't true. AC 91-57A Change 1 states:
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
There are two key things here. One this is published from an Advisory Circular. An AC is a document that contains information that is of interest to the aviation community. An AC is non-regulatory and is not approved data. Second, it says the operator SHOULD FOLLOW. It doesn't say you have to follow. Also, now where in 14 CFR Part 101 Subpart E does it state an altitude limit.
I'm just speaking as someone who deals with the FAA a few times a week and playing devil's advocate.
Also, as an HOA president, I can't enforce any drone rules. If isn't in the convenient of the HOA there isn't anything I can do.
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
There are two key things here. One this is published from an Advisory Circular. An AC is a document that contains information that is of interest to the aviation community. An AC is non-regulatory and is not approved data. Second, it says the operator SHOULD FOLLOW. It doesn't say you have to follow. Also, now where in 14 CFR Part 101 Subpart E does it state an altitude limit.
I'm just speaking as someone who deals with the FAA a few times a week and playing devil's advocate.
Also, as an HOA president, I can't enforce any drone rules. If isn't in the convenient of the HOA there isn't anything I can do.
Last edited:
Not defending the pilot in the video. But Nevada's AB 239 is mostly unenforceable as it violates FAA regulations and Federal Law. Attached below is the best argument as to why this is true. That being said, unless I had some time on my hands, the misdemeanor ticket a pilot would get may take months to adjudicate.Agreed, but still way and beyond flight cap.
New drone laws, regulations go into effect Thursday
By: Patrick Walker
15
LAS VEGAS - Nevada is becoming a hot bed for unmanned aerial vehicles, so state lawmakers are trying to get out in front of the regulation.
Earlier in 2015 Nevada Lawmakers passed dozens of new laws regulating commercial and recreational drones, and those laws will go into effect on Thursday.
"I thought the state law did very well, in working on the privacy issues, to make sure that individual privacy is maintained," said Ron Futrell, Avisight.
Assembly Bill 239 makes it a misdemeanor to fly less than 250 feet over a property and to do trick flying over people. Drones must also operate below 500 feet and within the operator's line of sight.
However, drones aren't allowed to operate within 500 feet of critical facilities, meaning government buildings or power plants or within five miles of an airport. The FAA was supposed to put new regulations in place on Oct. 1, but that deadline has been pushed back.
A former FAA executive who was in charge of drone regulations told 8 News Now those rules are still a work in progress.
"The FAA is really throwing resources at it because they get, that this is the new big thing," said Jim Williams, former FAA executive.
There's also a provision in the law that makes it illegal to operate a drone while under the influence. Violators can be charged with a gross misdemeanor.
The new drone rules come during a time when drone sales are expected to grow.
"They anticipate there could be a million drones sold in this country over the holiday season, and that's going to fill up the skies," Futrell said.
In a statement hobbyists in Las Vegas say they support the new law But believe many of its other provisions, including prohibitions on arming drones with firearms, aren't applicable to them. They say they hope to see regulations that allow areas specifically set aside for recreational flying.
An HOA cannot restrict flying in less if was in the bylaws when he bought his house, or such an amendment was voted in my 3/4s of the owners. The security officer and the HOA president have no authority to make up rules as they go along.
If a child had a remote control boat on the lake would they stop him from playing?
If he was flying an RC plane would they stop him?
This guy appeared to be a little high, I don't know what the air traffic is like in this area. He does appear to be LOS so he may be in violation of a FAA Rule. Just to be clear they are rules not LAWS.
If a child had a remote control boat on the lake would they stop him from playing?
If he was flying an RC plane would they stop him?
This guy appeared to be a little high, I don't know what the air traffic is like in this area. He does appear to be LOS so he may be in violation of a FAA Rule. Just to be clear they are rules not LAWS.
People need to use common sense and stop being stupid. Besides the risk to people and the hobby there is almost never a good reason to go past 200ft. The camera images have less resolution than google earth!
What's the point of flying over something if the video is terrible?
Rob
What's the point of flying over something if the video is terrible?
Rob
This is off the OP topic but, here is something to consider on height issues. I was a home appraiser earlier in life and during my schooling I remembered some kind of statement concerning how much a property owner owns in airspace above their property. Of course there are many other possibilities depending on where you live and special HOA restrictions, however found this information worth thinking about.
After extensive research I found that a property owner owns and controls the airspace to the altitude of 500 feet about his/her property. The reason for this is simply aircraft flying overhead. The FAA requires any aircraft to fly NO LESS than 500 feet above the ground. Therefore "if a land owner is to have full enjoyment of his land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.....Thus a landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land", and the invasion of that space "are in the same category as an invasion of the ground".
Supreme Court William O. Douglass United States VS Causby (1946)
After extensive research I found that a property owner owns and controls the airspace to the altitude of 500 feet about his/her property. The reason for this is simply aircraft flying overhead. The FAA requires any aircraft to fly NO LESS than 500 feet above the ground. Therefore "if a land owner is to have full enjoyment of his land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.....Thus a landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land", and the invasion of that space "are in the same category as an invasion of the ground".
Supreme Court William O. Douglass United States VS Causby (1946)
Similar threads
