It's this illegal?

[FlyGuy8675309]

To be able to see the Mavic VLOS at night one needs stronger illumination than the standard lights that it is equipped with. 3 Nautical Miles may be overkill , but better to have more light then less to spot it in the darkened sky.

The both the solid front red and the flashing rear green standard on the Mavic are good to 1 1/2 miles. This is more than adequate for most hobbyist fliers. So unless you're going further than that or need to stand out more, the stock lighting meets all requirements for a recreational night flight. (But I agree 100% with your second sentence)

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

when does a beach become busy?

Depends on the beach, CB!

 

[WithTheBirds]

You can only be legally charged with reckless endangerment if you crash the drone. Nobody has to be injured & no property needs to be damaged.

Just flying over people or structures is not reckless endangerment

WRONG!!! Tell that to Morris B. Haddox who was charged with reckless endangerment after a successful crash free flight of his drone over Nissan Stadium in 2017.

My opinion- its foolish to make statements concerning the law where you aren't certain what you are talking about.

 

[Slim.slamma]

ell that to Morris B. Haddox who was charged with reckless endangerment after a successful crash free flight of his drone over Nissan Stadium in 2017.

Is the case still pending?

NYC drone law you can’t be convicted of recklessly operating a drone unles a crash occurred.


Flying over stadiums or airports you deserve whatever comes that’s different in my book

 

[Slim.slamma]

Drone Lawyer NYC | Reckless Endangerment New York

No crash, no charge
Again old news not me being speculative

 

[WithTheBirds]

Is the case still pending?

NYC drone law you can’t be convicted of recklessly operating a drone unles a crash occurred.


Flying over stadiums or airports you deserve whatever comes that’s different in my book

I wasn’t aware NYC had a soecific drone law- interesting. Do you have a link?

 

[Slim.slamma]

I wasn’t aware NYC had a soecific drone law- interesting. Do you have a link?

Drone Lawyer NYC | Reckless Endangerment New York

That’s the link again
It’s basically all the same across the US no crash
No reckless convictions
I’d personally be up crap creek already

 

[WithTheBirds]

Drone Lawyer NYC | Reckless Endangerment New York

That’s the link again
It’s basically all the same across the US no crash
No reckless convictions
I’d personally be up crap creek already

Hang on- we are on prospects of a conviction now?

You stated a drone operator couldn't be charged for endangerment absent the drone crashing. Clearly you were wrong on that point. Whether the charge might proceed to a conviction is a seperate issue.

 

[Slim.slamma]

You stated a drone operator couldn't be charged for endangerment absent the drone crashing

A civilian can be frivolous charged with almost anything
That’s why got judges
And the ruling is, don’t crash the drone in public, if you dare to Fly.



I rest my case Sir

 

[WithTheBirds]

A civilian can be frivolous charged with almost anything
That’s why got judges
And the ruling is, don’t crash the drone in public, if you dare to Fly.



I rest my case Sir

Your case as ultimately articulated by you was charge = conviction. You lost- obviously. You had no prospects of success.

For some reason you have still missed the point. You don't need to crash to be guilty of an endangerment offence- the important element is whether the conduct creates a risk of injury. Arguably flying our toy drones with no power, propulsion or other critical system failsafes or redundancies where in flight failure might provide a foreseeable risk to persons on the ground is sufficient for a charge to be laid.

My point was simply that confidently stating someone can't be charged was, and remains untrue. I don't know about you but I can do without the inconvenience of defending a charge even if it might be the prospects of conviction are low. Its time and money I would rather apply elsewhere.

 

[Slim.slamma]

My point was simply that confidently stating someone can't be charged was, and remains untrue. I don't know about you but I can do without the inconvenience of defending a charge even if it might be the prospects of conviction are low. Its time and money I would rather apply elsewhere

Yeah I prefer spending on accessories.

Hopefully all drones make it home.
Nice to finally meet you
A good member to have I see

 

[ChoccyBoy]

Throttle speeds up or slows down the motors (regardless of direction—horizontal or vertical), which can speed up or slow down a quadcopter's movement.

Ha! Yep. Pretty much what I said. How that extra power is translated (pun intended, for rotary wing pilots...) into movement depends on other stick inputs.

A squirly topic if ever there was one. As Igor Sikorsky is oft quoted when asked how his helicopter flies, “the blades go around and push the air downwards. After that, I have no idea!”

 

[ChoccyBoy]

To be able to see the Mavic VLOS at night one needs stronger illumination than the standard lights that it is equipped with. 3 Nautical Miles may be overkill , but better to have more light then less to spot it in the darkened sky.

At New Year’s Eve fireworks there were a couple of drones flying around Brisbane Waters and quite visible from about 5 kms away from us - Gosford to Woy Woy. They looked like standard lights, not super bright or anything.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Drone Lawyer NYC | Reckless Endangerment New York

No crash, no charge

I don't know where you got that idea. Directly from the link you yourself posted:

The act of flying a drone in an area where people are gathered or known to gather may itself be sufficient to charge and prove Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree because a drone may be heavy enough to cause injury and carry a risk of crashing, being misdirected by the wind, or otherwise going astray.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I don't know where you got that idea. Directly from the link you yourself posted:

Was an easy mistake to make- lawyers put a nice spin in things when they are looking for work.

 

[SoCalDude]

The act of flying a drone in an area where people are ... known to gather may itself be sufficient to charge and prove Reckless Endangerment ...

Wait! What??

Scenario: Let's say there's a lake in an isolated part of the forest (not a National Forest or Park or anything and otherwise completely legal to fly). Let's also say that people rarely go there because it is difficult to get there. However, once a year (summer solstice), hundreds of people go there for only that one day. Does that mean—for the other 364 days of the year—that it is illegal to fly there (because is it is a known place to gather)?

 

[WithTheBirds]

Wait! What??

Scenario: Let's say there's a lake in an isolated part of the forest (not a National Forest or Park or anything and otherwise completely legal to fly). Let's also say that people rarely go there because it is difficult to get there. However, once a year (summer solstice), hundreds of people go there for only that one day. Does that mean—for the other 364 days of the year—that it is illegal to fly there (because is it is a known place to gather)?

What it means is the operator has a duty of care to make all reasonable efforts to assess any potential risks that might present in the area they intend to fly. In this instance a larger than expected number of vehicles in the car park might be a clue you should consider coming back in one if the other 364 days in the year. All is being discussed here is that common sense will save most of us from the threat of being sanctioned. I flew at sunrise this morning over the beach and ocean managing to comply with all the guidelines. If I returned there now I wouldn’t have a hope, actually I would be lucky to find somewhere I could launch from more than 30m away from another person.

 

[Gringorio]

Keeping with the original question: This guy flies over people and property and near buildings doing so out of line of sight and often over 400 feet, even when he's away from the buildings. He's already lost control of his drone once, lost signal and RTH almost put it into a building. He flies over places that are filled with activity, traffic and pedestrians, not some National Park or Forest that may or may not have people below the drone. He is a bad actor that other drone newbies may want to emulate, just look at the positive feedback in the comment section of his videos.

 

[macoman]

Keeping with the original question: This guy flies over people and property and near buildings doing so out of line of sight and often over 400 feet, even when he's away from the buildings. He's already lost control of his drone once, lost signal and RTH almost put it into a building. He flies over places that are filled with activity, traffic and pedestrians, not some National Park or Forest that may or may not have people below the drone. He is a bad actor that other drone newbies may want to emulate, just look at the positive feedback in the comment section of his videos.

Exactly, I don't understand how some people defend his action like he is flying responsable. I don't see anything positive in his behavior as a drone pilot. I sincerely hope he get what he deserve flying like that.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Exactly, I don't understand how some people defend his action like he is flying responsable. I don't see anything positive in his behavior as a drone pilot. I sincerely hope he get what he deserve flying like that.

It’s not hard to understand- those who engage in like conduct would usually push to the front of the que to support or offer excuses/justification. It’s just how it works.