Legal or Illegal?

[wco81]

Despite having lived in CA most of my life, I never visited Bixby Bridge near Big Sur in the California Central Coast.

I researched it, the state prohibits drone flights along long stretches of the coast including this area because of marine birds.

So flabbergasted to see this photo in this article an aerial photo showing the bridge and the surrounding landscape.

I Live in California and This Is the Most Underrated Part of the State—With a Stunning Stretch of Highway

California’s Central Coast has redwood hikes, gorgeous small towns, and stunning ocean views. Here's what to eat, see, and do while you're there.

www.travelandleisure.com

Maybe the photographer was in a helicopter but more likely flew a drone from the side of the road or a vista point on the other side of the bridge to get this view from the south of the bridge not too high above it.

It’s a stock image so he or she makes money from it. Did they get some special permit or just flew, either knowing or not knowing it’s illegal to fly there?

Some of us try to comply with laws, rules, including those meant to protect native species.

 

[Jim Martin]

My guess is that the original photographer applied for, and received a permit for the flight. Otherwise, it would be pretty gutsy to do an illegal flight over a restricted marine reserve, then sell copies on a stock photo site. I doubt it was a helicopter shot. My limited understanding of that area is aircraft are prohibited from flying below 400 ft (or something like that). Looks like it had to be a drone.


It sure would be nice to get permission to fly in Big Sur... oh the photos I could take.... sigh.

 

[mavic3usa]

Not saying this is how it was done but you should be aware; watch the first couple of minutes:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cafguy]

You need 2 special permits to fly a Drone at Bixby Bridge:
1. You need a filming permit from the California Film Commission FIRST
2. Then you can use that to apply for a waiver from the FAA. You must be part 107 certified. Recreational flights are forbidden.
They have issued them before as you see.
P.S. The Film commission will need all kinds of paperwork to even get started, and they want details on every thing you plan on doing and then some! It wouldnt be fast or easy.

 

[Kilrah]

Also that shot was taken 5 years ago, so probably was way different then.
If you built a good portfolio before all the restrictions came in you can make good money selling stuff that's now impossible or very difficult to get again, the landscape's not gonna change much.

 

[crazyju]

There are other ways to get shots like this.

 

[wco81]

There are other ways to get shots like this.

View attachment 187630

Well that one, the camera seems to be suspended over the terrain which is a steep incline going down to the water from the road.

Unless there's some elevated observation deck there, it would have to have been taken from the air.

 

[FLDave]

Well that one, the camera seems to be suspended over the terrain which is a steep incline going down to the water from the road.

Unless there's some elevated observation deck there, it would have to have been taken from the air.

or from a camera attached to a long pole.

 

[YorksPhotos]

I find the defendant not guilty. I have flown over this with part 61 and driven over this bridge many times. There are several photo ops but mostly one on the north side, a view point and this one on the south. A short hike up this mound makes for a good shot. Here is another Pic from that spot.

Here is the spot.

If it was a drone it wouldn't be an issue with the marine preserve, that is over the water. However it falls under the jurisdiction of the US Forest Service Service, Los Padre NF and prohibits flight up to 2000'.

 

[wco81]

Interesting.

But this one leaves no doubt and there are a couple of others taken from a similar angle west of the bridge, over the water.

 

[YorksPhotos]

Interesting.

But this one leaves no doubt and there are a couple of others taken from a similar angle west of the bridge, over the water.

I have reasonable doubt. I have been near that same spot. If it was an airplane or helicopter and above 1000' it would be legal. The bridge is 280' and the peaks in the background are approximately 1200'- over 2000' I was flying from Half Moon Bay to San Francisco and saw a glider at my altitude at 1200'. Having meta data would help confirm legality.

 

[MA2 317]

or from a camera attached to a long pole.

How about a 30' selfie stick?

Telescopic Pole - 8-30' H-7228 - ULINE

Telescopes to 30' for hard-to-reach places. Use with: Window Squeegees and Washers Professional Microfiber Duster High Access Cleaning Tools ULINE offers over 43,000 boxes, plastic poly bags, mailing tubes, warehouse supplies and bubble wrap for your storage, packaging, or shipping supplies.

www.uline.com

I remember reading a photography magazine years before drones were around and the photographers were using tethered balloons to get shots of clock towers, etc with a cable attached to a 35mm film camera to take random shots.

You would shoot a roll of film and see what got after developing the prints.
Wow times have changed.

.