2 Pro My Small, Drone Hypocrasy Rant

[Dale D]

A pet peeve of mine is that many travel destinations do not permit drone flights, especially African safari camps. Yet, I receive, on a weekly basis, (yes I subscribe to it) the travel newsletter of Great Plains Conservation, a top grade travel company running ultra luxury lodges in Africa. The famous photography couple Derek and Beverly Joubert (famous for being the primary videographers of the Disney hits "Eye of the Leopard," and "The Last Lion," (Narrated by Jeremey Irons) are partner/owners of this company, I believe. My wife and I actually had the honor of having dinner with them when stayed at one of their lodges. I have written to them about this but never got a satisfactory answer.

Yet every weekly promo film features fabulous DRONE photography. If this is not hyppocrasy dilemma, I don't know what is.

Here is this week's promo video. (filmed by the Jouberts?). The shots are dramatic as they should be from such superb wildlife professionals as the Jouberts. Attached along with this promo is a picture of our evening with them, in front of Beverly's leopard picture. The four opening scenes are all from a drone!

If you are interested, Beverly had a near fatal Cape buffalo attack and survived. You can Google it.


I close with this quote;

“The only man I envy is the man who has not yet been to Africa – for he has
so much to look forward to.”​

— Richard Mullin (Origin unknown)

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

p

 

[Robert Prior]

If this is not a hippocratic dilemma, I don't know what is.

Usually a hippocratic dilemma would involve medical ethics. Don't recall Hippocrates mentioning anything about drones. Galen is also silent on the subject.

 

[Dale D]

Usually a hippocratic dilemma would involve medical ethics. Don't recall Hippocrates mentioning anything about drones. Galen is also silent on the subject.

You are RIGHT! Thanks and I have corrected it. As a doctor myself, I should have known better.

 

[Rabber]

A pet peeve of mine is that many travel destinations do not permit drone flights, especially African safari camps. Yet, I receive, on a weekly basis, (yes I subscribe to it) the travel newsletter of Great Plains Conservation, a top grade travel company running ultra luxury lodges in Africa. The famous photography couple Derek and Beverly Joubert (famous for being the primary videographers of the Disney hits "Eye of the Leopard," and "The Last Lion," (Narrated by Jeremey Irons) are partner/owners of this company, I believe. My wife and I actually had the honor of having dinner with them when stayed at one of their lodges. I have written to them about this but never got a satisfactory answer.

Yet every weekly promo film features fabulous DRONE photography. If this is not hyppocrasy dilemma, I don't know what is.

Here is this week's promo video. (filmed by the Jouberts?). The shots are dramatic as they should be from such superb wildlife professionals as the Jouberts. Attached along with this promo is a picture of our evening with them, in front of Beverly's leopard picture. The four opening scenes are all from a drone!

If you are interested, Beverly had a near fatal Cape buffalo attack and survived. You can Google it.


I close with this quote;

“The only man I envy is the man who has not yet been to Africa – for he has
so much to look forward to.”​

— Richard Mullin (Origin unknown)

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

View attachment 138563p

Many places do not permit "Public" drone flying. However, permission can be granted if you have a good reason for your request. (U.S National parks for example. Park rangers have discretion to allow drone flying) I have no doubt the parks featured in your videos are more than happy to have a travel company promote their park and are happy to accommodate them in that effort. Also, the correct spelling is Hypocrisy

 

[Dale D]

Of course, you state the obvious. But I am in great doubt that just because I have a good reason (doesn't everyone??), the ranger will allow it. The default request from most authorities is a big, fat, "no." (meaning, the authority doesn't weans to risk any blowback to jeopardize his job). And, of course, the travel companies get the preferential treatment. Their income is what supports the economy. You do not address the hypocrisy of allowing lodges and travel companies to drone but refuse the same rights to the guests who are paying big dollars to support these hotels, camps, lodges, and economy. Thus, your ideas are the problem, not the solution. Thanks for the spelling correction.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Thats pretty much what you will see everywhere unless you are someone special or you belong to National Geographic the answer is pretty much

 

[Robert Prior]

You do not address the hypocrisy of allowing lodges and travel companies to drone but refuse the same rights to the guests

Allowing a lodge to make a flight or two to take advertising footage is not the same thing as allowing every guest (with unknown levels of training/responsibility) to fly a drone and disturb the wildlife. It's no more hypocritical than using pictures taken in the Forbidden City with no tourists and after hours (so the light's better) to advertise the place.

If the lodge is advertising that you can "take pictures like these" with drone pictures, then that's false advertising.

Hypocrisy would be prohibiting you from flying without a permit but flying without a permit themselves.

 

[CanadaDrone]

There is a big difference in the level of frequency, liability/risk, and professionalism between an actual production company asking for drone clearance to shoot a documentary or promotional travel video, and every tourist that comes through the area who just bought their first drone and is excited to fly. That's all it really comes down to, especially since you or I's desire to fly in those areas is not inherently more important than any other member of the general public who owns a drone. If they started cherry picking which members of the general public got to fly, that opens a whole other can of worms. Wanting to get some cool travel footage to share with family or put on YouTube (overwhelmingly the most common reason for wanting to fly) is not a good enough reason to offset the risk from the perspective of the park, game reserve, etc. Selfishly speaking, I don't like it either, but I also don't necessarily disagree with it especially if I was in their position.

The fact that some 'regular' drone pilots are much more responsible and skilled than others is not something that they are concerned with nor is it possible for them to verify that with a reasonable level of consistency or certainty. If they approved every request from the general public to fly, every National Park would be overrun by drones, and as we all know many drone pilots cannot even be bothered to follow the most basic safety rules with regards to VLOS, flying over private property, etc. Complaints would go through the roof, fire risk would be a lot higher, risk to wildlife would be a lot higher, crashed drones end up as pollution, etc. It's just not something they want to deal with and it's hard to blame them for it. It frustrates me sometimes as well because I know my abilities, I actually follow the rules to the letter, and I am incredibly careful, however being more liberal with drone permits in sensitive areas is a very slippery slope that I can certainly understand. At least to some degree, I also think it's a case of a small number of irresponsible pilots ruining things for the responsible pilots, as is very often the case across all kinds of different hobbies.

Along with money, it's the same reason a city might close down an area to the public for movie production, which isn't a big deal once in a while, but would be a big deal if it happened with high levels of frequency. They would never do that for every member of the public who wanted to fly their drone through a downtown core for a cool YouTube video, it just isn't reasonable (I know that isn't what you're suggesting, it's just a hypothetical).

Looking at areas I am familiar with that used to be open to drone users and now are not, in most if not every case, it's due to irresponsible flying, public complaints, and people just generally not following the rules. It really sucks for the responsible pilots, but that's the reality of it. That reminds me of something that happened in Iceland, some tourists drove their rental SUV over a bunch of endangered bird habitat to get an photo for Instagram, causing irreparable damage for a few likes on social media. It's a sad reality but there are a lot of people out there like that who only think of themselves and do not consider the consequences of their actions.

Drone footage used for promotional purposes, especially in the travel industry, is extremely common and is often done in areas the general public isn't allowed to fly. This is done simply because it's often the best way to showcase the beauty or the attraction in a dramatic way, rather than an invitation for everyone to come and get the same footage with the Mavic Mini they just picked up from BestBuy. There are endless examples of advertisements or promotional footage depicting things that you may not reasonably be allowed to do, and I personally don't think that is hypocritical, but I can understand the desire to get some similar footage of your own for sure.

 

[Dale D]

Allowing a lodge to make a flight or two to take advertising footage is not the same thing as allowing every guest (with unknown levels of training/responsibility) to fly a drone and disturb the wildlife. It's no more hypocritical than using pictures taken in the Forbidden City with no tourists and after hours (so the light's better) to advertise the place.

If the lodge is advertising that you can "take pictures like these" with drone pictures, then that's false advertising.

Hypocrisy would be prohibiting you from flying without a permit but flying without a permit themselves.

Your first comment... "a flight or two..." and your comparison using the Forbidden City in Beijing, are both not addressing my rant. I would not like to be arrested by the PCP.

Those comparisons are not applicable. What I am complaining about is shown exactly as the first film I submitted in this post. The very first 4 clips are the same shots I would love to have in my own personal video. It is the same thing as some of our governing leaders. Rules for thee, but not for me. (That includes masks, beauty shops, restaurants,etc,). Do we prevent tourists from using 600 mm lenses? Do we prevent guides from parking their vehicle directly in the line of the migrating herds? Do we ask tourists at expensive lodges if they are qualified to use long lenses?

Nearly every single ad for a travel destination these days features drone footage. This is footage that I, as a paying guest, would like to film also. That is all I am saying. The hotel or lodge or resort can hire an expensive drone team to do their ad, but if I, as a guest, go out there to do the same film, I am prevented from doing it in the name of safety, disruption, or whatever the going rule is.

 

[Dale D]

There is a big difference in the level of frequency, liability/risk, and professionalism between an actual production company asking for drone clearance to shoot a documentary or promotional travel video, and every tourist that comes through the area who just bought their first drone and is excited to fly. That's all it really comes down to, especially since you or I's desire to fly in those areas is not inherently more important than any other member of the general public who owns a drone. If they started cherry picking which members of the general public got to fly, that opens a whole other can of worms. Wanting to get some cool travel footage to share with family or put on YouTube (overwhelmingly the most common reason for wanting to fly) is not a good enough reason to offset the risk from the perspective of the park, game reserve, etc. Selfishly speaking, I don't like it either, but I also don't necessarily disagree with it especially if I was in their position.

The fact that some 'regular' drone pilots are much more responsible and skilled than others is not something that they are concerned with nor is it possible for them to verify that with a reasonable level of consistency or certainty. If they approved every request from the general public to fly, every National Park would be overrun by drones, and as we all know many drone pilots cannot even be bothered to follow the most basic safety rules with regards to VLOS, flying over private property, etc. Complaints would go through the roof, fire risk would be a lot higher, risk to wildlife would be a lot higher, crashed drones end up as pollution, etc. It's just not something they want to deal with and it's hard to blame them for it. It frustrates me sometimes as well because I know my abilities, I actually follow the rules to the letter, and I am incredibly careful, however being more liberal with drone permits in sensitive areas is a very slippery slope that I can certainly understand. At least to some degree, I also think it's a case of a small number of irresponsible pilots ruining things for the responsible pilots, as is very often the case across all kinds of different hobbies.

Along with money, it's the same reason a city might close down an area to the public for movie production, which isn't a big deal once in a while, but would be a big deal if it happened with high levels of frequency. They would never do that for every member of the public who wanted to fly their drone through a downtown core for a cool YouTube video, it just isn't reasonable (I know that isn't what you're suggesting, it's just a hypothetical).

Looking at areas I am familiar with that used to be open to drone users and now are not, in most if not every case, it's due to irresponsible flying, public complaints, and people just generally not following the rules. It really sucks for the responsible pilots, but that's the reality of it. That reminds me of something that happened in Iceland, some tourists drove their rental SUV over a bunch of endangered bird habitat to get an photo for Instagram, causing irreparable damage for a few likes on social media. It's a sad reality but there are a lot of people out there like that who only think of themselves and do not consider the consequences of their actions.

Drone footage used for promotional purposes, especially in the travel industry, is extremely common and is often done in areas the general public isn't allowed to fly. This is done simply because it's often the best way to showcase the beauty or the attraction in a dramatic way, rather than an invitation for everyone to come and get the same footage with the Mavic Mini they just picked up from BestBuy. There are endless examples of advertisements or promotional footage depicting things that you may not reasonably be allowed to do, and I personally don't think that is hypocritical, but I can understand the desire to get some similar footage of your own for sure.

Canada- all of your reasons are true and correct. Certainly I understand that. I am not a dummy or obtuse to the reasons these rules exist. You state them all very succinctly. If you viewed my recent African video, (as I know you did), you saw that my flights were far and few between, and mainly over our camps. I needed to document and record the camps and their situational locations. The one or two flights over the wildebeests were high and fast. If you carefully study the footage, not a single animal lifted its head.

I guess my complaint actually boils down to the fact that lodge and hotel and resort management should be more forgiving, if a guest requests a flight. I would even agree to the flight being monitored, regulated as to time and place, and proof of ability (Trust Certificate would be fine). I object to the blanket NO DRONE sign kit there is a quiet time, a time when no people are around, or a place where few if any animals or people would be disturbed. What I am asking is plainly some common sense on the part of the management.

Right now, I am determining my plans or future travel. I now take into account, the ability to fly at my location. This would be similar to inquiring if there are golf courses, if there are tennis courts, or whatever else I am looking for for my next travel adventure. So I am taking flying into consideration when I make my travel choices. I know the world is closing up to drone flying, but I am trying to take a poll of those actual pilots (this forum) to find out their thoughts. From the reactions I have received, I find them all predictably negative. So that is my reason for posting.

 

[Robert Prior]

Nearly every single ad for a travel destination these days features drone footage. This is footage that I, as a paying guest, would like to film also.

Both true. But not being allowed to take those pictures, even if you are a paying guest, isn't hypocrisy.

If you were staying at a lodge in one of Canada's National Parks, you'd probably want to do the same thing — pop up your drone for a quick flight. You can't without permission from Parks Canada (not to mention liability insurance and an advanced flight certificate). It doesn't matter that you are paying $1000 a night — the lodge staff can't grant exceptions to the law. That authority lies with Parks Canada.

The lodge owners, management, and staff would only be hypocrites if they themselves were flying drones illegally while preventing others from doing so.

I understand your frustration, but you're using the wrong word to describe the problem.

 

[Dale D]

It’s like I said a “small “ rant
I wasn’t talking about the classic national park either
It was all about getting an e mail from an African lodge with tons of drone footage

 

[Robert Prior]

I've got advertising from restaurants with images of the kitchen, but I don't expect that they'll allow me back there

 

[thispilothere]

"Rules for thee but not for me" seems more prevalent than ever.

It's interesting, there's a lake near me that's in a state park. They don't allow any drone flights without prior written permission which, even if you get it, takes months. Drones, you see, are loud and dangerous and can disturb people and wildlife. That same lake allows virtually unlimited takeoffs and landings of ultralights both on the water and cleared shore area (not near crowds) - and you don't need any licensing to fly one. Not even some 2 minute BS TRUST test.

Same goes for many places in Africa - probably where you were too.

 

[Dale D]

I've got advertising from restaurants with images of the kitchen, but I don't expect that they'll allow me back there

a totally unrelated comparison

 

[Gagey52]

Dale D can sympathise with your position, there must be some camps that allow drone usage. Hunt them down and use them.
Regards

 

[Dale D]

Dale D can sympathise with your position, there must be some camps that allow drone usage. Hunt them down and use them.
Regards

That is a great suggestion but the process of that is very difficult. The communications between the camp directors and the booking company and parent company often make it impossible to contact the camps directly. My method of stealth flying still served me best on this past trip. I did not fly while out on game drives- never intended to anyway, but I did fly from the back of the camp. I was able to get the camp and surrounding environment to set the tone for the video and the viewer to give the viewer a sense of place.

 

[Gagey52]

That is a great suggestion but the process of that is very difficult. The communications between the camp directors and the booking company and parent company often make it impossible to contact the camps directly. My method of stealth flying still served me best on this past trip. I did not fly while out on game drives- never intended to anyway, but I did fly from the back of the camp. I was able to get the camp and surrounding environment to set the tone for the video and the viewer to give the viewer a sense of place.

Anyway I still enjoy your stills from Africa. Have you incorporated them into a video?
Regards

 

[Dale D]

Anyway I still enjoy your stills from Africa. Have you incorporated them into a video?
Regards

Yes...alas, you missed it's appearance in this past Saturday's forum. I will send it to you on a private conversation.

 

[Mavic Maxwell]

I can imagine the adrenaline pumping in the veins of a 2 bit flyer like me, if given the opportunity to fly in those now forbidden regions.
I think I would also be tempted to push the envelope and not 'respect' the lawful limitations at hand and get caught up in the moment. After all, even you Dale (totally aligned with the highest of ethical standards Hyppocratically and not hypothetically speaking LOL) ....were you not tempted to try a 'little' stealth flying (and I'm glad you did)!
For many the temptation to go beyond what is reasonable and lawful would be too much!
I enjoyed the 'ping pong' above and can identify with both views.
That's why I enjoy this forum....we just have to watch our blood pressure ...but of course, there is 'a doctor in the house'.