News recording?

[Bad Santa]

Here's a question.

Let's say someone is driving to work on the freeway and there's a serious accident blocking the freeway.
Let's say the person has their drone in their vehicle.
Could the person pull over, take out their drone, and take video for the news, assuming the following:
• They are part 107 certified
• They don't cross over any traffic
• They maintain at least 100 feet away from any people or vehicles associated with the accident (participants or responders)
• Their vehicle is out of the right of way and not otherwise illegal
• They observe all the other rules associated with part 107

 

[GFields]

Here's a question.

Let's say someone is driving to work on the freeway and there's a serious accident blocking the freeway.
Let's say the person has their drone in their vehicle.
Could the person pull over, take out their drone, and take video for the news, assuming the following:
• They are part 107 certified
• They don't cross over any traffic
• They maintain at least 100 feet away from any people or vehicles associated with the accident (participants or responders)
• Their vehicle is out of the right of way and not otherwise illegal
• They observe all the other rules associated with part 107

In theory yes. However, I would land as soon as first responders got on site. Severe injuries may require to transported via hellocopter and a drone in the airspace will prevent this. There are numerous reports of such occurrences

 

[msinger]

Following all rules/laws makes it legal, right?

Lots of news companies are already doing this today. There's nothing stopping a non-news business from doing the same and then attempting to sell their creations to news companies.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Here's a question.

Let's say someone is driving to work on the freeway and there's a serious accident blocking the freeway.

One concern would be that such a drone would cause an Air Ambulance to be prevented from approaching the crash.
I recollect that
a) this has already happened
b) I have seen a thread about it and
b) the injured party died.

Would you want that on your conscience ?

Besides, I think its ghoulish for the worst possible reason.
If it was someone you loved how would you feel if someone invaded their dignity and prevented their speedy transportation in what might be their last few minutes and then plastered their possible agony all over the televison channels for a few measly $ ?

It reminds me of people grabbing phones and recording the agonies of people rather that helping those people.

Yes I have a bug up my ... about this sort of behaviour, I think it is appalling behviour.

 

[Cafguy]

NO and yes As stated above you would be hindering emergency operations. if an air ambulance was needed. I think it would Probably be legal but not so much prudent. If you did somehow interfere....Oh Boy get a very good attorney!

 

[Max Headroom]

One concern would be that such a drone would cause an Air Ambulance to be prevented from approaching the crash.
I recollect that
a) this has already happened
b) I have seen a thread about it and
b) the injured party died.

Would you want that on your conscience ?

Besides, I think its ghoulish for the worst possible reason.
If it was someone you loved how would you feel if someone invaded their dignity and prevented their speedy transportation in what might be their last few minutes and then plastered their possible agony all over the televison channels for a few measly $ ?

It reminds me of people grabbing phones and recording the agonies of people rather that helping those people.

Yes I have a bug up my ... about this sort of behaviour, I think it is appalling behviour.

Thanks for taking the time to post that it says everything i would have if i had replied.
What is wrong with people today.

 

[ryguy80]

Legally, you're blocking emergency operations from occurring and morally, I would have issues with. I'd be rushing over to the scene to see if anyone needs help, whether it's the victims themselves or first responders, if on scene. Recording video for the news (and possibly making $$$ of a tragedy for exchange of video) would be unimaginable to me as an initial reaction.

 

[mavic3usa]

Here's a question.

Let's say someone is driving to work on the freeway and there's a serious accident blocking the freeway.
Let's say the person has their drone in their vehicle.
Could the person pull over, take out their drone, and take video for the news, assuming the following:
• They are part 107 certified
• They don't cross over any traffic
• They maintain at least 100 feet away from any people or vehicles associated with the accident (participants or responders)
• Their vehicle is out of the right of way and not otherwise illegal
• They observe all the other rules associated with part 107

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public. You don't need a permit from the government and you don't need permission from the government. You can use your eyeballs, a camera, or a drone as long as you follow the existing laws and that includes NOT flying under a TFR. I believe there is a rule about interfering as well.

There is no such thing as the *news* in this context since everyone has the capacity regardless if you work for the tv station, the local newspapers, or you have a press badge or not; doesn't matter. When I check the drone rules, I see nothing about needing a part 107, crossing over traffic, maintaining 100 feet, vehicle location, and as a recreational pilot, nothing in part 107, etc. Just follow the rules like you would do every other day of the week and you are fine. Just because you pull out a drone doesn't mean you now fall under some special authority or special circumstance. Until someone comes up with a workable process, this is all we have to go with. "Leave the area and don't come back" won't work and anybody who depends on that is not helping IMO.

At this point, that's all you need to worry about and maybe one day the authorities will figure out how to safely integrate such drone activities into the situation instead of trying to eliminate them which is a non-starter. The same was said and tried with news helicopters, the same can be done with drones as well. If for some reason it cannot be figured out, I have some ideas.

My comments apply only to the hypothetical situation that was brought up in the OP; nothing else is implied or inferred.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Here's a question.

Let's say someone is driving to work on the freeway and there's a serious accident blocking the freeway.
Let's say the person has their drone in their vehicle.
Could the person pull over, take out their drone, and take video for the news, assuming the following:
• They are part 107 certified
• They don't cross over any traffic
• They maintain at least 100 feet away from any people or vehicles associated with the accident (participants or responders)
• Their vehicle is out of the right of way and not otherwise illegal
• They observe all the other rules associated with part 107

Here's a hypothetical thought about a hypothetical situation. How about the drone jock getting their backside out of the gridlocked car and offering aid to the trapped or injured instead of rubbernecking or trying to flog tacky accident shots to ghoulish news agencies?

 

[Dronecation]

Here's a question.

Let's say someone is driving to work on the freeway and there's a serious accident blocking the freeway.
Let's say the person has their drone in their vehicle.
Could the person pull over, take out their drone, and take video for the news, assuming the following:
• They are part 107 certified
• They don't cross over any traffic
• They maintain at least 100 feet away from any people or vehicles associated with the accident (participants or responders)
• Their vehicle is out of the right of way and not otherwise illegal
• They observe all the other rules associated with part 107

A similar discussion erupted after the Helene storm over the southern states:

Buttigieg's message on restricting civilian drones near Hurricane Helene damage prompts outcry, clarification

Biden administration Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says civilian drone activity near Hurricane Helene disaster sites impedes emergency response.

www.foxnews.com

 

[msinger]

One concern would be that such a drone would cause an Air Ambulance to be prevented from approaching the crash

I suppose it depends on the country, but I bet most countries have laws against doing something like this. The same goes with things like blocking ambulances with your car on the roadways.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Thanks for taking the time to post that it says everything i would have if i had replied.
What is wrong with people today.

Lighten up a little, friend. Consider that he came here and asked, rather than just doing it.

There's nothing wrong with not having thought of some of the hazards pointed out here. That's why we seek advice.

 

[Droning on and on...]

A similar discussion erupted after the Helene storm over the southern states:

Buttigieg's message on restricting civilian drones near Hurricane Helene damage prompts outcry, clarification

Biden administration Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says civilian drone activity near Hurricane Helene disaster sites impedes emergency response.

www.foxnews.com

Hugely different situation than a car accident. The hurricane presented an immediate search and rescue situation that private drone operators can help with enormously.

Rather than the outright ban, an organized, coordinated effort might have saved lives.

 

[Cafguy]

It should be enough that if you are the cause of someone not getting emergency services and that person dies you can be charged with a very serious crime!

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public. You don't need a permit from the government and you don't need permission from the government. You can use your eyeballs, a camera, or a drone as long as you follow the existing laws and that includes NOT flying under a TFR. I believe there is a rule about interfering as well.

There is no such thing as the *news* in this context since everyone has the capacity regardless if you work for the tv station, the local newspapers, or you have a press badge or not; doesn't matter. When I check the drone rules, I see nothing about needing a part 107, crossing over traffic, maintaining 100 feet, vehicle location, and as a recreational pilot, nothing in part 107, etc. Just follow the rules like you would do every other day of the week and you are fine. Just because you pull out a drone doesn't mean you now fall under some special authority or special circumstance. Until someone comes up with a workable process, this is all we have to go with. "Leave the area and don't come back" won't work and anybody who depends on that is not helping IMO.

At this point, that's all you need to worry about and maybe one day the authorities will figure out how to safely integrate such drone activities into the situation instead of trying to eliminate them which is a non-starter. The same was said and tried with news helicopters, the same can be done with drones as well. If for some reason it cannot be figured out, I have some ideas.

My comments apply only to the hypothetical situation that was brought up in the OP; nothing else is implied or inferred.

First off, I wonder if you post an attempt at baiting.
Assuming you are not that low I will give the following response.

With regard to your first amendment argument.
If it was you or someone you loved lying there screaming in agony, possibly dying, or at risk of dying if medical assistance wasn't received as soon as possible, and some ghoul was insisting on interfering with the emergency services attempting to reach you or your loved one.
Would you present the argument that it was their right, under that amendment, to be there filming you or your loved one.
Or would tell them to "f off" and, if the injured was loved one, would you attempt to physically throw them out of the way or attempt to "rip their head off".
Some how I doubt you would have much regard for their first amendment rights at that particular time.

With respect to your part 107 comment, since the objective is not to make a recreational flight but something else then I think that means you need part 107, full stop.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I suppose it depends on the country, but I bet most countries have laws against doing something like this. The same goes with things like blocking ambulances with your car on the roadways.

As far as I know it is a criminal offence to impede ANY of the emergency services in the UK.
I think it is considered an acceptable reason to move your car through red traffic lights in order to get out of the way of a blue light vehicle.
I've done it at least once, though obviously you move the car with great care and 'just' enough. You might also be called upon to provide evidence that this was done to get out of the way for a blue light vehicle.

 

[Max Headroom]

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public. You don't need a permit from the government and you don't need permission from the government. You can use your eyeballs, a camera, or a drone as long as you follow the existing laws and that includes NOT flying under a TFR. I believe there is a rule about interfering as well.

Just because you can legally do it doesn't mean you should.

 

[mavic3usa]

With regard to your first amendment argument.
If it was you or someone you loved lying there screaming in agony, possibly dying, or at risk of dying if medical assistance wasn't received as soon as possible, and some ghoul was insisting on interfering with the emergency services attempting to reach you. Would you, present the argument that it was their right under that amendment to be there filming you or your loved one. Or would tell them to "f off" and, if the injured was loved one, would you attempt to physically throw them out of the way or attempt to "rip their head off".
Some how I doubt you would have much regard for their first amendment rights at that particular time.

I've answer this in many threads before that seem to turn every hypothetical in the worse possible situation. The short answer is no I wouldn't what that. But that's not what the OP asked. Again my answer is below which means it doesn't apply to the hypothetical situation you brought up.:

My comments apply only to the hypothetical situation that was brought up in the OP; nothing else is implied or inferred.

With respect to your part 107 comment, since the objective is not to make a recreational flight but something else then I think that means you need part 107, full stop.

Not true. The free press in a free country will not be required to get a part 107 in order to gather news that is of public interest. Being required to get a part 107 from the government means when the government decides they don't want you to report the news, they can pull your part 107. We'll go to court when the time is right.

As a citizen with 1st amendment rights and a recreational drone pilot, I will not first obtain a part 107 before I gather news of public interest using my drone. Full stop.

 

[mavic3usa]

Just because you can legally do it doesn't mean you should.

Agreed. But that can't be the final answer, you know that right?

 

[mavic3usa]

As far as I know it is a criminal offence to impede ANY of the emergency services in the UK.
I think it is considered an acceptable reason to move your car through red traffic lights in order to get out of the way of a blue light vehicle.
I've done it at least once, though obviously you move the car with great care and 'just' enough. You might also be called upon to provide evidence that this was done to get out of the way for a blue light vehicle.

I would love to believe the same is true about drones, if an emergency helicopter is coming, move your drone. But we all know that won't work; it's not that simple. So let's come up with something that *will* work. If you don't move your car and you freeze up with the fire truck behind you, you aren't automatically charged with the "damage" from the fire or the resulting "death" or anything absurd like that. Instead you are probably charged with "failure to yield" or something similar and unless it was intentional and you directly blocked or impeded or screwed up badly, it's not a crime. We share the road and the emergency crews have the tools to navigate safely but at the same time, they realize they don't *own* the road. They do the best they can and sometimes, **** happens even after we've provided every single motorist on the highway with training and instruction on how to deal with emergency vehicles. Every fire truck responding to an emergency is delayed in some way by another motorist and it's usually unintentional. But it's not automatically a crime. Often it's an infraction and there are literally a million of them and it's getting worse, not better.

Contrast that with the drone flyer who have no rights to be in the airspace, have no business there in the first place, plus there's a law against it during a TFR. That's the difference and that's one example why there's no reason to come up with a "solution." Unfortunately this isn't the best we can do; we can do better. I understand there are people in a helicopter and there are no people in a UAV. And I'll leave it at that without expounding because I had a long post, but I erased it for now.