No drones allowed signs

[Droning on and on...]

The glaring, obvious problem has nearly nothing to do with a drone hurting anyone directly.

It's about causing a driver to lose control of their vehicle, possibly involving other vehicles, on a bridge no less.

THAT can easily result in injury or death.

 

[Cafguy]

It's about causing a driver to lose control of their vehicle, possibly involving other vehicles

This is why it is illegal to fly directly over a vehicle with a drone. The rule is clear and if you violate it you will be fined.
The fact that it is a bridge has nothing to do with it If he broke the law I can almost assure you he will be found.
If he didn't cause an accident or Damage he will receive a pretty scary letter stating clearly that if he is caught violating Regulations again [ and they have RID now] he faces fines plus added fines because they already warned him twice {once when he started the hobby and the letter makes two}. If he causes an accident he will get a warrant and a court date with some pretty hefty fines: Federal, local, State, and maybe jail time. That's all we as Americans can do.
What would be your Idea of a just punishment for someone who operates a drone over traffic?

 

[Dmcvey]

I have a collection of photos I've taken of "No drones allowed" signs in famous places, where it should be so obvious that of course you shouldn't fly a drone there, but they have a sign for those people who for whatever reason don't know any better. That said, wouldn't it be amazing to fly a drone at the Grand Canyon or the Golden Gate Bridge?


View attachment 169325


View attachment 169327

Define "near"

 

[Torque]

The glaring, obvious problem has nearly nothing to do with a drone hurting anyone directly.

It's about causing a driver to lose control of their vehicle, possibly involving other vehicles, on a bridge no less.

THAT can easily result in injury or death.

You could search the PhantomPilots forum for a post I made nearly a decade ago about a similar situation.
I was driving on State Hwy 18 south of Seattle, I noticed cars up a head of me braking, some quite suddenly to avoid the car in front of them. Moments later a Phantom 1 flying about 25-30 ft above traffic, moving quite fast in the opposing direction of traffic appeared over head. About a 1/4 mile later I could see the pilot standing on a overpass with his controller and a big grin on his face. I watched the news that night to see if he eventually caused a pile up, apparently he didn't.

 

[mavic3usa]

Stopped right there. How arrogant. I won't be sucked into a stupid, juvenile argument about what constitutes a "real libertarian".

You mentioned it. Sorry, I won't bring it up if you don't bring it up.

 

[mavic3usa]

Never shot a firearm much, have you? Never raced? TONS of hobbies where participants advocate jail for offenders.

Everything you do can these days could get you arrested. Obviously if you are engaging in your hobby and you violate the law, you could get arrested and depending on how egregious, you could go to jail. But none of the hobbies have a statute that specifically mentions jail time if you violate the rules of that hobby. Maybe I missed it but I haven't found one. Collectors who acquire a suppressor in California, that's not a hobby. Driving 100mph on the highway with the Corvette club is not a hobby. Shooting grouse in your backyard...within city limits is not a hobby. But agreed, the closest I've seen have to do with bag limits, endangered species, out of season, etc. Those can land you in jail potentially. So yeah there is that one particular "hobby" that is the exception. Probably why I'm so sour with the law everything I enjoy has jail time all over it.

 

[mobilehomer]

Everything you do can these days could get you arrested. Obviously if you are engaging in your hobby and you violate the law, you could get arrested and depending on how egregious, you could go to jail. But none of the hobbies have a statute that specifically mentions jail time if you violate the rules of that hobby. Maybe I missed it but I haven't found one. Collectors who acquire a suppressor in California, that's not a hobby. Driving 100mph on the highway with the Corvette club is not a hobby. Shooting grouse in your backyard...within city limits is not a hobby. But agreed, the closest I've seen have to do with bag limits, endangered species, out of season, etc. Those can land you in jail potentially. So yeah there is that one particular "hobby" that is the exception. Probably why I'm so sour with the law everything I enjoy has jail time all over it.

I feel for you. How do you exist hating as much as you do. My post was about hobbyists whom would report others for abusing their hobby. You know, just like you mentioned - "Out of all the hobbies in the world, fly a drone hobby is the only one I know of where the pilots condone jail sentences for rules violations."

 

[Droning on and on...]

This is why it is illegal to fly directly over a vehicle with a drone. The rule is clear and if you violate it you will be fined.
The fact that it is a bridge has nothing to do with it

Departing from the regulations for a moment, the fact it's a bridge is significant to my discussion here.

While I'm not aware that bridges get any special treatment in regulations, it's certain that the risk of catastrophe is greater on a bridge than most road surfaces and their corridors on land.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You mentioned it. Sorry, I won't bring it up if you don't bring it up.

I won't agree to muzzle myself.

I also won't play a "real libertarian" childish game any more than I will it's dumb cousin, "real pilot".

 

[Droning on and on...]

But none of the hobbies have a statute that specifically mentions jail time if you violate the rules of that hobby.

I think viewing the FARs as "rules of [the] hobby" a serious mistake. This is not like radio deconfliction rules, etc., at the local RC field of yore. These regulations are attempting to safely manage the operation of the national airspace, by a wide range of aircraft and purposes. It ain't easy.

Most of the regulations make good sense. The regulations were not created to put a jackboot on the neck of citizens. They were developed precisely so we can fly, share the airspace, and enjoy our hobby.

 

[mavic3usa]

I feel for you. How do you exist hating as much as you do. My post was about hobbyists whom would report others for abusing their hobby. You know, just like you mentioned - "Out of all the hobbies in the world, fly a drone hobby is the only one I know of where the pilots condone jail sentences for rules violations."

I hate some of the laws, not the people, not the drones, not the hobby. I want less laws. It's a really small tiny amount of hate so I wouldn't call it a lot of hate, just a little dislike; mostly annoyed. The drone hobby cannot be "abused" just like flying a kite cannot be abused or putting at the golf course or painting pictures can't be abused by those that partake....too much of it is characterizing as abusive and counterproductive and "illegal." It's supposed to be fun and I can see why so many karens walk up on drone flyers. If you are swinging on golf balls at the park and tearing up the grass, karen doesn't walk up on you. If you are tossing the football around in teh street blocking traffic and making a lot of noise (a lot more than a drone makes), karen doesn't confront you even when the ball comes into their yard. Why is that? Because there are drone laws that arm the karens.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think viewing the FARs as "rules of [the] hobby" a serious mistake. This is not like radio deconfliction rules, etc., at the local RC field of yore. These regulations are attempting to safely manage the operation of the national airspace, by a wide range of aircraft and purposes. It ain't easy.

Most of the regulations make good sense. The regulations were not created to put a jackboot on the neck of citizens. They were developed precisely so we can fly, share the airspace, and enjoy our hobby.

I agree. The regulations are fine for the most part. The penalties are ridiculous. And it's fueling the negativity with the karens. Someone need to tell them it's not a crime to fly a drone. Someone mentioned in another post, unless you are absolutely sure you can fly your drone where you are, don't do it, don't take the chance. Does that sound like a hobby? Unless you know all the rules intimately.....that's no "fun." How about do it and just be safe?

 

[Torque]

In Washington, unlawful recreational fishing of the first degree is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine up to $5000 and up to 364 days in jail. Second degree unlawful recreational fishing is also a misdemeanor offense, carrying up to 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.

If you have been charged with Boating Under the Influence (BUI) in Washington State, you are facing gross misdemeanor criminal penalties. The crime is punishable by up to 364 days in jail, a $5000 fine, and up to 2 years of probation.

In a decision noted to be the first of its kind in the nation,1 theColorado Supreme Court held that an out-of-control skier whoserecklessness kills another person could face criminal charges Inthis landmark case, People v. Hall,3 the State of Colorado chargedNathan Hall with reckless manslaughter after a collision on the skislopes above Vail Mountain in 1997. Had Hall been convicted,' hewould have faced up to six years in prison and fines of up to$500,000.6 This is significant because in addition to the threat ofcivil liability,7 skiers can now find themselves serving time in prisonfor their behavior on the slopes.

And the TikTok star who hit a golf ball into the Grand Canyon is facing up to a maximum fine of $5,000 and six months in prison. Whether this fits the hobby category is debatable, but the idea is just as foolish as those who wish to fly their drones in the Grand Canyon.

 

[Droning on and on...]

While I'm not surprised at those WA fines for unlawful "recreational fishing", the libertarian in me finds them extremely excessive for a first offense. (I laughed pondering what the difference is between first and second degree "recreational fishing" )

In contrast, I come down like a sledgehammer on drone hobbyists following a roadway with moving vehicles because of a critical distinction: People are being put at risk, without their consent or knowledge.

That makes a huge difference to me. And IMO it compromises my libertarian bona fidés not one iota.

 

[mavic3usa]

In Washington, unlawful recreational fishing of the first degree is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine up to $5000 and up to 364 days in jail. Second degree unlawful recreational fishing is also a misdemeanor offense, carrying up to 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.

If you have been charged with Boating Under the Influence (BUI) in Washington State, you are facing gross misdemeanor criminal penalties. The crime is punishable by up to 364 days in jail, a $5000 fine, and up to 2 years of probation.

In a decision noted to be the first of its kind in the nation,1 theColorado Supreme Court held that an out-of-control skier whoserecklessness kills another person could face criminal charges Inthis landmark case, People v. Hall,3 the State of Colorado chargedNathan Hall with reckless manslaughter after a collision on the skislopes above Vail Mountain in 1997. Had Hall been convicted,' hewould have faced up to six years in prison and fines of up to$500,000.6 This is significant because in addition to the threat ofcivil liability,7 skiers can now find themselves serving time in prisonfor their behavior on the slopes.

And the TikTok star who hit a golf ball into the Grand Canyon is facing up to a maximum fine of $5,000 and six months in prison. Whether this fits the hobby category is debatable, but the idea is just as foolish as those who wish to fly their drones in the Grand Canyon.

Illegal fishing is not a hobby. Driving your boat while under the influence is not a hobby. Flying your drone over a military base or over the grand canyon is not a hobby. These are crimes and need serious punishment when you break the law.

So what's a hobby? Flying your drone over downtown taking pictures of building rooftops. Flying your drone over the city park and happen to fly over the volleyball court while two teams are playing below so you can get a unique angle. Flying your drone over the ocean a little more than half a mile away to get a closer look at a cruiseliner a mile away but your drone is a bit further than you can see. Flying your drone in the low fog in the early morning hours before anyone is on the beach, you're all alone. Do these correctly and you're fine but if you do it "incorrectly" you're in trouble. As you should be but big big trouble? No victim, nobody hurt, no one or nothing put into danger, but you broke a drone rule and it's punishable by jail time for breaking the rule that is specific to the hobby. I disagree. Just make it a ticket and fine, like $100 for the first offense and then go from there.

There are obvious exceptions like you can fly a drone at 15,000 feet and then claim you didn't hit another manned aircraft. But what about 425 feet AGL? I'm not saying we should be allowed to fly at 425 feet AGL, I'm saying we don't have to threaten the hobby with jail time. Many will say, no one really ends up going to jail for this and I agree which is why I think the ability to put someone in jail over it should be removed. Many states have de-criminalized traffic infractions and have basically told motorist that you cannot go to jail because of certain violations. Let's do this for the hobby.

 

[Cafguy]

Your chances of ever meeting someone from the FAA unless you initiate the meeting are about the same as winning the lottery. The FAA talks a big game and they have the dice to back them up. I suspect they will try and do to the drone hobby what they did to the RC Hobby { everybody got their AMA Membership yet?} Hopefully there is still time BUT already the FAA is saying they are approving the "FRIA" A place where you can go and enjoy your Hobby worry free { you mean like the AMA field hint hint}. YET if they didn't poke their noses into your hobby you could fly almost anywhere worry free. and how do you set up an area to get designated a "fria" well an AMA or CBO official of course. A major problem here is miss-information and yes we have are fair share of inept and just plain STUPID pilots. and as they say one apple spoils the barrel.
The rules are there. the fines are STEEP BUT The FAA will only impose the steep fines on someone who blatenly disregaurds the rules or cuases damage to property or injury. We need to become better representatives of our hobby, we need to educate the puplic not about all the bad things they have heard BUT of all the good they havn't
The friendlier our community is to the non flying public the less regulations we will have to face.
Take for instance my hobby of flying FPV Drones-- If I am flying my 300 gram camera drone around the park getting shots RARELY am I bothered BUT If I whip out my 56 gram cinewhoop and googles all of a sudden I'm a monster! WHY!

 

[GregS]

I have flown Military Aircraft into the former NAS Alameda at the same altitude of that drone. Would have made for a bad day!

 

[UAVAndy]

Pretty much because the ratio of people that want to enjoy these things for their beauty and wow-factor, to those that want to enjoy them for capturing cool video and stills is roughly thousands to 1.

So, when rules, ordinances, etc. are crafted to address this issue, guess who's opinions prevail?

Democracy.

Yet helicopter tours of the Grand Canyon are OK.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yet helicopter tours of the Grand Canyon are OK.

Yep, they are. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[mavic3usa]

Yep, they are. Why do you suppose that is?

Because the authorities would like the public to believe that helicopters and planes in the region are part of a well-orchestrated composition of aircraft that couldn't otherwise fly safely if not under the careful purview and highly-coordinated sophisticated tracking and control system that saves thousands of lives daily and makes it possible for the tourists both on the ground and in the air enjoy the park safely without having aircraft parts falling on their heads at every turn. When asked why can't they integrate UAVs into the process they replied by saying "drones are incapability of flying safely." In fact, the number of people hurt and killed by helicopters and planes in and around the national parks on a weekly basis is a hundred times more than all uncontrolled UAV around the world in the last 50 years.

It's 2023 and even with the advanced equipment currently found in UAVs, the impression is there is only one way to keep that record at zero and that's absolute prohibition and a complete ban on the operation of UAVs in the area and as a country we are unable or unwilling to come up with any suitable method to mitigate that risk. Perhaps in 2123 we'll be ready to look at it. Or when Amazon or UPS asks us. We'll let you know when we are ready (when it serves us best).