Sharing some videos from a new member

[TheSgbarter]

Hello all. New to the site, so I figured I would try to share a couple of videos. I look forward to viewing the other videos and photos here.
The aircraft carrier videos were taken last week by a colleague of mine using a M2 Zoom, and edited by me. The carrier was anchored almost 3 miles from where we launched on shore!

This one is a rather long, but it was great fun to film and edit. This was practically from my back yard.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

You might want to read this, posted at the end of October.. We're not supposed to fly within 3000' laterally, or 1000' above a naval vessel, or we put our birds at risk:

"COULD RESULT IN THE INTERFERENCE, DISRUPTION, SEIZURE, DAMAGING, OR DESTRUCTION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE INDICATED AIRSPACE "

NOTAM 82311

null

udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com

 

[Florida Drone Supply]

Great videos! And two totally different subject matters. Cool perspectives.

 

[TheSgbarter]

You might want to read this, posted at the end of October.. We're not supposed to fly within 3000' laterally, or 1000' above a naval vessel, or we put our birds at risk:

"COULD RESULT IN THE INTERFERENCE, DISRUPTION, SEIZURE, DAMAGING, OR DESTRUCTION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE INDICATED AIRSPACE "

NOTAM 82311

null

udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com

I believe that only applies to United States vessels.

 

[Zstever]

Very Nice Videos!

 

[Thomas B]

I believe that only applies to United States vessels.

I believe it is applicable to U.S. waters, but please cite the reg if I’m wrong.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

2 great videos !
Wow yeah the HMS QE, especially not often you see footage like that, and I agree lucky you got the M2Z back I think.
Funny watching it on my phone screen, I was wondering where all the crew were to start off with, even if shot very early morning.
Of course the zoom could have granted your friend a little more stealth from on board.
The pilot either had no thought as to what COULD happen / consequences of, flying so close to an operational naval vessel of any country, or had an incredibly big pair and just wanted this so bad.
Loved your overheads of the harvesting.

 

[TheSgbarter]

I believe it is applicable to U.S. waters, but please cite the reg if I’m wrong.

NOTAM 82311

null

udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com

IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, UAS OPERATORS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO AVOID FLYING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY (GENERALLY, IN AIRSPACE WITHIN 3,000 FEET LATERALLY AND 1,000 FEET ABOVE UNLESS INDICATED BY THE FAA BY NOTAM OR OTHER MEANS) TO: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) FACILITIES AND MOBILE ASSETS, INCLUDING VESSELS AND GROUND VEHICLE CONVOYS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ESCORTS, SUCH AS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) OPERATED VESSELS.

FAA UAS Data Delivery Service

Federal Aviation Administration - UAS Open Data Site

udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com

PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS (SSI), ALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT ARE PROHIBITED FROM FLYING WITHIN A STAND-OFF DISTANCE OF 3,000 FEET LATERALLY AND 1,000 FEET ABOVE ANY U.S. NAVY (USN) VESSEL OPERATING, TRANSITING, OR AT PORT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS AND/OR NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE USA.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

interesting point.. I think a direct guideline/law is not yet written for this situation.

 

[TheSgbarter]

Our thinking, based on some quick research and a dose of subjectivity, was that the HMS QE should be treated the same as any other vessel, commercial or private, due to it being in United States territory.
If a foreign military asset in United States territory were to disable a civilian drone, I would think they could be held responsible just the same as a civilian.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

I've thought through this a few times today, and after searching some online, I am still not sure about whether this is a great idea.

The code quoted up above, for what it's worth, aren't actually the law.. They're guidelines and sort of a preliminary version of what will probably be a law one day, offered to protect our naval vessels and associated 'escorts.'

The stickler side of me says that if we have guidelines to protect our military assets, then we ought to extend those same protections to other sovereign nations' military assets.

...


All of that being said, I would probably go film the carrier as well, if I saw it floating out in front of me. That is an awesome video, regardless of other opinions in this conversation. ( :

Our thinking, based on some quick research and a dose of subjectivity, was that the HMS QE should be treated the same as any other vessel, commercial or private, due to it being in United States territory.
If a foreign military asset in United States territory were to disable a civilian drone, I would think they could be held responsible just the same as a civilian.

 

[Proffy]

Welcome to the club! Great vids! Fly & Share more!