Silly No Fly Zones

[Bwoody321]

Been wanting to fly my drone today so naturally I look for the nearest public park, only to find that it is listed as a CAUTION area on NATS ‍

 

[schojac]

Been wanting to fly my drone today so naturally I look for the nearest public park, only to find that it is listed as a CAUTION area on NATS ‍[emoji3603]

You are allowed to fly here, need to observe 100 metre advisory.

 

[Bwoody321]

You are allowed to fly here, need to observe 100 metre advisory.

I know, I just found it weird how a public park, usually one of the only places where we can fly nowadays, was listed as much a danger area as a school for example

 

[Porky]

I get a similar message where I fly, public park and an airport 5K way but as per @schojac said, just take into account the distances limit.

 

[zocalo]

As Porky says, it's not telling you that you can't fly, it's telling you to exercise a little caution. If you have the place to yourself, then there are no problems at all and fly all you want. If there are, then you just need to be mindful of the 50m rule to be in compliance with the DroneCode and CAA regs.

Also, note the bit about privacy; you might get approached by concerned parents thinking you're trying to get dirty pictures of their kids. With a wide-angle lens. From tens of metres up. The world we live in...

 

[Bwoody321]

My local park doesn’t have a caution on it though, I guess it’s only the busier ones

 

[twoheadlines]

It seems nowhere in the world is immune from people who just don't think - or worse, don't care. A New Zealand news feed web site proclaiming earlier today:

Near miss with drone: 'It could have been catastrophic'

"People could have died if the Eagle (Police) helicopter had collided with a drone that came within 5 - 10 metres of the aircraft early this morning, says Auckland's acting police chief...."

It is this sort of irresponsible behaviour that is a likely major contributor to law-makers' the world over having an almost knee-jerk reaction to such banner headlines, by imposing more and more NFZs. I would urge all AUV pilots, in whatever community you live, to make darn sure the local media also get to hear about the greater majority of pilots who go about their commercial or recreational UAV flying every minute of every day responsibly. I suggest, that if all the media ever hears about, and reports, are the "near misses", then everyone will get to the point where they will believe that there is only one type of UAV pilot around - the 'rogue' type. It will then became an almost natural extension for people to assume that whenever they see a UAV in the air, it will be getting reported as being up to no good, and the pilot damned and vilified - with, or without, justification!

 

[JDawg]

It seems nowhere in the world is immune from people who just don't think - or worse, don't care. A New Zealand news feed web site proclaiming earlier today:

Near miss with drone: 'It could have been catastrophic'

"People could have died if the Eagle (Police) helicopter had collided with a drone that came within 5 - 10 metres of the aircraft early this morning, says Auckland's acting police chief...."

It is this sort of irresponsible behaviour that is a likely major contributor to law-makers' the world over having an almost knee-jerk reaction to such banner headlines, by imposing more and more NFZs. I would urge all AUV pilots, in whatever community you live, to make darn sure the local media also get to hear about the greater majority of pilots who go about their commercial or recreational UAV flying every minute of every day responsibly. I suggest, that if all the media ever hears about, and reports, are the "near misses", then everyone will get to the point where they will believe that there is only one type of UAV pilot around - the 'rogue' type. It will then became an almost natural extension for people to assume that whenever they see a UAV in the air, it will be getting reported as being up to no good, and the pilot damned and vilified - with, or without, justification!

Yep. this was A BS headline with no proof.

 

[JDawg]

The facts -
"Although the data contain several reports of pilots claiming drone strikes on their aircraft, to date the FAA has not verified any collision between a civil aircraft and a civil drone. Every investigation has found the reported collisions were either birds, impact with other items such as wires and posts, or structural failure not related to colliding with an unmanned aircraft. "
FAA Releases Updated Drone Sighting Reports

 

[DanMan32]

Where's the picture of a quad with a caption "UFO" under it?

 

[twoheadlines]

Can definitely see a "drone" in every one of those silhouettes. Difficult not to mistaken otherwise.
However, my point with this headline - and I'm not going to argue whether the pilot and observers were wrong, or not - is the banner headline proclaiming a "near miss", without accurate facts being added to back up the claim.
As I think someone else has already commented that a UAV will be capable of bringing a helicopter down; in a worst case scenario. UAV pilots should not forget that fact. But equally, if the media is going to try and make a story out of two words - then the whole story needs to be reported much more accurately!!!