The myth of the 'No Drone Zone' sign...

[MA2 317]

View attachment 168763


???

D

Try this link.

The myth of the 'No Drone Zone' sign: What you should do if you see one

Chances are, you've encountered a 'No Drone Zone' sign and took it at face value. The question is, who has the real authority to post these signs? What should you do if you see one as a drone pilot or a member of the public?

www.dpreview.com

.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Try this link.

The myth of the 'No Drone Zone' sign: What you should do if you see one

Chances are, you've encountered a 'No Drone Zone' sign and took it at face value. The question is, who has the real authority to post these signs? What should you do if you see one as a drone pilot or a member of the public?

www.dpreview.com

.

This worked! Thanx! Great article.

D

 

[Azarov]

Excellent article from DPREVIEW:

The myth of the 'No Drone Zone' sign: What you should do if you see one

According to CASA regulation in Australia you have to obtain permit from the owner of the land if you're flying over it. Even if you flying over a life stock you have to get a permit from the owner of the cows, sheep....
Legally every inch of soil belongs to someone.
In reality I can observe more and more drone pilots flying unleashed.

 

[twang]

According to CASA regulation in Australia you have to obtain permit from the owner of the land if you're flying over it. Even if you flying over a life stock you have to get a permit from the owner of the cows, sheep....
Legally every inch of soil belongs to someone.
In reality I can observe more and more drone pilots flying unleashed.

Where did you hear that. Is there a new rule been published or 101 amended?

 

[Hands Down]

Interesting article. To me, excessive "ground control", whether technically legal or not, actually works against its own intent in many cases, and reduces safety.

For example, let's say I want to fly over a local park. The local park has a no drone ordinance. But it's Class G airspace. So, I can fly in that air space legally per FAA regulations. I just can't take off, land, or have my ground station inside the park bounds, per local ordinance.

But then it's perfectly legal to operate from across the street, just outside the park bounds and fly in the park's air space. But I may be doing so from a less optimal position of risk awareness than I would be if I were from operating inside the park, where I could more easily see people, vehicles, obstructions, etc from the ground in addition to from above.

 

[mavic3usa]

Interesting article. To me, excessive "ground control", whether technically legal or not, actually works against its own intent in many cases, and reduces safety.

For example, let's say I want to fly over a local park. The local park has a no drone ordinance. But it's Class G airspace. So, I can fly in that air space legally per FAA regulations. I just can't take off, land, or have my ground station inside the park bounds, per local ordinance.

But then it's perfectly legal to operate from across the street, just outside the park bounds and fly in the park's air space. But I may be doing so from a less optimal position of risk awareness than I would be if I were from operating inside the park, where I could more easily see people, vehicles, obstructions, etc from the ground in addition to from above.

Local drone ordinances prohibiting flying drones have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with telling drone owners what they can and cannot do. If it were about safety, the local drone ordinance would say "Follow all FAA rules because we agree the FAA knows best PLUS we have a few extra safety rules of our own which will further enhance the stellar record drone's already have and actually keep it that way." But instead it reads more like "You can fly your drone anywhere you want, you just can't fly it here. Drones unwelcome." Or, we know we can only prohibit take off and landing on our property but we'll still give it a shot: "NO DRONES anywhere in or over the park by state law code #[insert trespassing law here]."

 

[landmark orbiter]

Interesting article. To me, excessive "ground control", whether technically legal or not, actually works against its own intent in many cases, and reduces safety.

For example, let's say I want to fly over a local park. The local park has a no drone ordinance. But it's Class G airspace. So, I can fly in that air space legally per FAA regulations. I just can't take off, land, or have my ground station inside the park bounds, per local ordinance.

But then it's perfectly legal to operate from across the street, just outside the park bounds and fly in the park's air space. But I may be doing so from a less optimal position of risk awareness than I would be if I were from operating inside the park, where I could more easily see people, vehicles, obstructions, etc from the ground in addition to from above.

Well said

 

[Hands Down]

Local drone ordinances prohibiting flying drones have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with telling drone owners what they can and cannot do. If it were about safety, the local drone ordinance would say "Follow all FAA rules because we agree the FAA knows best PLUS we have a few extra safety rules of our own which will further enhance the stellar record drone's already have and actually keep it that way." But instead it reads more like "You can fly your drone anywhere you want, you just can't fly it here. Drones unwelcome." Or, we know we can only prohibit take off and landing on our property but we'll still give it a shot: "NO DRONES anywhere in or over the park by state law code #[insert trespassing law here]."

I do think in most cases, the people who are making these rules have good intentions. Probably they have either already had an incident resulting from an irresponsible pilot, or they have seen news coverage highlighting such incidents. And they just want to avoid the situation completely. The only real downside to making a no-drone rule is that they upset maybe 0.1% of the population in doing so.

I'm also not sure the focus is really folks like the people on this forum, who tend to have higher end drones with a lot of precision sensors and safety features, and are either Part 107 or at least TRUST certified. I mean, anyone with $29.99 to spare can go to Amazon and have what is likely a very difficult to control drone with minimal to no safety features delivered to them next day. And the people who do that have probably put minimal thought into what dangers they might pose with it, and have minimal or no understanding of the rules and regulations. They may not even bother to read the instructions.

Unfortunately it's difficult to separate you or me from the $29.99 purchased-on-a-whim, high-risk pilot without personally interviewing us, or until an incident occurs.

So I get why these rules get made. It's just unfortunate for those of us who take it more seriously.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe the FAA needs to take a bit harder stance on the minimum requirements to pilot a drone and the minimum safety feature requirements. I don't know - I wouldn't want to see the whole thing become out of reach of the hobbyist. On the other hand, it's kind of a pointless hobby if gets to the point where you're not allowed to do it anywhere.

 

[Mr. Rocketman]

Excellent article from DPREVIEW:

The myth of the 'No Drone Zone' sign: What you should do if you see one

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/th...e-zone-sign-what-you-should-do-if-you-see-one

The link is bad now.

 

[Red Pyro]

These are to protect wild Dolphins. When I said to the ranger I couldn't see any dolphins he said 'I know where they are, they're under the water'.

Probably was told by Aquaman to say this

 

[Fly Petaluma]

An example of this is ACoE facilities, such as locks and dams. There are signs around some facilities that read "NO DRONE ZONE" but contain no legal language. It's easy enough to fly around and above ACoE locations outside of their boundaries, as it's generally Class G airspace, and I've never had an issue with the ACoE or the FAA. More interestingly, the ACoE has shared a number of my aerial photos on their social media channels.

For those of us who aren't familiar with the acronym ACoE, it stands for Army Corps of Engineers

 

[tlyons]

These are to protect wild Dolphins. When I said to the ranger I couldn't see any dolphins he said 'I know where they are, they're under the water'.

Remember that you can still be breaking the law other than FAA ones. Assuming there really are dolphins there (or might be there and could be chased off by noise) it is usually illegal to harass wild animals.

Because you happen to do it with a drone doesn't make it OK. I agree with opposing government over reach but only if I can do it while still being a decent citizen. It would s*ck to be the one pushes the dolphins out of a nice feeding area. Peace.

 

[TonyPHX]

Remember that you can still be breaking the law other than FAA ones. Assuming there really are dolphins there (or might be there and could be chased off by noise) it is usually illegal to harass wild animals.

Because you happen to do it with a drone doesn't make it OK. I agree with opposing government over reach but only if I can do it while still being a decent citizen. It would s*ck to be the one pushes the dolphins out of a nice feeding area. Peace.

I like the strategy of "Fly drone's, but first do no harm."

 

[Richard R]

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/th...e-zone-sign-what-you-should-do-if-you-see-one

@Mr. Rocketman use this link - somehow it got corrupted.

The myth of the 'No Drone Zone' sign: What you should do if you see one

 

[rjwmorrell]

According to CASA regulation in Australia you have to obtain permit from the owner of the land if you're flying over it. Even if you flying over a life stock you have to get a permit from the owner of the cows, sheep....
Legally every inch of soil belongs to someone.
In reality I can observe more and more drone pilots flying unleashed.

Do land owners also give permits to commercial aircraft flying over their property?

 

[tlyons]

I do think in most cases, the people who are making these rules have good intentions.

At the risk of being picky, if a group doesn't have the authority, then it's not a rule regardless of intention. Among the great gifts of human advancement are written laws that apply to everyone equally as interpreted by an independent judiciary.

Not some guy with a sign.

 

[TonyPHX]

At the risk of being picky, if a group doesn't have the authority, then it's not a rule regardless of intention. Among the great gifts of human advancement are written laws that apply to everyone equally as interpreted by an independent judiciary.

Not some guy with a sign.

 

[Azarov]

Where did you hear that. Is there a new rule been published or 101 amended?

I learnt it when was sitting the ReOC exam. I think you can find it here. -> Federal Register of Legislation