Unauthorized Drone Buzzes Detroit Green Day Concert.
- Thread starter The Droning Company
- Start date
Another bonehead with a drone drags us all down a notch.
It's interesting that he was identified and apprehended so quickly
It's interesting that he was identified and apprehended so quickly
Wow, this country has been watching too many movies.
They nabbed the pilot because he probably thought he wasn't doing anything wrong. But the way they ran off that stage, you would think somebody hit the panic alarm. Not funny but I bet they thought Las Vegas. It's just a personal observation and only my opinion but do we have to literally run from "everything"?
What if that were a NEO? I guess they had to throw this in:
"The FAA bans unauthorized drones from flying within a radius of three miles around stadiums, starting one hour before an event begins until one hour after the scheduled end time. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 increased the fine for pilots conducting "unsafe or unauthorized operations" to $75,000 per violation."
They nabbed the pilot because he probably thought he wasn't doing anything wrong. But the way they ran off that stage, you would think somebody hit the panic alarm. Not funny but I bet they thought Las Vegas. It's just a personal observation and only my opinion but do we have to literally run from "everything"?
What if that were a NEO? I guess they had to throw this in:
"The FAA bans unauthorized drones from flying within a radius of three miles around stadiums, starting one hour before an event begins until one hour after the scheduled end time. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 increased the fine for pilots conducting "unsafe or unauthorized operations" to $75,000 per violation."
HoozierDroneDaddy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reactions
- 683
- Age
- 72
But they left out the part with the occupancy level. There were 30,000+ here which caused the TFR.
I don't believe (and I could be wrong) that *any* event containing 30,000 or more automatically qualifies for a TFR in other words a super popular rival middle school cricket game that attracted 35,000 spectators crowded in an open field, does that get a TFR? I think it goes by type such as NFL, NCAA, NASCAR, MSL, etc. The government is extending protection to these large events to protect their broadcasting rights, it has less to do with the number of people present and watching the game. IMO the number of seats in your "stadium" being 30,000 denotes how much pull you have. A stadium which only holds 20,000 probably doesn't rise to enough importance for FAA protection because there's no safety issue difference between 20,000 and 30,000 below a drone. If your NFL team sucks and you only turn out 5,000 for a game, you still get the TFR.
HoozierDroneDaddy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reactions
- 683
- Age
- 72
I only mention the above as it only states the TFR is for stadiums, it does not mention the capacity, so it would imply to the unknowing that all stadium evens are under the TFR regardless of the size.
Read first. Then comment. Your imaginary middle school cricket match with 35,000 spectators would be covered.
"4. Background. Following the events of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted legislation that restricted civil aircraft operations over sporting events such as NASCAR, Major League Baseball(MLB), the National Football League (NFL), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)Division I Football, and other open-air events containing more than 30,000 people."
Government protecting broadcast rights rather than safety? No.
HoozierDroneDaddy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reactions
- 683
- Age
- 72
Understand that. I was referring to the comment implying that a stadium below the FAA limit would be covered. And that may not always be the case. A check for a TFR should be checked first, not assumed.
Whatever, you are missing the point as usual. I said automatically qualifies. Details matter. Words matter. A middle school football game of 30,000 doesn't automatically qualify when some kind of magical threshold is hit. Once a 30,000th person arrives, the TFR doesn't just go up and drone flyers need to be aware. The capacity is but one factor. What's the capacity of a empty 1 square mile parking lot? The example I gave it valid, it stands. The middle school game would get no TFR and the 500 people in the NFL stadium would still get it because the government already has a contract to protect the broadcasting rights which is why (in part) play is stopped when a drone (even a tethered drone) that isn't owned by the corporation appears. For sure. Not "rather than" but in addition to. Government is protecting broadcasting rights under the guise of safety. Maybe you want to tell us that an empty stadium and the TFR is lifted? Nope.
The article makes it seem as if anytime you have a super large group of people gathering, a TFR goes up. Or, any event you hold in a "stadium", a TFR goes up. Wrong.
The "article" is a policy statement from the FAA.
"This notice clarifies Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy, guidance, and procedures regarding flyovers of stadiums, race tracks, civic events, funerals, etc.,with a focus on major sporting events requiring a sporting event temporary flight restriction(TFR)."
The FAA establishes TFRs. "... other open-air events containing more than 30,000 people" qualify for a TFR. No TFR automatically appears; each one is individually created by human beings at the FAA. An NFL game with 500 attendees is not eligible for a TFR. A middle-school cricket match with, 35,000 attendees would qualify for a TFR.
The government has no contract with the NFL to protect broadcast rights.
But that's exactly what they are doing. Of course they have no written contract. It's a defacto contract. But no one is going to admit it openly. Why is it that an NFL drone can fly inside the stadium during game play, is it because the NFL drone is safer? I know they had to go thru the rules and jump thru the hoops and gain approval to make sure all is good to fly during a TFR but the reason why they went thru this is to provide network coverage, not for any other reason. And the approval is guaranteed, there is no denying the NFL from flying their own drones at their own game. And anyone else non-NFL is guaranteed to fail at gaining approval, not because they don't have an adequate safety plan or whatever else is needed but only because they don't have broadcast rights. No rights, no fly. This is effectively making sure the NFL maintains their rights which is why you not only can't fly in and over the stadium but also you can't get anywhere near it. Only over time will this maybe change just as they didn't want to all cellphone with their cameras inside....until they had no other choice.
But I get it. They have you and they have the rest of country convinced it is because it's a stadium full of people and drones are enemy number one and since 2001, H.S .and the Patriot Act means everything is locked down for N.S. reasons....forever. Yet you can drive a yellow Ryder truck into the parking lot (because it doesn't have cameras). Maybe maybe not a yellow one, but the white ones don't alarm anyone.
Look, you're not going to convince me on this one so honestly I wouldn't waste any more time on this, repeating the language. I read it all myself but I can read between the lines, too. And now as a result, whenever a drone shows up, everybody runs. Sad.
Myetkt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 45
- Reactions
- 51
- Age
- 67
I read it all myself but I can read between the lines, too.
And right there is your problem..
And right there is your problem..
Honestly my biggest concern with the issue is the government not being open and transparent with it and the fact that the TFR is so big and expansive, alot bigger than it needs to be. Personally I think if they come out with it then not so many people will be scared of drones showing up at large venue as if they are inherintly nefarious in nature especially if it doesn't have a big NFL logo on it. I think everyone can semi-understand you don't want a drone to intrude while you are performing and just flying around the stadium distracting and annoying people. To me, it's a civil issue (as long as there is no criminal intent) and I don't like detentions, arrests, and excessive fines attached to such non-criminal activities. If you are flying a drone at 5th and Main at the city park downtown, FPVing thru the swing sets, and there's a big soccer game at the stadium 4 miles away where lots of people have gathered and you don't plan to fly to that stadium and record the event, you shouldn't have to defend yourself or you should at least be able to prove no harm rather than what will actually happened which is "It's a TFR. You violated the TFR. Your fine is $x,xxx" because we have no idea to know for sure what you are up to AND we need to send a message to others.
This is what will happen to you if you make a mistake with your "hobby" (not me, not my video):
Myetkt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 45
- Reactions
- 51
- Age
- 67
and the fact that the TFR is so big and expansive, alot bigger than it needs to be.
Your opinion,
To me, it's a civil issue (as long as there is no criminal intent) and I don't like detentions, arrests, and excessive fines attached to such non-criminal activities.
But it’s not a civil issue, just because you want it to be doesn’t change anything.
FPVing thru the swing sets, and there's a big soccer game at the stadium 4 miles away where lots of people have gathered and you don't plan to fly to that stadium and record the event, you shouldn't have to defend yourself or you should at least be able to prove no harm rather than what will actually happened which is "It's a TFR.
Again, just because you think it shouldn’t be there doesn’t change the fact it’s there.
You don’t read between the lines, you make up the laws you want to follow and don’t want to follow in your own head. People get cited and or arrested because they don’t know the law, or in your scenarios choose to ignore all the time. Then when they get their butt in a sling they start crying about how they know more than everyone else. Just as you said in another thread if you were law enforcement and didn’t want to return someone’s property you would just tie it up in red tape through the court system.
Your opinion,
To me, it's a civil issue (as long as there is no criminal intent) and I don't like detentions, arrests, and excessive fines attached to such non-criminal activities.
But it’s not a civil issue, just because you want it to be doesn’t change anything.
FPVing thru the swing sets, and there's a big soccer game at the stadium 4 miles away where lots of people have gathered and you don't plan to fly to that stadium and record the event, you shouldn't have to defend yourself or you should at least be able to prove no harm rather than what will actually happened which is "It's a TFR.
Again, just because you think it shouldn’t be there doesn’t change the fact it’s there.
You don’t read between the lines, you make up the laws you want to follow and don’t want to follow in your own head. People get cited and or arrested because they don’t know the law, or in your scenarios choose to ignore all the time. Then when they get their butt in a sling they start crying about how they know more than everyone else. Just as you said in another thread if you were law enforcement and didn’t want to return someone’s property you would just tie it up in red tape through the court system.
Wow are you still hurt over that, is that what this is all about? I guess I should have said "if you were dishonest law enforcement and didn’t want to return someone’s property you would just tie it up in red tape through the court system because it's a known method" but honestly, it doesn't matter because it happens anyway despite there being an overwhelming number of honest law enforcement officers in the process who are supposed to protect your rights. I don't wear blinders and I'm not going to be naive to the technique being used. To keep that statement in the proper context, it wasn't mentioned off the cuff as some sort of put down. It stemmed from personal advice related to informing the poster that his seized drone may not be worth the time and money spent to get it back from someone who didn't want to release it; obviously if they called him and said come get your stuff...super. Apologies if you are law enforcement and felt that dig was directed to you; that wasn't my intent.
Just to clarify what I said + what I meant, someone using a drone to capture broadcast rights that don't belong to them is a civil issue; do you disagree? You think it's a crime? Do you believe if someone uses a camera to record a game that doesn't belong to them, the copyright owner should be able to use government agencies to assist them from a criminal perspective which means using law enforcement, not to enforce some sort of trespass, but to enforce copyright issues; is that what you believe when you say "it's not a civil issue." Catch someone in the stands recording the game with a cellphone and you can call the police and have them arrested? Because they are treating it like that when it comes to the drone.
But as I mentioned, violating a TFR is one thing and we have room to work with that. Personally I believe that will eventually works itself out. Putting up a TFR to protect a private entities rights, personally I have concerns with that because as everybody knows, there's no end to that. If we can keep it pretty limited and exceptional.....ok.
These are just my opinions, they are not my facts and my laws. When you get ready to express your opinions, I will be open to them as well. If people want to know what I am working towards, they don't have to look any further than what I write. I would like the TFR for sporting events to be a bit smaller and I would like the criminal aspects to be removed (when it isn't applicable). I understand others may disagree.
Looks like another case of the sky falling and the wolf stalking the sheep and you're the only one who notices.
I see that you've extrapolated from a one incident of a couple of band members running off a stage to seeing a stampede "whenever a drone shows up."
My point was anytime there is a perceived danger, people run. I guess that's what happened when you ask people "if you see something say something." Scared of everything but yeah I can't blame them; on stage you gotta be thinking Las Vegas every time you go up there.
...another example of the sentiment equally expressed by me and others in the community who recognize the legal tactics our government use to get their way and deter you from your end goal: POST in "Ignoring no fly zones" thread
A September 11 note to readers:
The mistrust, enmity, and perception of unjust actions asserted toward the federal, state, and local governments of the United States are not universally shared among the members of this forum. One might hope that these things could be kept quiet on the 23rd anniversary of the attacks on New York and the District of Columbia.
Last edited:
Respect paid this morning as I reflected on where I was and what I was doing that morning; felt like it was yesterday so agreed....never forget.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Warrior Drones with Machine Guns may be Real Terminators- Started by The Droning Company
- Replies: 1
-
Drones Leading Revolution in Big Data Cloud Services. (Scary Thoughts)
- Started by The Droning Company
- Replies: 0
-
Doordash and Flytrex debut Drone Delivery.
- Started by The Droning Company
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
