Quite so. To be honest a drone is unlikely to bring down a modern helicopter however any impact will destroy the drone. OTOH the downdraft is likely to throw the drone at the ground or a building before the drone makes contact with the helicopter..
Use of Drones to record civil unrest.
- Thread starter jagraphics
- Start date
- Status
Quite so. To be honest a drone is unlikely to bring down a modern helicopter however any impact will destroy the drone. OTOH the downdraft is likely to throw the drone at the ground or a building before the drone makes contact with the helicopter..
That is legal provided that you maintain VLOS and don't break any other non-aviation laws, such as the prohibition on harassing wildlife.
VERY good point. I was going to suggest having observers, but you got there first.
Citizen Flier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 344
- Reactions
- 181
With all the crashes reported in this forum, I think flying over a crisis area could add the risk of falling aircraft. I turned my back on my M2p recently for a moment, and got a weak signal warning (in a remote area). Things sound bad enough right now without having amateur pilots dropping their drones on demonstrators/police/etc. OTOH what could be more important than the citizen journalist who captured George Floyd's arrest on a cell phone?
Technically, you can stand 2 feet outside the National Park boundary, and launch from there. Then you can fly OVER/into the park etc. but the only real issue is that all the neat stuff in the park is out of reach for the AC and battery flight time. Oh, and make sure you don't land inside the park boundary.
Sigh....
Yuppers, I got a weak signal on my Savvy Mavvy Gen I when I turned my back to watch where I was stepping, have to watch the controller orientation...
The biggest reason NOT to make like a journalist and try and cover riots with video or a drone is that Journalists are employed to do it, are insured to do it and have back up You don't have that.. You will need support as in some parts of the world the press are specifically targeted.
A few years ago in Gaza and the West Bank, also Syria the problem for photo/journalists was snipers. I know two journalists who were hit. One is dead the other will never work again,
In the current US situation it is less dangerous than the Middle East but (as is being discussed by Journalists globally) it is still dangerous. It would be very remiss of me not to post this.
Dozens of journalists attacked and arrested at US George Floyd protests
Note it is not all the police. Some of it is the rioters and there are in any riot lots of groups with different agendas. Last night in St Louis there were shots fired at the police. Anyone who is capable of doing that won't think twice about shooting some one with a camera videoing them.
Unless journalism is your profession and you are insured with an employer who will pay you whilst you are in hospital DO NOT go to a Riot to video (with or without a drone) Facebook likes and a few $$$ off YouTube are not worth dying for (or being disabled for life).
STAY AT HOME.
If you want excitement read the about these highly regarded and much celebrated photo journalists the Bang Bang Club who covered civil unrest in South Africa (3/4 of them are dead or disabled ) or Rory Peck's story (he's dead) or about Tim Heatherington (he's dead) or Marie Colvin (she's dead) There is a pattern there and they knew what they were doing.
Think about it.
A few years ago in Gaza and the West Bank, also Syria the problem for photo/journalists was snipers. I know two journalists who were hit. One is dead the other will never work again,
In the current US situation it is less dangerous than the Middle East but (as is being discussed by Journalists globally) it is still dangerous. It would be very remiss of me not to post this.
Dozens of journalists attacked and arrested at US George Floyd protests
Note it is not all the police. Some of it is the rioters and there are in any riot lots of groups with different agendas. Last night in St Louis there were shots fired at the police. Anyone who is capable of doing that won't think twice about shooting some one with a camera videoing them.
Unless journalism is your profession and you are insured with an employer who will pay you whilst you are in hospital DO NOT go to a Riot to video (with or without a drone) Facebook likes and a few $$$ off YouTube are not worth dying for (or being disabled for life).
STAY AT HOME.
If you want excitement read the about these highly regarded and much celebrated photo journalists the Bang Bang Club who covered civil unrest in South Africa (3/4 of them are dead or disabled ) or Rory Peck's story (he's dead) or about Tim Heatherington (he's dead) or Marie Colvin (she's dead) There is a pattern there and they knew what they were doing.
Think about it.
Last edited:
You would be pushing the envelope taking off and then flying over a national park. I personally do not want the faa or feds showing up at more door, just for pictures over a national park. I think, not sure but you can request a waiver for a national park. You would have to research that. I also think you would have to hold a 107 cert.
An amateur can apply for a waiver to allow drone flight over a Nat'l park. I'm told it's a very slow and uncertain process.
A 107 holder has a much better chance, but it would be for commercial purposes. Park personnel would have to be present, and the fee would be hefty.
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
Sorry guys but there other threads on what you are talking about but this one is about .. Using drones to record civil unrest...
Lets stick to the topic.
Thanks .
Lets stick to the topic.
Thanks .
Terry63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 90
- Reactions
- 57
- Age
- 69
Not sure why a neutral party would want to get any where near that kind of violence. A paid journalist, yes its their job.
In Australia, it’s illegal to fly a drone over any emergency situation (unless you’re part of search and rescue or otherwise have an incident controllers permission). A peaceful protest is unlikely that. But a riot etc. would count, as does a car accident, bushfire, earthquake, etc. Basically a sound measure would be that if emergency services attend under lights and siren, it’s a no-fly situation. As per usual, press helicopters aren’t drones and operate in certain circumstances. We are also not permitted to fly directly over a person - so no flying over a crowd, peaceful or not.
Most posts focus on minimising confrontation whilst using drones. But there may be other more sinister intentions of having them present at protests. For example, is a drone counted as a possible “police vehicle”? So could I fly a drone otherwise legally, with red and blue flashing lights? If I wanted to antagonise protestors? Make them think they are being recorded etc.? I wonder if you could get charged (yes I know the obvious, drone might get shot etc.). But that might be the whole idea of some - “get people to start shooting”! The OP focuses on recording and avoiding confrontation. Some may wish to utilise a drone to actually provoke it!
To define - this is a hypothetical! Don’t intend to! But I sometimes wonder if drones are being used as agent provocateurs, an untraceable trigger to drive extremist agendas at relatively low cost, even if it’s lost/jammed/shot. You could imagine that someone could ‘pose’ as anyone they wish - including press - to use a drone to provoke. In fact one reason neutral press are attacked these days is that there is too much “non-neutral” press: from extremist press to “neutral” press who like to drive story-selling agendas. And thinking about it, what’s going to sell better: “People march peacefully to government building” or “Masked protestor shoots at drone near government building, police open fire”? Even if the drone was blown out of the sky, it’s $$$$$ For the latter compared to an unread social media post for the former.
To define - this is a hypothetical! Don’t intend to! But I sometimes wonder if drones are being used as agent provocateurs, an untraceable trigger to drive extremist agendas at relatively low cost, even if it’s lost/jammed/shot. You could imagine that someone could ‘pose’ as anyone they wish - including press - to use a drone to provoke. In fact one reason neutral press are attacked these days is that there is too much “non-neutral” press: from extremist press to “neutral” press who like to drive story-selling agendas. And thinking about it, what’s going to sell better: “People march peacefully to government building” or “Masked protestor shoots at drone near government building, police open fire”? Even if the drone was blown out of the sky, it’s $$$$$ For the latter compared to an unread social media post for the former.
Last edited:
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
There was a thread I believe in PhantomPilots awhile back
where the the protesters were using a drone to aggravate
LE over a pipeline. Seems they shot it down. Will try and find
the thread.
where the the protesters were using a drone to aggravate
LE over a pipeline. Seems they shot it down. Will try and find
the thread.
I recall that! I think they at least thought they were flying legally and that the LE were in the pockets of the oil company.
There’s plenty of PETA use along this line, as well as SHARK (forget acronym but it ends in Animals Respect and Kindness). So thanks for reminder Dirkclod - perfect examples of “reporters” using drones to report but also perhaps intentionally to provoke. Please everyone! Don’t redirect this discussion into animal liberation!! It’s as flammable as politics and gun laws!! Just some good examples of why drones and enraged people can equal some aggressive reactions that could seemingly be infringements on free press, but have hidden agendas by the pilots, be they right or wrong.
The above covers the current rules for non-107 flights. Since you can’t fly over people, how are you going to get the footage legally?
Yes - you’d need to fly “to the side” etc. Another few points to make though, is that some will seek to get illegal footage (in USA in this case) and unscrupulous buyers will no doubt purchase (check out all the published night-flights related to COVID19 lockdowns in cities for example), as well as the fact that civil unrest as a topic for reporting is international, in countries where of course FAA has no relevance. But many countries- like Australia- do have the no “over people” rule, although here there doesn’t seem to be an exact measurement “to the side” though minimum overall distancing from people (in a ‘bubble’ over them) is stated. Once you are over that height, arguably 3 feet to the side is not “over”... arguable as in a good lawyer arguable if things went wrong!
The above covers the current rules for non-107 flights. Since you can’t fly over people, how are you going to get the footage legally?
Different countries also have different private property overflight laws, so here in Australia I’d likely just fly over private property to avoid people, if other people were not accessing it at the time, and the incident was not “an emergency” (also automatically no-flight zone here).
The journalists on the ground kept getting right into the middle of all the tear gas going off...so much for the protection aspect, they don't have anybody paying enough attention to keep themselves out of danger.
Read the link re the current USA situation Dozens of journalists attacked and arrested at US George Floyd protests most of the journalists were specifically targeted whilst clearly identified as PRESS and carrying/using large broadcast TV cameras. Most of them were NOT in the crowd or the tear gas. They were in teams with experienced people looking out at the situation and off to one side of the crowd. They know how to cover riots. It's what they do.
Most of the direct attacks on the Press are on video and there is no doubt. The attack on the BBC News Team had no tear gas and or protesters around them. They were also clearly marked as PRESS.
NOTE it is not just the police. a couple of the attacks were by protesters. NOTE his equipment was destroyed. I think you will find that "riot" is one of the get out clauses for insurance. So your kit won't be covered unless you have specialist insurance cover.
but Police -protester attacks are in the ratio of 50-1 and so far the attacks but police are more dangerous.
Last edited:
Absolutely correct, which is why the NPS places the 2000’ altitude, it is strictly is relation to the protection of wildlife.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
