Use of Drones to record civil unrest.

[sar104]

Absolutely correct, which is why the NPS places the 2000’ altitude, it is strictly is relation to the protection of wildlife.

NPS doesn't have the authority to enforce an altitude limit, and there is not regulatory limit. The 2000 ft AGL minimum is a just request in the AIM.

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

That brings up an unrelated question but I hope you indulge me. I know it's illegal to fly in a national park, but is it illegal to "fly from a distance" there? In other words maybe stand outside the park and put the drone up keeping it outside the park but taking video or pictures of the park or is that not allowed?

If you are flying outside a clearly designated (reserve) no fly zone, on a map, then why would you not think it was okay to fly, if no other rules were in conflict? It sounds appropriate. Pointing the drone into the park should be fine; but if it was a military compound ...... never! ?

 

[theDRONEranger]

NPS doesn't have the authority to enforce an altitude limit, and there is not regulatory limit. The 2000 ft AGL minimum is a just request in the AIM.

Quite true, I did not intend to imply it was regulatory in nature.

 

[HISS13]

Interesting thread. Just an example we were contacted to provide drone coverage and assistance to a rural community Sheriffs Office for a protest. The agency had just been granted their COA and they were at least given a heads up to the protest which did take place. Some steps that were taken were to file a NOTAM for 2NM radius for emergency airspace which required Drone registration number.

There were drones that flew into the area that were not part of the operation and over people. We used one of the M2EDs with speaker to inform the area that there was a NOTAM in place and this was an active law enforcement operation and to the land their drone immediately. We were able to track the drones back to their launch location and spoke to the pilots which claimed they were hobbyists.

LEO spoke to the hobbyists and requested they keep out of the airspace since medical aircraft were on stby in a near by field and the NOTAM was in place for emergency operations. We had our pilot on hand to assist LEO to help educate the hobbyists. No drones were taken from those individuals nor were arrests made. It was better to inform, request, educate than to escalate a situation.

 

[madmax319]

I Read the entire post but I always thought if there were other aircraft in the area in other words if you could see another aircraft you were to bring your drawing down immediately so if there are police helicopters or a flying ambulances there would dictate you had to bring your drone down immediately in my opinion

 

[AK207]

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

In the U.S., the applicable FAA rule states “Never interfere with emergency response activities such as disaster relief, any type of accident response, law enforcement activities, firefighting, or hurricane recovery efforts.”

So I’m wondering how we can fly our drone, and not interfere, especially if a law enforcement drone or helicopter or medical response helicopter is operating in the area. And in cases of civil unrest, with a kinetically moving scenario, perhaps drone usage is not wise, and handheld photography/videography is best.

Part 107 also states that you're not allowed to fly over anyone directly participating in the flight or in a moving vehicle 14 CFR Sec. 107.39

 

[pelagic_one]

Part 107 also states that you're not allowed to fly over anyone directly participating in the flight or in a moving vehicle 14 CFR Sec. 107.39

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your interpretation. So if they’re not “directly participating in the flight,“ may we fly over them?

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your interpretation. So if they’re not “directly participating in the flight,“ may we fly over them?

No. The people who would be directly participating in the flight language is there for (as an example) a film set with actors. The area is controlled and limited to actors and crew. It is expected that the RPIC brief everyone at the location for safety as part of the preflight checklist. Otherwise you will need a waiver for flying over people. CNN was the first to get a waiver granted and that was for a tethered drone only.

As we begin to see "certified" aircraft on the market (even if only for the UAS identification and location program), I would imagine flying over people and highways might be more acceptable. For certain UPS getting the OK to start delivery under part 135 is a major step forward in relaxing rules, although UPS is already a pretty big airline so the expectation is they already have a comprehensive flight and equipment management system in place, so adding drone delivery is incremental not a primary service.

 

[AK207]

No. The people who would be directly participating in the flight language is there for (as an example) a film set with actors. The area is controlled and limited to actors and crew. It is expected that the RPIC brief everyone at the location for safety as part of the preflight checklist. Otherwise you will need a waiver for flying over people. CNN was the first to get a waiver granted and that was for a tethered drone only.

As we begin to see "certified" aircraft on the market (even if only for the UAS identification and location program), I would imagine flying over people and highways might be more acceptable. For certain UPS getting the OK to start delivery under part 135 is a major step forward in relaxing rules, although UPS is already a pretty big airline so the expectation is they already have a comprehensive flight and equipment management system in place, so adding drone delivery is incremental not a primary service.

Thanks! It's an interesting issue. The exact quote from the reg is "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is: (a) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft;" 14 CFR § 107.39 - Operation over human beings. Technically, that would exclude anyone other than the operator and the VO, or otherwise directly involved in flight ops. There is no exclusion in the reg based on a waiver from others not participating in operation, but I haven't had a chance to read alll of the issued policies, etc. Of course, it all boils down to FAA interpretation and guidance, but if you're flying over a crowded beach, a savvy individual could try to use this as the basis for a complaint. Disclaimer: I'm new to the drone flying and am enjoying this education, but I do have experience in the regulatory field. At the end of the day, it's the language in the regs and published guidance that controls.

 

[AK207]

NOTE another thread on a similar subject got closed because it got silly and political. Lets not repeat that.
ALSO it is civil unrest where there is still (in theory) some Rule of Law unlike a war zone where normal laws simply do not apply (and you are more than likly to end up dead).

I do photo/video journalism on the ground. I have covered civil unrest in various places. The problem is if you are looking at the camera viewfinder or the Drone control screen you are not looking at the situation rapidly developeing around you. So whilst a still photographer can get away with it because they are mostly don't have their eye glued to the viewfinder the videographers can't so easily as they are focused on the veiwfinder for longer periods and a drone flyer for longer still. This can be fatal. Video/Drone people need to work with a team. It can't be done solo at least not safely so DO NOT DO IT

The other problem is that any "side" in civil unrest will see a drone and assume it works for "the other side" .

Note there are always more than two sides.
For the Authorities there are the Police. However whilst in the UK that is The Police, in many other countries (Spain, Turkey, USA) there are multiple different Police forces who could be there. In many countries (though not the UK) there is the Military. Again they could come in multiple different flavors at the same protest/riot.
On the protesters side there are normally a large number of different groups usually with different objectives. and methods and even less coordination than the authorities. The chances are EVERYONE will be very suspicious of any drone they can see. NO ONE will be your friend other than the team with you. Your ground team is as much a target as the drone.

The big problem these days is everyone is internet and media savy. They want to get their story out their way. So whilst wearing a helmet and body armour is a Good Idea (tm). Having PRESS written on them in large letters may make you more of a target. Indeed in recent years this has very much been the case in many conflicts. The incidence of war reporters being killed is rising at an alarming rate.

Also depending were you are: it is just as dangerous to your health to get "caught" by either side. Remember most participants will be running on high adrenaline and not always thinking clearly.

Many police forces can jam or get turned off mobile phones. They can probably also disrupt wifi etc. So one threat to using a drone is it might suddenly loose all signal and or drop out of the sky.

Depending where you are firearms might be prevalent. Police forces often use shotguns, even with non lethal ammo, they are idea for bringing down drones (whether shooting them is legally sanctioned or not) Protesters tend not to have long arms if they do LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Pistols are not going to bring down a drone. However at the first sign of any gunfire from anyone you need to be in hard cover. Preferably somewhere else out of range unless you want to be a dead hero.

NOTE NEVER EVER carry any sort of weapon to a protest or rally. Reporters, even in armed conflicts, do NOT ever carry weapons.

As for controlling the drone. If tear gas is likely to be used you need decent goggles and probably a respirator because you are going to have to spend some time getting the drone back down where you can retrieve it.

Are there likely to be Police helicopters? Normally these will want to work out side the range of any "ground fire" from the protesters. Normally stones some times sling shots and catapults. Not usually firearms. You will need to keep well out of their way as the downdraft will kill your drone (ie it is unlikely to recover retrievable flight before hitting something solid )

In some locations it depends if it is daylight or not. Also it depends if some quick thinking Police Officer has put a NFZ over the city. I am not sure how fast they can bit put into effect on on the DJI system. IT might work for planed marches/rally or for ongoing civil unrest but not things that just happen.

As a journalist you have a duty to report but not be illegal. Then you get in to the balances of right or wrong. That is a personal decision that will depend on the specific circumstances. In the UK there is a "Public Interest" clause where the greater good outweighs the some minor infractions..... Some times you get away with it other times you have to argue it in court.

So you finally get to the actual rules of flying over people, property and buildings. They seem a bit irrelevant at this point. However they still make a lot of sense pragmatically just as much as legally. You need to be well clear of angry people launching projectiles, wires on poles, buildings smoke and fires etc

You are better off taking a hand held camera up building and looking down. Which is why, so far, I have not seen any professional news crew using a sUAV for getting video of civil unrest.

Having been in a few riots over the years I can tell you: your best way of seeing them is on the TV news from a sofa.

I have seen press photographers and video teams beaten up and their kit destroyed. This included experienced people who did nothing wrong and were were just unlucky. Some are even less lucky 2019 Violations of press freedom barometer | Reporters without borders As you will see citizen journalists get killed almost as much as the professional journalists.

This may have already been posted in the thread but there is an issued legal interpretation on the use of UAS by the media. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...iams-AFS-80 - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

 

[2020HeinSite]

The other problem is that any "side" in civil unrest will see a drone and assume it works for "the other side" .

Note there are always more than two sides.

Also depending were you are: it is just as dangerous to your health to get "caught" by either side. Remember most participants will be running on high adrenaline and not always thinking clearly.

I am old enough (do the math or get lazy and just glance to the left) to have been on a very large and politically charged college campus during the Vietnam protests. And as much as I would love to have photos of some of the horrible things I experienced and witnessed during the period following the Cambodia invasion and killings at Kent State University I prize my life and experiences since then far more. One of the things said above we learned back then very early: *Any* camera equipment puts a target on your forehead. The cops targeted us. Protesters targeted us. The camera threatened them all and you never knew who might react or how. The modern equivalent is a drone because everyone has a camera in their phone now, but even pointing that in any direction can still be dangerous.

When I read some of the questions and statements in this forum I'm often astonished at the lack of common sense being exhibited and the cavalier attitude toward self-preservation. There's always a difference between what you might think you have a "right" to do and doing the right thing. Understanding that difference can be a life altering, or ending, event.

Think!

 

[jagraphics]

You have the wisdom of age.
At 20 we were all indestructible and going to live for ever. Life was an adventure and all wrongs needed righting.


However you are 100% correct. Unless employed to report of the riots don't do it.
Reporters (mostly) having insurance and an employer who will pay them and their medical bills when in hospital for several months.

 

[lookout]

You have the wisdom of age.
At 20 we were all indestructible and going to live for ever. Life was an adventure and all wrongs needed righting.


However you are 100% correct. Unless employed to report of the riots don't do it.
Reporters (mostly) havine insurance and an employer who will pay them and their medical bills when in hospital for several months.

If the media declines to report on something I guess that means we at least have a chance, given nobody else is buzzing around up there.

 

[jagraphics]

If the media declines to report on something I guess that means we at least have a chance, given nobody else is buzzing around up there.

The media IS reporting it. There are many news teams from around the world reporting it not just local or national US news channels.
There is no need for anyone else to do it.

 

[lookout]

The media IS reporting it. There are many news teams from around the world reporting it not just local or national US news channels.
There is no need for anyone else to do it.

The riots, yes, but for other "unpopular" news...no they aren't reporting it...

 

[sar104]

The riots, yes, but for other "unpopular" news...no they aren't reporting it...

Examples?

 

[jagraphics]

The riots, yes, but for other "unpopular" news...no they aren't reporting it...

That is not the subject of this thread which is "Use of Drones to record civil unrest" in general and not specifically for any particular country.
It is not for "other news" in any particular country I can direct you to journalists forums if you would like to discuss it there?

 

[lookout]

Examples?

Where did all the bricks come from?

 

[dirkclod]

Where did all the bricks come from?

Refer to post #4.
As far as where did those come from it is being reported
and pretty much know what group supplied them .
But as the OP said and I’m saying it this discussion in not
going to start going in the direction of what’s happening in the US now.
Nuff said on that .?

 

[AK207]

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....

Good luck with that argument. If you're operating the drone in the park boundaries, you're in violation. "Policy Memorandum 14-05, released by the National Park Service (NPS) director in June 2014, directed each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to prohibit the launching, landing, or operation of unmanned aircraft, subject to the certain conditions and exceptions set forth in the memo. This is still in force with a very few exceptions."