We are just hurting ourselves... Wildlife harassment, illegal flights on campus, and BVLOS flights.. all in ONE

[BigAl07]

This one article sums up a lot of FAULTS all in one flight...

• Harassing Wildlife (intentionally and otherwise)
• Flying on Campus without permission or in a manner that violates the Campus UAS Rules
• Flying by "Viewing Device Only" and BVLOS

And we're shocked that regulations are getting tougher and more locations are prohibiting any UAS flights from their property. If we can't Police ourselves we leave it up to John Q. Public to pitch a fit and demand that Government do it for us. We are better than this . . .

Drones and falcons don’t mix, recent incident at UC Berkeley proves

A drone flown irresponsibly on the Cal campus recently agitated Annie, one of the campus' longtime peregrine falcons.

www.berkeleyside.org

 

[umanbean]

Mankind has always had its share of idiots, and for a long time I thought we had a higher percentage of idiots than ever? But now I wonder if we just have more idiots overall because of the higher population and the internet giving them their very own stage to demonstrate their idiocy?

 

[BigAl07]

Mankind has always had its share of idiots, and for a long time I thought we had a higher percentage of idiots than ever? But now I wonder if we just have more idiots overall because of the higher population and the internet giving them their very own stage to demonstrate their idiocy?

I think you've hit the nail on the head and it's BOTH!!

Higher Population = More Idiots

But also people are "getting ideas" etc from our 24/7 DATA stream we are now all part of. It's a viscous cycle and we're only making it worse.

 

[Wade L.]

Despite the misgivings I have over Remote ID, accounts like this make it very hard to argue against it. I do hope that, once implemented and mandated, RID starts to significantly cut down on the number of asinine flights like this that are way too often reported in the press today.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I do hope that, once implemented and mandated, RID starts to significantly cut down on the number of asinine flights like this that are way too often reported in the press today.

General questions for all, but your point above Wade . . .

So is RID going to eliminate the need for systems like Aeroscope ?
RID compatible apps or whatever can be opened when a flight like this is detected, the tracker can see the trackees flight, and located them with accuracy to go and do whatever to control the / any illegal activity ?

Obviously this would be good for smaller location authorities that can't afford Aeroscope type systems, but not so good if the average Joe Public could do this.
I can imagine all the offended Karens thinking a drone flying way above (legally) passing by a couple of times, needs tracking and 'speaking to the manager' of the aircraft.

Not sure how the average public would even get to know they could do this, I wouldn't think RID would be advertised by the FAA or other such organsiation as these RID systems spread worldwide for UAVs, they'd possibly be inciting your average paranoid people to take their own action (they thought necessary) against these 'rogue' drone pilots.

 

[Wade L.]

General questions for all, but your point above Wade . . .

So is RID going to eliminate the need for systems like Aeroscope ?
RID compatible apps or whatever can be opened when a flight like this is detected, the tracker can see the trackees flight, and located them with accuracy to go and do whatever to control the / any illegal activity ?

Obviously this would be good for smaller location authorities that can't afford Aeroscope type systems, but not so good if the average Joe Public could do this.
I can imagine all the offended Karens thinking a drone flying way above (legally) passing by a couple of times, needs tracking and 'speaking to the manager' of the aircraft.

Not sure how the average public would even get to know they could do this, I wouldn't think RID would be advertised by the FAA or other such organsiation as these RID systems spread worldwide for UAVs, they'd possibly be inciting your average paranoid people to take their own action (they thought necessary) against these 'rogue' drone pilots.

Those are the “misgivings” I mentioned. Yes, RID will require that drone transmit:

• A unique identifier for the drone;
• The drone's latitude, longitude, geometric altitude, and velocity;
• An indication of the latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of control station (standard) or take-off location (broadcast module);
• A time mark; and
• Emergency status (Standard Remote ID Drone only)

See https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/remote_id/.

While I agree with most aspects of RID, the one thing that I adamantly disagree with is the fact that the transmitted information will be receivable and readable by the general public. This is an issue for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but I fear that it will sometimes escalate beyond noisy “Karens.” Drones have been shot at, so what will happen when those who would fire on a drone can now see where the pilot is located?

I doubt that the FAA will advertise to the public that they will have the ability to receive and read RID information. But it will become known soon enough, and it won’t be long after implementation until we see mobile apps that will enable it.

I imagine that RID will render the Aeroscope system obsolete, at least in the U.S. Given that a simple mobile app will be able to do today what Aeroscope is able to do today (maybe even more?), I imagine that there will be many more listening devices in places like major sporting locales and other places where drone flights are prohibited. Even smaller municipalities with limited resources that may not be able to take advantage of Aeroscope today will be able get similar information with RID with much less cost.

 

[microlinux]

I'm confident humanity will end itself long before the universe finds a way.

 

[DoomMeister]

One issue I see on university campuses are the Draconian rules they enact for drone use, way overstepping those from the FAA. Really not a good mix when you take young adults stretching their wings after leaving the nest where they spent the last 18 years and then having rules that are more restrictive than the federal regulations. Just a recipe for bucking authority in my opinion.

Keeping the rules the same as the federal rules should be enough. In the case of the falcons on this campus there should be a well publicized NFZ around the nesting site and there is no reason that a TFR couldn’t be applied for and enacted there.

I am all for the laws and regulations for UAV flights be through the FAA just like GA and Commercial aviation. States and municipalities should not be enacting their own rules, fees, and licensing.

 

[BigAl07]

One issue I see on university campuses are the Draconian rules they enact for drone use, way overstepping those from the FAA. Really not a good mix when you take young adults stretching their wings after leaving the nest where they spent the last 18 years and then having rules that are more restrictive than the federal regulations. Just a recipe for bucking authority in my opinion.

Keeping the rules the same as the federal rules should be enough. In the case of the falcons on this campus there should be a well publicized NFZ around the nesting site and there is no reason that a TFR couldn’t be applied for and enacted there.

I am all for the laws and regulations for UAV flights be through the FAA just like GA and Commercial aviation. States and municipalities should not be enacting their own rules, fees, and licensing.

Regardless of how they word it, they are only able to control "Land Use" and not any Airspace Use. I'm a firm believer in whoever owns/manages property can say if you can fly from their property or not. The caveat is that on most campuses if you can't fly FROM the property you aren't going to be able to fly "legally" over the majority of the property because of the size of it.

It's key to point out that they have no Aerial Authority and they need to re-word their statements to reflect that. The person being quoted said:

"Members of the campus community operating drones in a “reckless, unsafe or irresponsible manner” or in violation of federal law, the UC’s unmanned aircraft system (drone) policy or Berkeley’s campus policy will be subject to disciplinary action under the appropriate code of conduct, personnel policies or collective bargaining agreement, according to Berkeley’s policy. Non-university drone users, it says, may be subject to UC police department enforcement, revocation of permission to fly over campus property and a ban on further flights over campus for up to five years."

They should say FROM campus property since they can't control "Over Flight" of their property. Worst case is someone flying over their property could be cited for Reckless Behavior (or some similar infraction) or Harassing Wildlife if they are flying off-property and causing issues. And then they COULD be cited with BVLOS and Over People depending on what rules they are flying under etc.

 

[spsphotos]

In all fairness, unless you are familiar with the fact those birds are there, good chance there was no evil intent. And I agree with BigAl07, the campus has NO...absolutely NO authority to restrict flight over it. That being said, it is a big campus so VLOS would basically mean you could legally only fly over the outer regions. I think they need to be more proactive and make sure that the students all are 100% aware of the falcons and why drones within a few hundred yards of them are not acceptable.

 

[sar104]

Keeping the rules the same as the federal rules should be enough. In the case of the falcons on this campus there should be a well publicized NFZ around the nesting site and there is no reason that a TFR couldn’t be applied for and enacted there.

Protection of wildlife doesn't fall into any of the eight categories of TFR, and so I don't think that is an option.

 

[maven4336]

You fellas pretty much that at all I guess I don’t have to say much more about the idiots makes me feel sick when I read about the Falcons with our technology and all the sensors on the drones nowadays it’s too bad that there’s not something that will just make the drone go the other way when there’s any kind of situation with The wildlife, it’s too bad that the drone is not very smart and when something happens like that as well it just dive bombs back to the person flying it ,Drone turns around and kamikazes right back to the flyer or idiot and takes him out that’ll teach him sorry I had to share my thoughts I hope they don’t ruin it for everybody I will always keep my eye out for these knuckleheads

 

[Michael Ainsworth]

I agree with all the comments but, there will always be those who will break any law by circumventing the various restrictions on the drone.
If they can’t fly say a DJI drone then they will build their own which isn’t difficult nowadays.
Law abiding operators will obviously follow along as usual but there will always be those who disregard any restrictions.

 

[DoomMeister]

Regardless of how they word it, they are only able to control "Land Use" and not any Airspace Use. I'm a firm believer in whoever owns/manages property can say if you can fly from their property or not. The caveat is that on most campuses if you can't fly FROM the property you aren't going to be able to fly "legally" over the majority of the property because of the size of it.

It's key to point out that they have no Aerial Authority and they need to re-word their statements to reflect that. The person being quoted said:

"Members of the campus community operating drones in a “reckless, unsafe or irresponsible manner” or in violation of federal law, the UC’s unmanned aircraft system (drone) policy or Berkeley’s campus policy will be subject to disciplinary action under the appropriate code of conduct, personnel policies or collective bargaining agreement, according to Berkeley’s policy. Non-university drone users, it says, may be subject to UC police department enforcement, revocation of permission to fly over campus property and a ban on further flights over campus for up to five years."

They should say FROM campus property since they can't control "Over Flight" of their property. Worst case is someone flying over their property could be cited for Reckless Behavior (or some similar infraction) or Harassing Wildlife if they are flying off-property and causing issues. And then they COULD be cited with BVLOS and Over People depending on what rules they are flying under etc.

I do agree with you Al. That campus is not the only one with language in their drone use rules that sounds like they have authority of the airspace. U of M AnnArbor Campus has very similar language. Yes they have the right to forbid operation from their property just like any other property owner and I have no issue with that.

Flights from off campus would be very similar to flights from outside National Parks, so likely violations would be outside VLOS, improper OOP, or harassment of wildlife in the case of the falcons.

 

[DoomMeister]

Protection of wildlife doesn't fall into any of the eight categories of TFR, and so I don't think that is an option.

Thanks @sar104. Do you have a reference for what things can apply for TFR status. I am genuinely interested.

 

[Wade L.]

Thanks @sar104. Do you have a reference for what things can apply for TFR status. I am genuinely interested.

“While not all inclusive, a TFR may be issued for the following reasons: toxic gas leaks or spills; fumes from flammable agents which, if fanned by rotor or propeller wash, could endanger persons or property on the surface or in other aircraft; volcanic eruptions that could endanger airborne aircraft and occupants; hijacking incidents that may endanger persons or property on the surface, or airborne aircraft and occupants; aircraft accident/incident sites; aviation or ground resources engaged in wildfire suppression; aircraft relief activities following a disaster; aerial demonstrations or major sporting events; or reasons of national security.”

Chapter 19. Temporary Flight Restrictions

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I heard what you're saying but there will always be buttheads and the powers that be will always use the actions of those relatively few buttheads to tighten control over everyone. It becomes a never ending slippery slope.

 

[thispilothere]

Non-university drone users, it says, may be subject to UC police department enforcement, revocation of permission to fly over campus property and a ban on further flights over campus for up to five years."

The FAA should be more proactive about having local actors change the wording or nullify the illegal rules entirely. At least have an agency hotline to call when we are ticketed or hassled by uninformed officers. Most of these situations could be solved with a quick call or lawsuit threat.

 

[sar104]

Thanks @sar104. Do you have a reference for what things can apply for TFR status. I am genuinely interested.

A Pilot's Guide to Understanding Restrictions in Today's National Airspace System

 

[Randy M]

This one article sums up a lot of FAULTS all in one flight...

• Harassing Wildlife (intentionally and otherwise)
• Flying on Campus without permission or in a manner that violates the Campus UAS Rules
• Flying by "Viewing Device Only" and BVLOS

And we're shocked that regulations are getting tougher and more locations are prohibiting any UAS flights from their property. If we can't Police ourselves we leave it up to John Q. Public to pitch a fit and demand that Government do it for us. We are better than this . . .

Drones and falcons don’t mix, recent incident at UC Berkeley proves

A drone flown irresponsibly on the Cal campus recently agitated Annie, one of the campus' longtime peregrine falcons.

www.berkeleyside.org

I read this, too. I was very angered by it. I'm a new pilot and I take pride in following the rules.