Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Wow! Great Pic!

Violameister Loc: michigan

If I take a picture of my neighbor's house at his request with my light weight non-commercial quadcopter, and accept his offer of compensation, I am breaking the law as presently written. I feel considerably impacted.

I traveled to a State Park that was out of the way and totally deserted. I would have been breaking the law had I flown my quadcopter to take some images. Again, I feel impacted.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Would you take a picture of your neighbor's house at his request with your light weight non-commercial quadcopter, and accept his offer of compensation? All you would have to do is tell your neighbor you are happy to do it for free. Otherwise you are running a business and should comply with FAA regulations. But in fact the FAA has only made proposals to date and to date there are no regulations on commercial drones, and the FAA has no jurisdiction over hobby drones. So you wouldn't be breaking the law, because the law hasn't been finalized yet.
The FAA has made some common sense suggestions for hobbyists that include:
Don't fly above 400ft AGL
Don't fly within 3 miles of an airport/landing strip Keep you craft within line of sight
Don't fly in NOAA zones and obey all TFRs/FRZs (Temporary Flight Restrictions/Flight Restricted Zones)
Fly safely (not near pedestrians, wildlife, buildings/property, etc. - common sense).
But these are just suggested guidelines and have no jurisdiction over hobbyists.
Most parks ban flying model aircraft except in designated areas, so I don't think the State Park ban you mention is anything new or specific to drones.
Bob

Violameister Loc: michigan

That is what I am doing now. You don't consider it a burden if you are offered compensation for a legal service and a Federal bureaucrat says you can't accept it? After all, I can run a potentially lethal, noisy, powerful large machine on his property at his request and accept compensation for it legally. It is called lawn mowing. And this gives me a chance to look in his neighbor's window as well.



Wrong. It is presently illegal to use unmanned flying devices for commercial purposes. The law is being modified to allow this under certain circumstances. When the law gets changed and promulgated there will be a legal way to get permission to do this legally, but there is no telling how complex the process will be. An early proposal suggested that the quadcopter pilot had to be trained and licensed for flying a "real" helicopter. I believe that was shot down. But, being Federal bureaucrats, I am sure the process will be burdensome at best.



Wrong again. If you fly over 400 feet as a hobbyist you clearly are breaking existing law; ditto if you fly within 5 miles of an airport.



Before quadcopters became "popular" legality of flying them was not an issue, and was legal everywhere except for some local municipalities which have indeed always had various rules about local/city parks. Only a couple of years ago did the National Park service ban flying them in National Parks and Monuments. States soon followed.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^Your approach to this issue is unnecessarily confrontational and close minded. Instead of worrying about "The Government" regulating you, you should be concerned about it PROTECTING YOU FROM THE IDIOTS WHO ARE RUINING THIS HOBBY FOR THE REST OF US.

AND putting at risk the lives and property of others.

THOSE are the people your ire should be directed towards, and as a result, your understanding of the absolute NEED for rules and regulations and enforcement in certain circumstances should obvious.

MontanaTrace

:thumbup:

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

I agree with you 100%. We all need to protect our right to photograph and to fly drones.

When we stop to look at why people are against Drones, I doubt that much of it is coming from our neighbors flying camera drones, not even from the most irresponsible among us.

What people are concerned about are these 500 lb. drones flying unseen thousands of feet above us that can see and hear us in the privacy of our homes. Dangerous RF and EMF frequencies have been experimentally radiated that were undetectable by it's victims.

Ending militarized drone activity against citizens should be our first priority. We should also look to outlawing police drones that spy without court orders and we should not outlaw drones that photograph police enforcement.

They really want to stop us from flying drones that take pictures. They do not want to stop the real problem that comes from them.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Might as well just face the facts that we live in a police state. Stay within the lines and you probably will never notice.
Bob


:shock:

Violameister Loc: michigan

I am concerned about the idiots who are ruining it for the rest of us. I am also worried about the idiots who use their cell phones while driving, leading to more accidents than drunken drivers. But, in both cases there is little I can do about criminals who choose to flout the law as it exists. Banning cars and cellphones and quadcopters will have little effect on the behaviors of irresponsible criminals. The government has been singularly ineffective in protecting me from idiot illegal drivers. Their restrictive quadcopter laws will not protect me from idiot illegal operators. The only effect of these particular laws is to ruin the hobby for me and other rational people.

In general, laws against theft, fraud, and mayhem as perpetrated by rational people are effective. These laws cannot protect us from the paranoid crazy person. The quadcopter laws are attempts to protect us from crazy people and therefore won't work. Rational people, properly instructed, understand rational limitations. I think a law that prevents me from collecting a dollar from a client is neither rational, nor does it protect society. A law that forbids quadcopters in the more than 2 billion uninhabited acres of federal land is similarly irrational.

I certainly agree with laws that restrict flight near airports, and above certain heights, and under other carefully circumscribed circumstances. We have gone and are going well beyond that.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

When I was stationed in West Germany, EAST Germany was a police state. The SAME for North Korea.

This is the freest country in the world.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Yes, but things can vary substantially from state to state, county to county city to city, and area to area. In one of the richer areas, where neighbors are no where near each other, you can't even smoke on your own property outside of your house without risking a citation, even though your porch is 400ft from any road or house :shock:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

That's just a minor problem in comparison to what people in a TRUE police state have to endure.

You think average folk are free to fly quadcopters in Iran? Or China?

We Americans complain and moan when we THINK the government is restricting our freedom, when in fact, we really are the Freest people in the world and those rules and regulations we complain about were put in place to protect us from idiots by the government(s) WE elected or allowed to be elected by not voting.

I am no socialist, but do I think drone flights should be restricted where there are wildfires? YOU BETCHA!!! :x

Seadog Loc: Western MA, USA

So what ya think about this.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/weaponized-police-drones-to-hit-streets-of-north-dakota/

WEAPONIZED POLICE DRONES TO HIT STREETS OF NORTH DAKOTA

Also people do fly drones in China. Not the poor ones of course.

Violameister Loc: michigan

We have been having a discussion about where and when unmanned aerial devices can be flown and under what restrictions. If the only restrictions you advocate are "not near wildfires" I might almost agree with you. I think there are other circumstances where these should not be flown, such as near airports, and not above crowds like in stadiums.

But the restrictions presently in place and proposed to be put into place are much more restrictive than this, and is what I am opposed to.

For example, there is a blanket ban on flying in National Parks. Much better, in my estimation, would be a requirement to register with the park office where and when you propose to fly. If a large number of people want to fly in the same location at the same time, some numerical restrictions can be imposed. A list of guidelines on what to and not to do can be read and signed by the registrant agreeing to the restrictions (which might include not chasing wildlife, not flying above crowds, etc.) A database of violators might be implemented as well.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Cholly it used to be. We have the highest rate of incarceration of any country on the planet. And our laws make the previously incarcerated people second class citizens for the rest of their lives, along with their families. Seizure laws allow law enforcement to seize property based on suspicion of a crime, and never return it even though a person was never convicted of the crime they were suspected of. The laws against unreasonable search and seizure are pretty much gone. The whole concept of the war against terror has created a different country. Even though the number of people killed in the US by terrorists is less than those killed by medical malpractice every single week. But there's no war against that. There's no longer any free press, just corporate sponsored commercials and propaganda and nonsense. All legislators need backing by political parties and lobbyist donors that control all nominations and decide who will govern us. I could go on, but you get my drift. But like I said, for the average person (of which I am one) if you go along with the program and stay between the lines, you will never notice. And if I ever get a quadcopter, I'll figure out where it is legal to fly it, and do it there.