Warning: this is a political video from an animal rights group, so it's very anti-hunting. However, the analysis of the damage to the hexacopter when it was shot is interesting.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Warning: this is a political video from an animal rights group, so it's very anti-hunting. However, the analysis of the damage to the hexacopter when it was shot is interesting.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Well take them to court. The police don't seem to care either way on either activity. Since your rules falls under FAA the police would likely do nothing as it is a FAA matter not a local police matter.
Now the shooting of birds right as they come out of cages or slamming hurt birds on your knee or ground would be a local police matter.
@Brian - I believe the rule you are quoting might be a mis-interpretation of the rules due to mis-reading punctuation. I read that statement by the AMA also, and looked it up. It may be possible that future FAA guidance, in the form of the new rules for governmental flight also use that language, I haven't confirmed that, and it might be possible that future civilian use might follow rules like that, but it is my understanding that the current rules which apply to hobby/civilian use under which we fly still restrict flight to 400 AGL irrespective to distance away from an airport. But I haven't full explored this odd phrasing released by the AMA.
@Mark: I agree, it is not commercial use but that is not the same as defining it as hobby or recreation. Now, bear in mind, only the opinion of the FAA matters here, not mine or yours, or any court, in fact, that is the way with "agency-law" but here is why it is clearly not hobby activity:
- The purpose of the flight is not "strictly hobby or recreation use"
- The equipment is owned and operated not by an individual, but by an organization that accepts monetary donations to pursue it's mission (i.e., not in pursuit of or in support of a hobby by IRS definitions, and clearly not for recreation.)
- To make this more clear, there is a very formal structure and purpose to the organization, defined in documented, official filings: "
SHARK is a US registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity, which means your donation is tax deductible!
SHARK
PO Box 28
Geneva, IL 60134
Tel: 630-557-0176"
This is a UAV, and is not flown for "strictly hobby or recreation" use. It is owned by a non-profit, not an individual, and the purpose of the flights are explicitly to further the mission of that non-profit. The non-profit accepts donations to pursue this goal, and the organization makes clear that the use of a UAV is one of their "methods" rather than the intended purpose in itself. It may even be possible to interpret the FAA rules to allow organizations to own and operate flying programmable models where the purpose is to advance, promote, and support hobby or recreation use, but when the purpose is so clearly defined otherwise, I doubt any interpretation that considers this to be consistent with current FAA rules. This is a non-profit animal rights journalistic group, and they are not flying as a hobby or for recreation. They have a very specific purpose, accept money to pursue their mission, and pursue a political agenda. UAVs, aerial videos, there are just "methods" (in their own words.)
But again, my opinion does not matter here. Only that of the FAA. And irrespective of the legality, I still think sensational/antagonistic use of the equipment detracts from this community. One can argue the ethical merits of the mission of the SHARK organization, of the role of photojournalists, activist groups, but one cannot argue that there is a highly antagonistic nature to the use of the gear, and I believe that unnecessarily damages this community. It colors to the same public concern of flying cameras as LEO and domestic military use, rather than contributing to the views which should be promoted, that of the benefits of agricultural use, of emergency services, search and rescue, hobby and recreation, entertainment (not paparazzi) safer building, road, and bridge inspections, etc.
Do they even fly over the private land or next to it? It seems with the 20x or so soom on that camera they likely never are over the private land.. but we assume they do
Were you referring to Canada?
http://aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-property/
Yep, definitely not "hunters".
Ken, your statements are completely incorrect. UAV's are supposed to stay under 400 feet, precisely because manned-aircraft are supposed to stay above that. And for sure property owners do not "own" the airspace up to 500 feet above their propertly. This has been hashed out many times before.
How is it not in the 'hobby' category? They are keeping LOS it appears, under 400 feet and they are not getting paid (commercial use) for their flights. As far I can tell, this is not at all a commercial activity that would violate the main FAA rules.
The flying over / near private property is problematic but then again you don't own the space ABOVE your private property.. and for that matter you don't own what is under it either.
Not hunting.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next