Los Angeles has the following law for parks: "No person shall land, release, take off or fly any balloon, except children toy balloons not inflated with any flammable material, helicopter, parakite, hang glider, aircraft or powered models thereof, except in areas specifically set aside therefor." http://www.laparks.org/venice/pdf/lamc63.pdf A compliant by the US Navy led to the seizure of a drone and citation under this law. It's important to note this operator attracted attention after he flew over a police parking lot and city attorneys advised police no laws were broken. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-civilian-drone-hollywood-lot-20140801-story.html
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
@DavidJames: I disagree completely with your assessment that this drone is "no more dangerous than a tripod". I doubt you'd have many concerns for your personal health and safety about walking into a tripod that was erected to support a camera and take a photo... if you did walk into it, one could argue that it was also your fault, since the tripod is a stationary obstacle. However, would you mind if I flew a drone into your face, or dropped it from high altitude onto your head? I'm sure you'd be (a) injured (possibly severely); and (b) very pissed off at the pilot for not avoiding you!
People that insist that this is a "camera platform" are purposefully misleading the discussion away from the fact that this is an extremely high risk vehicle with limited safety features and built from many components that are designed with a very short "mean time to failure" (resulting in low cost). Every day on this website we see many cases of people who suffer "fly-aways" and crashes. These platforms carry significant risks with their operation; even more so that fixed-wing model aircraft (and look at the restrictions placed on their operation)!
@Gary: I agree with your perspective that many people are ignorant about the safety risks and are clearly ignorant of the dangers of using drones, let alone the regulatory environment (or weaknesses of it). Unfortunately, many people (and particularly those that stand out as "cowboys" in their use of drones) are awaiting "big brother" to tell them what they can and cannot do, or they expect someone to "educate them" when they need to know something. Instead, we need to return to a time when people took personal responsibility, not only for themselves, but for how their actions and behaviours impacted on their community around them. We've lost that (here in Aus, as much as countries like the US) and hence we have regulatory authorities who feel the need to control people and externally regulate their behaviour... which we see an instance of in this video. Had this guy though, "well, it's more "flying lawnmower" than camera", maybe he wouldn't have flown it over or near people, even in his pursuit of filming an moth-balled warship. Unfortunately, it's quite clear he was aware of what he was doing, but he wanted to flaunt his behaviour as a taunt and challenge to the regulatory environment, flexing his so-called "rights", rather than thinking about his "responsibilities".
Ultimately, as an educator myself, I do believe education is essential, on both sides of the fence (educating users about this technology and educating regulators about societies expectations with regards to the use of such technologies). I just don't think it's going to work unless people engage their brains before they engage their throttle.
@DavidJames: You're correct about the USS Iowa, but I think the Navy's concern was for the two active duty ship parked right next door that were participating in Navy Days that day (See here: <http://navydaysla.org/next-port-visit/>).
Also, the regulation in question (LAMC Section 63.44) defines its jurisdiction as "Within the limits of any park or other City-owned Harbor Department designated and controlled property within the City of Los Angeles". I"m pretty certain the San Pedro port facilities fall within that definition.
So, I hate to admit it, but I think it was a fair cop.
The USS IOWA Battleship is not owned or operated by the US Navy.
"The Pacific Battleship Center, a nonprofit organization established in 2009, has been awarded ownership of the USS IOWA by the U.S. Navy for display as an interactive naval museum at Port of Los Angeles Berth 87."
http://www.pacificbattleship.com/blog
It should also be noted that this berth is not a public park, the drone was launched in a remote area and flow at a safe distance from people. Hard to see what the problem was. The Navy certainly wasn't involved.
You forgot UVS International which is a major player in backroom lobbying - at least in Europe - with the explicit goal to have UAS regulated 100% to full scale rules and standards, to make sure that all DIY and open source vanishes from the market and people have to buy licensing services for thousands of Euros and fully certified UAVs for tenths of thousands of Euros from UVSI members...
For too long folks ignored RCAPA, its coming home to roost. This is not even the fight this community has to worry about (those in the USA) its the small rule NPRM that will be a worry. Judging by the real lack of action on this one, STANAG 4586 and many many others are going to become the order of the day for the small rule. Oh the work of ASTM F38 is also a big worry. Lets hope you are not all too fatigued with this one when the important stuff starts.
Hi All,
Even here, we have a wide variety of responses to this "incident" from David James above who thinks it is completely a tempest in a teapot to a number who think they should throw the book at him.
While in many ways I agree with David that at the very least the reaction is excessive, I do not agree that it is just a tripod, a tripod sits on the ground and is unlikely to fall on your head.
If this were anything other than a "drone" incident it could at least be expected to be treated with a measure of common sense and a response measured against the actual (threat).
Unfortunately "drones" are now a very hot icon, a word with a life of it's own and reality is not something that comes into the mix.
We are responding to a "myth".
"Drone" is the Elephant we are stuck with.
As a result, if we don't simply want to be legislated out of existence we really will have to make it clear to the public that we are the poster boys for safe and responsible behavior.
To get that started, we really have to make it clear to the average Phantom purchaser what behavior is expected of them and why it is important.
Even if not all of them get with the program most will and if the public (and the bureaucrats) know we are fostering responsible behavior they will be behind us rather than against us.
This is ridiculous. He just has a drone camera platform. It is no more dangerous than a tripod.
The police owe the guy an apology for making a big deal out of this and confiscating his drone. The Battleship Iowa is an obsolete and decommissioned ship in the San Pedro harbor here in Los Angeles. It is a museum. Private pilots regularly fly over it. You could fly a full size aircraft into that battleship and you would probably just scratch the paint up a bit.
Hi Tim,
I'm not excusing the user, I am simply pointing out that these are being widely sold to completely naive consumers with no instructions regarding their correct use at all.
To many of these consumers they are simply viewed (incorrectly) as a toy or at least as being intrinsically safe and OK to use anywhere.
What actual legislation there is, is all new and is not widely posted or even known at all by the vast majority of the public.
We here on DIYDrones are probably the most informed group there is and everyone else is considerably less (or not at all).
Many people think these are about as dangerous as a Frisbee and pose no problems at all, others live in deathly fear of them peering in their bathroom window.
We have training and education programs to handle the automotive use in the US and still have many thousands of deaths each year to attribute to it.
You can't sell something perceived by some as a toy and others as Big Brother (the NSA) with no instruction and no control any more than you can an AK47.
At least if you do the result will be predictable.
You can't realistically expect people to be responsible for something which they basically posses zero information about.
And common sense about these is an acquired skill, the dangers and responsibility are often not simply obvious.
I think we are headed in the direction of Draconian over control no matter what we do, the FAA certainly seems to be headed that way as fast as they can go.
But I do think we can at least mitigate the damage if we can get out in front of this a bit and find a way to get a simple set of reasonable and safe operating procedures (along with the importance of following them) in the hands of the growing mass of Phantom and QX350 consumers.
Sure some people won't follow the reasonable path no matter what you do, but most will actually be happy to have reasonable guidelines.
And if we can get out in front of this as reasonable spokespeople we stand a much better chance of salvaging at least a significant portion of our hobby.
Best Regards,
Gary
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next