http://www.clickorlando.com/news ... back-yards/32820188

Check out the link. This is not the news coverage we need. This was in Orlando florida. In Florida we are about to get a law that would open us up to lawsuits if we shoot video or stills of a persons property or the person or anyone on their property without written approval. The behavior of the drone pilot in this video is giving the general public more ammunition for these stupid laws.

Please do not fly your UAV over your neighbors house and god forbid don't snoop. It is killing those of us that want to start legitimate businesses. Now I will most likely have to get written permisson from any neighbor surrounding a house that I want to shoot for work in Florida.

As a community we need to promote good community outreach and educate people whenever we get a chance so that the public does not see drones as bad. Because if the public unites against drones then we are all screwed!

Also note that the media loves stories like this and bad behavior fuels the fire.

If one of the forum members is the Inspire pilot on the video, please chime in I would like to hear your side of the story.


Best Regards,

The problem with this is that none of the people involved in these interviews have the faintest idea whether the UAS's camera was pointed at them or not.  Nor do they understand that these aircraft have fixed-focal-length wide-angle lenses.  They all assume the drone can get a full-frame shot of them from a mile away.  THAT needs to be debunked (but why would the media want to do THAT??).

So if i put up a kite with a go pro at 150 feet is that illegal?

People like this are giving us a bad name....WHY WOULD YOU FLY OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S BACKYARD UNLESS YOU WERE STALKING THEM???????????????????? It is people like this that are ruining it for everyone.

What got me was the letter from the drone pilot. The letter should have been apologetic. Instead it was framed as it was well within his right and he was not braking the law. That is just bad thinking. I live in a gated community. I go fly in the  open area by our retention pond and never fly over the houses. I could easily take off from my backyard, but I don't because i don't want my neighbors to think that I am spying on them.

When I go to the pond to fly, it actually is a great opportunity to engage my neighbors and show them that drones are good! All that I have talked to come away with a better understanding of drones/ UAVs and the cool things they can do.

My challenge to our community is to engage the public when ever possible. Does anyone know how many members there are on the forum?

No one should ever be hovering at 10 feet on someone else's property.   If you're at 60 feet and constantly moving forward and away that's one thing.   But the first example is stalking or snooping as far as I'm concerned and should not be condoned.

The folks in the good ol US of A are under constant surveillance, video on poles, the next door security camera, the iphone picture video net, news agencies, and of course lets not forget BIG BROTHER and the eye in the sky.  Funny how the government can invade privacy in ways you probably aren't even aware of and that's ok? I figure if someone wants yo see my ugly body so bad that a drone must be used... more power to em' same for my wife. My kids wear clothes so I'm not to worried there either. And the chick in the news cast, frankly aint no porn star either so she has nothing to worry about.

Just the other day there was this man riding on my street on this thing called a bike, he had a phone in his hand and I know it had a camera on it. I do not want any bikes in my neighborhood with riders with cell phones. It is just creepy they may be taken photos of my home or of me or my family outside. I don't feel safe anymore. All bikes should be banned as well as cell phones with cameras. His chances of peering in my windows with his cell phone are about the same of my Inspire viewing inside that same window.

jimhare Posted at 2015-5-9 08:05
No one should ever be hovering at 10 feet on someone else's property.   If you're at 60 feet and con ...

I do worry that the tide of public opinion might be impossible to combat.

In the article they state;

"Federal Aviation Administration has guidelines, but as long as civilians are flying drones below 400 feet not for commercial purposes, they're in the clear."

So we're in the clear right? But then they go on to say:

"Trespass as defined under Florida law is invasion of someone's personal property without their consent, so that's sort of an easy definition to more or less apply. If they weren't invited, it's a trespass," said Ravich. (Aviation Attorney)

He said although the drone isn't technically on your physical property, the general rule is that you own the air space you can reasonably enjoy, which is usually recognized as about 400 feet above your home."

So we can't fly above 400' and we can't fly below it if someone makes the claim that we're trespassing.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the money involved with the potential commercial application of UAVs (and the lobbyists those interested parties will bring to bare) will keep our hobby safe.

TimG Posted at 2015-5-9 11:15
I do worry that the tide of public opinion might be impossible to combat.

In the article they stat ...

Yeah, I think the rest is supposed to be either common sense or fall under the normal laws to protect privacy and trespass.  

The FAA doesn't say I can't fly the Inspire into a bank with a threatening note and money bag, but guessing there's a law somewhere that says I can't do that...   

Maybe that's what gets missed, the overlap where drone laws end and normal laws begin.

If the guy flying the UAV in the US was in the UK or Australia he would be in trouble with the CAA or CASA as for example, he wasnt flying VLOS and within 500m or keeping to 50m away from anyone whilst in flight.

I think the trouble is guys are buying UAVs and think they have the right to fly it anywhere, when in fact there are rules to adhere to.  Perhaps a clear Warning Statement needs to be included with all UAVs for all manufacturers referring to legal requirements in that specific country.  

This is probably one of the reasons why I can see all UAVs having to be registered in the future so if something like this was observed, the authorities would know at least if there was anyone in the locality who owned a UAV as a first port of call in investigations.

DJeff1 Posted at 2015-5-9 08:41
Just the other day there was this man riding on my street on this thing called a bike, he had a phon ...

It's creepy that someone would have a Inspire 1 spying on a neighbor or total stranger on their property. This was wrong and just idiotic.

I don't care about a guy riding a bike with a GoPro/selfie stick, or a girl on rollerblades with a GoPro mounted on her helmet. But I do care when a drone is on my property staring at me and my home.

GB44 Posted at 2015-5-9 20:18
I think the trouble is guys are buying UAVs and think they have the right to fly it anywhere, when in fact there are rules to adhere to.  Perhaps a clear Warning Statement needs to be included with all UAVs for all manufacturers referring to legal requirements in that specific country.

The other real issue is the lack of a training requirement.  Anyone can buy one of these, open the box and put it in the air.  There is no one to force them to read the instructions, no one to verify that they reviewed the warnings, no one to check that they understood the restrictions.  Unfortunately, with ANY activity that entails risk or the potential for mischief, there will be a certain number of complete idiots with the money to engage in the activity and none of the common sense to avoid inappropriate, dangerous or unlawful behavior.  That's why you can't drive a car or fly a plane without a license and can't rent SCUBA diving equipment or get tanks filled without a certification.  I think the proliferation of idiots will force this on the UAV industry as well, unfortunately.

PeteGould Posted at 2015-5-9 21:03
The other real issue is the lack of a training requirement.  Anyone can buy one of these, open the  ...

I think we have to be cautious firstly of what is being portrayed by media... How they do it and who they involve and HOW they involve them.
You are not going to change stupidity, ignorance and criminal activities... Thats just the world we live in... So I think we need to work on perception and making people understand differences in between a drone vs say a guy with telephoto lens equipped camera for example.


On this news coverage, there is mis-information right off the back as the lawyer had mentioned things such as "the rule" and how "technically" you are not tresspassing yet we "own" up to 400ft above our homes of the air space?... Lol!! There is NO law stating this, but it was exposed as such... There is ambiguity and leaves lots of room to interpretation of how much airspace is yours yes... But not a defined law that says you own that much and it is set in stone... ... His comment could be "perceived" that way. All people heard is "the air space above your house up to 400 feet is yours"...  these type of comments going into people that just hear and not inform themselves are just what they need to think they are within their rights to antagonize someone flying over their property.... And even shoot the tresspassing equipment out of the skyes... Dont get me wrong..,I would not want to have a drone just statically flying at 20 feet above ground over my backyard... I think there HAS to be some laws regarding how close we can fly to homes, and even whether or not we can just hover over someone's property...

We are steered however to only see portions of a broader picture. For instance, the guy piloting the drone WAS apologetic as you can see on his email response... However it is not in the best interest of the coverage to show the light of it, as it does not generate the ratings they so much need/crave for... So, even though they showed it briefly, they did not mention it and they just highlight what can be misconstrued as his sole comment on the matter.


Then, there is assumptions made on our side as the recepients of this info that should not be made... Since we were not there... We are really into a "he said" "she said" scenario...And limited to what the news coverage wants us to see... Which is not necessarily the entire exposed view on both sides of the equation. Assumptions such as him flying outside VLOS or too close to someone's property or people should not be  made,  or whether she just said what we were shown...unless we know the actual facts and not just one side of the story.... Specially when biased. She herself assumed they were recording her and the "tanning girl" when the guy could just have been testing flight after a recent firmware update...
I think a concern that people on both ends do not bring up as much as they should is what happens if you loose control of the drone, making it crash on someone or something, creating damage?
I myself do not fly over peoples houses, because I would not like for someone to do so to me, and because I do not want to perpetuate people's ideas/perceptions that Im looking creepily into their yards... However, I do fly in my back yard, and KNOW my neighbor is aware of it as I went, knocked on his door and explained to him I am flying a drone over my property just to "fine tune it" and to play with it here and there, but that I wanted for him to understand and that I wanted to assure him that I am not peeking into his house or spying on him or videoing him or his property..he appreciated the courtesy and he is more than fine with it.,. He has seeing me flying it and loves the thing..
Think about yourself on this situation... What if you were just flying over a neighborhood street? Not even on someone's backyard?or over their house? We all know someone on that neighrborhood is still going to claim you are flying over their yards, spying on them... Someone will likely still call the cops on you.... Maybe just simply because they are jealous because you have something they dont or because they are still under the 1980's way of living mentality and just hate all technology... i have lots of those here in SC.. The point is nobody can predict people's perceptions and how they might react to drones... Hence why we cannot rely on it... But on law...,



I do believe we ougth to try and not enhance on the already crappy perception lots of people have of them... And most of this is just common sense... But we also know lots of people just lack of this as well..


i feel if we are required to have a "license" that certifies we are knowledgable of the laws regarding drone usage, and how we fly them... a license like you have to have for a car as example... It will ease perceptions. As a rule of thumb, we do not think twice about someone driving on the street and whether. They are allowed to drive that car or not , and if they know the law... Unless they are DUI and are going all over the place or simply because they are driving erratically or with disregard of law. .then we might think twice and examine a bit closer... We assume they have a valid drivers license, and though they might be braking laws, being stupid, and whatever else you might think of... There are LAWS... And not just perceptions or rules..

PeteGould Posted at 2015-5-9 21:03
The other real issue is the lack of a training requirement.  Anyone can buy one of these, open the  ...

Pete,

It may be for the best if certification is a mandatory requirement at some point.

GB44 Posted at 2015-5-9 21:40
Pete,

It may be for the best if certification is a mandatory requirement at some point.

I don't disagree - and I think it's inevitable.

There is a group that offers guidance for radio controlled aircraft in the US. It's call AMA(American Model Association). When you join they will send you guidelines for the hobby. It covers just about everything that everyone here has been talking about. AMA has been around a long time. I have been flying R/C since 1968 and have been a member until I move away from the hobby a few years ago. AMA used to offer liability insurance to cover damages incase of an accident IF you were following their rules.