I might not of read all the rules, maybe there are new laws, maybe i missread or missunderstood some of the rules, maybe there is confusion from country to country...

... But, i see a lot of videos where people must not be following the rules... I see videos of people flying round churches, I see people flying over towns and next to buildings, places with crowds of people, Flying over roads, taking 10 mins to go straight up above clouds etc...
Here is me making sure im out the way, not near buildings or people, limit to 400ft, there is a nice church i wanted to see the circle object function in oporation but then thought no because im not suppose to... I can honestly think some of these photographers who charge at weddings etc and use drones have not contacted the FAA about the use of drone for profit...

I have no reason to this post i just want to rant. just annoyed i follow the rules and miss out on some cool videos but at the same time i dont want these people to stop what they are doing because i enjoy watching their videos... it just blows there are some of these rules to begin with.

You're better off sticking to the rules because, although you're currently unlikely to be bothered by anyone if you break them (in the UK), if your drone does crash & injure someone or break someone else's property or cause an accident, you won't have a leg to stand on.  It's a bit like minor speeding in your car.  You might get a slap on the wrist & a small fine if you get caught, but if you hit someone & are proved to be speeding, there's a good chance you'll do time.  Most get away with it, a few aren't so fortunate.  There's also your conscience to consider.

What's more interesting though, is that the more people there are breaking the rules, the more likely there will be accidents.  When accident numbers increase, they'll start enforcing the rules more rigorously & eventually add more rules & insist on licences and/or insurance.

Most people who don't like the rules think they don't need them because they can fly safely & if anything goes wrong it's their drone that gets damaged.  Unfortunately, sometimes other people are involved & suffer the consequences.  They're who the rules are for.

There are some that will always break the rules..  Either intentionally or because they never take the time to read them in the first place.  Unfortunately in this hobby, the more people that break the rules, the more rules are imposed on us.  All I can say is thanks for following the rules.  

gherd Posted at 2016-1-28 14:59
There are some that will always break the rules..  Either intentionally or because they never take t ...

Someone was gushing over a wedding photographer at dinner using a drone at the wedding and i thought, he has broken about 4 rules at once that i know of and that sent me off getting annoyed because your right it will be the ones who follow rules that will get stung with more rules (which will not effect those who don't follow them anyway

nigelw Posted at 2016-1-28 14:58
You're better off sticking to the rules because, although you're currently unlikely to be bothered b ...

do you know where there is like a definitive list or rules/laws for UK drone use... i am looking but never quite sure if its UK or Foreign! I like to follow the rules, i'm a bit straight laced like that   

Bobro Posted at 2016-1-28 15:28
Someone was gushing over a wedding photographer at dinner using a drone at the wedding and i thoug ...

Not necessarily! Provided buildings/people/vehicles are "under your control" in CAA ANO parlance you can fly over/around them. All participants/stakeholders need to have agreed of course.

Bobro Posted at 2016-1-28 15:32
do you know where there is like a definitive list or rules/laws for UK drone use... i am looking b ...

For UK start here: https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/

I try not to break the CAA Air Navigation Order (UK) rules but I do bend them from time to time... I do try to be responsible, planning flights to remove any risk to people etc. If there's any doubt after a site survey I'll just not fly. I really think people should get into good habits like doing a site survey, flight plan, risk assessment etc. (and I've also got Public Liability Insurance). You don't just throw these things into the air and then think "where will I go?" - recipe for disaster!

Agree that there are a lot of videos out there that from the start make me go: Noooooo.....

I'm not trying to stir a pot here, but can someone post links to any stories about drones being involved in any collisions with people, buildings or especially other aircraft. I hear all the time about the potential for something happening, but I never hear of anything actually happening. Maybe I just lead a sheltered life.

ccbiggz Posted at 2016-1-29 07:05
I'm not trying to stir a pot here, but can someone post links to any stories about drones being invo ...

i'd be interested in seeing that too.

Rule's vary a lot, and laws are only just coming into place. Check the dates on the videos, as even a year ago things were very different in some countries then they are now.

pantera989@gmai Posted at 2016-1-29 17:07
Rule's vary a lot, and laws are only just coming into place. Check the dates on the videos, as even  ...

UK max Alt' 1000 ft if you have a named observer beside you, 400 ft if on your own. Max horizontal distance 500m but must have drone in site at all times. Taking into account of course any restrictions that might apply where you are regarding air space, air ports etc.

Unlike the numpties mentioned in THIS news story.

Yeh, fine, they won't get caught, they'll just move onto something else, and destroy the hobby for everybody else.

Aardvark Posted at 2016-1-29 11:42
UK max Alt' 1000 ft if you have a named observer beside you, 400 ft if on your own. Max horizontal  ...

Aaaaaand this is why I'm probably going to have to sell my favorite toy.  I've got too much invested in it to not be able to use it because some idiots (that will never follow any of the rules) ruined it for everyone.

I'd like to see a certification option for the 5.5oz to 3lb category of arial cameras.  I'd gladly pay a reasonable amount of money for this.  In exchange for my training/investment I want access to the same sky that planes have, but at a lower altitude and without the hassle.  In the US we have this stupid 5 mile rule.  I live in a place where 3 'airports' overlap my house and giant park near it.  It's stupid that I should have to notify 3 airports that I'm going to fly around at 60' for 15 minutes.   I'm just about 4 miles from each of them, 2 of them rarely have traffic.  Plus, some localities have banned these things flying in their town parks.  Let's not forget all national parks.  Once again, I can see some parks, or areas of parks being a no fly zone.  But all, really?  Even if there could be a limited reservation system for a fixed number of hours of flight per year.  Once again, most of my flights are less than 20 minutes, then done.  

I normally fly at or around tree height, I'm guessing this where most of us hang out.  Go up much higher, might as well use Google Earth.  This should be universally ok to do.   This whole thing has been so over blown.  Has anyone ever even seen another drone while out flying theirs?  I'm sure a few have.  I have never seen another one period.

The combination of DJI's new firmware/spyware plus rules that almost can't be followed is not a good combination.  Lumping my 2.5 lb camera drone in with 50lb or even 10lb drones is also stupid.  But, it's the government, so stupid is how it shall probably remain.

rug5 Posted at 2016-1-29 14:19
Aaaaaand this is why I'm probably going to have to sell my favorite toy.  I've got too much investe ...

Have you ever felt a 3 - 5 lb drone crash into your head from 400' up in the sky? It may as well be a 100 lb one falling on your head from 10' in the air.

This is a new "hobby" that at one time was a niche thing, not that many people had interest or could even afford them. Now that the prices are coming down, everyone and their grandfather is buying them and flying all over with them, which in turn states need to mandate laws. Some are really stupid laws but states and towns at the moment do not know what to do and what laws would be fair. A blanket law is issued to just outright ban flights in certain areas until they can come up with something else, they are trying to protect the public. They don't have the man power to issue certificates to drone operators, things like that take time. I'll give you an example: I'm a beer brewer and at one time, there were only have a dozen people in the US that actually issued licenses to brewers that wanted to start a business. It wasn't a booming thing so half a dozen people were able to keep up with the demand of licences. fast forward and now you have 100's craft breweries that want to open up and now there is a backlog of up to 6 months to get a license. Why? This is something the government didn't expect and they can't keep up with the demand.

If the laws are unfair in your area, write to your representative, give them your ideas of what would constitute fair flying laws like you just outlined here on this forum. If they issue laws and no one speaks up abut them and you just give up and sell your stuff, guess what, laws will never change. Your representatives are not coming onto these forums to read peoples grievances, send them directly to their office.

ccbiggz Posted at 2016-1-29 11:05
I'm not trying to stir a pot here, but can someone post links to any stories about drones being invo ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739

Aardvark Posted at 2016-1-29 17:42
UK max Alt' 1000 ft if you have a named observer beside you, 400 ft if on your own. Max horizontal  ...

"UK max Alt' 1000 ft if you have a named observer beside you..."

Where did you read that?  You need permission from the CAA before you can fly over 400ft & prove to them you can do it safely.
Edit: A quick search reveals you can fly up to 1000ft, but only if you're a member of FPV UK & abide by their rules.  They have an exemption from the CAA.  It's cheap & easy to join, but you do have to join.  The exemption has to be renewed (by FPVUK) every 12 months, it's not a given.

tim.hulse Posted at 2016-1-29 03:49
i'd be interested in seeing that too.

Here you go:
More

SFGiants24 Posted at 2016-1-29 22:17
Here you go:
More

Holy smoke - these losers are going to get us all banned!

SFGiants24 Posted at 2016-1-29 21:17
Here you go:
More

Dont believe everything you read. The feds are notorious for lying.

There are two reports in there of drones "four feet in diameter", which is puzzling as the are very very few that reach that size. I smell hysterical reporting.

Lol 99.99999% of legal gun owners are law obiding citizens... you see where that .00001% gets the rest of us....

nigelw Posted at 2016-1-29 23:17
"UK max Alt' 1000 ft if you have a named observer beside you..."

Where did you read that?  You nee ...

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/moda ... =detail&id=6746

Nigel, Any adult can be named by the drone operator as a competent caompanion.  We do indeed have a 1,000 ft limit in the UK if you have FPV video feed and you have a designated observing companion who keeps unaided sight of the drone.
Cheers,
Ian

SFGiants24 Posted at 2016-1-29 21:17
Here you go:
More

One article about an actual collision with a person and a couple about near misses with aircraft. Again, I'm not here to argue with anyone, but to me the entire conversation about drones is based on what can happen; not what is actually happening. It's the media's new favorite bad guy and so the politicians "Have to do something!".

Why doesn't the news media report on every near miss with bird strikes? I'll bet those happen several times a day at airports all over the world. A goose hitting a plane is going to cause a lot more damage to a plane than my drone. Ask Captain Chesley Sullenberger which he's more afraid of; a goose or a drone.

Even one accident involving a drone is terrible, especially the little boy loosing his eye, but I think this is all media hype about a problem that really isn't there.

One more point. There is no law that can stop stupid and the stupid walk among us everyday.

wellsi Posted at 2016-1-30 09:01
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=6746

Nigel, Any adult c ...

That's cool, I've never heard of it before.  According to that, you don't even necessarily need FPV goggles, just another competent observer.

Just use google to search for any "drone crash" events....here is one in California involving a police helicopter and a near collision report.  You'll find lots of these near miss events along with a few actual crashes in bad situations.  

http://www.kcra.com/news/chp-helicopter-avoids-crash-with-drone-in-norcal/36837170

ccbiggz Posted at 2016-1-30 10:31
One article about an actual collision with a person and a couple about near misses with aircraft.  ...

"There is no law that can stop stupid and the stupid walk among us everyday"

And they don't know they're stupid!

What makes it all worse is when you put it into perspective of other potentially dangerous activities. In the UK, between roughly 2500 & 3000 people are killed every year on the roads & you hardly ever hear about it.  That's 6-8 people every day!  Even if your drone took out a 747 which crashed into a town or city you'd be unlikely to get anywhere near that figure.

Unfortunately, people aren't paranoid about road traffic accidents because safety on the roads has improved so much over the years, but also, few would complain anyway, because pretty much everyone uses the roads.

It all seems to be about what's perceived as normal & what's unusual.

Then there's the issue of knowledge.  Fly a drone in a park & everyone  wants to be your friend, fly one out of site & everyone's paranoid & hates it, thinking they're being spied on.

As for the press, if they don 't have a story, they'll make one up.

And you are right.

In one hand we have law rules, limitations and in other a promotional videos over crowds, roads, recorded by a people who do not got permission to fly over a crowd.
This is called hipocrycy.

And then we have news in TV about peoples who wanted to film fire choppers in action, landing plane or whatever stupid.
This is an effect of promoting unresponsible behaviours by a marketing.

Don't get me wrong, you do need rules to promote safety, they just need to be more in line with reality.  Flying no closer than 50 metres to a person or structure is over the top IMO.  I can drive my car legally at 60mph within an inch of a toddler on many roads!

Some of these rules are also to do with privacy, which is even more BS.  I can legally walk up to you in the street or on a beach & take your photograph from whatever angle I like & then do whatever I want with the photo.  Put the camera on a drone & suddenly it's an invasion of privacy.

nigelw Posted at 2016-1-30 12:26
Don't get me wrong, you do need rules to promote safety, they just need to be more in line with real ...

You can fly closer to people , buildings and structures if they are directly your responsibility or with their permission.

And the fact that you can drive at 60 relatively close to people it wouldn't be much consolation if you hit anybody. And you cannot nowadays take my photograph and do whatever you like with it, the same privacy laws apply whether or not the camera is on a drone or hand held.

Aardvark Posted at 2016-1-30 12:50
You can fly closer to people , buildings and structures if they are directly your responsibility o ...

"And you cannot nowadays take my photograph and do whatever you like with it, the same privacy laws apply whether or not the camera is on a drone or hand held."

If I am in a public place, regardless of where you are, I can take your photo & sell it to magazines, newspapers or put it on the internet (editorial).  The only thing I can't do is use it to promote something without a model release.

I sell many of my photos through an agency to professional users, who insist photographers follow the letter of the law.

nigelw Posted at 2016-1-30 13:11
"And you cannot nowadays take my photograph and do whatever you like with it, the same privacy laws  ...

I accept that what you say is generally correct, in terms of public space , however if I were to object to you taking my photograph then things might be different, it would seem that it would be up to the courts to decide:-

"A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[28][29][30][31][32]

Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[33] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality

Aardvark Posted at 2016-1-30 13:37
I accept that what you say is generally correct, in terms of public space , however if I were to o ...

Not sure if the glossies would be interested in a photo of a Cocker Spaniel anyway

Aardvark Posted at 2016-1-30 13:40
Not sure if the glossies would be interested in a photo of a Cocker Spaniel anyway

You'd be surprised what they buy...especially if the Cocker Spaniel was flying a drone!

              

Me doing a stand in (Stunt Cocker) for a Royal shoot:-

Aardvark Posted at 2016-1-30 13:48
Me doing a stand in (Stunt Cocker) for a Royal shoot:-

That's me on the right

ccbiggz Posted at 2016-1-30 06:31
One article about an actual collision with a person and a couple about near misses with aircraft.  ...

The reason for not comparing bird strikes and drones is that you can't eliminate birdstrikes with legislation.