hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 06:50
Ok so law enforcement could also gain access to drone flying over somebody's property taking video and photos.
And surely disturbing someone's peace is also a law in the us. (I.e. The noise of drone flying over someone's property) ?

Ok so law enforcement could also gain access to drone flying over somebody's property taking video and photos.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here, but I was referring to providing the FAA with videos or photos taken by someone on the ground in order to demonstrate reckless flight. If you're genuinely asking whether flight over someone's property gives local law enforcement the right to access that drone to inspect the media, the answer is absolutely not.

And surely disturbing someone's peace is also a law in the us. (I.e. The noise of drone flying over someone's property) ?

Yes, but there are very specific boundaries for what constitutes disturbing the peace, and just being annoyed isn't sufficient. And the homeowner saying that it was "loud" wouldn't suffice either.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-5-20 06:52
Ok so law enforcement could also gain access to drone flying over somebody's property taking video and photos.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here, but I was referring to providing the FAA with videos or photos taken by someone on the ground in order to demonstrate reckless flight. If you're genuinely asking whether flight over someone's property gives local law enforcement the right to access that drone to inspect the media, the answer is absolutely not.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but you rather you brushed me off saying that the only way one could prove that photo/video was taken is if they were published online, and I don't think that is the only way to prove that photo/video were taking without permission.

Equally you brushed over my comments about drone flying over property and being annoying, disturbing your peace is annoying so you just need to prove the level of annoyance

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:11
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but you rather you brushed me off saying that the only way one could prove that photo/video was taken is if they were published online, and I don't think that is the only way to prove that photo/video were taking without permission.

Equally you brushed over my comments about drone flying over property and being annoying, disturbing your peace is annoying so you just need to prove the level of annoyance

so you just need to prove the level of annoyance

Many cities have a municipal ordinance for noise. However, good luck finding one that is based off of "annoyance".  They are usually based off of "reasonable" or a certain dB during set hours. Unless you are flying 20' over someone's ear it would be very hard to articulate that a drone (especially one as small as the mavic) is breaking any kind of noise ordinance.

You are starting just to assume that there are laws and other things in your favor. Ive researched drone law and enforcement extensively. I'd love to hear something proving me wrong, but only if you actually cite a source. Otherwise you are just making stuff up.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:11
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but you rather you brushed me off saying that the only way one could prove that photo/video was taken is if they were published online, and I don't think that is the only way to prove that photo/video were taking without permission.

Equally you brushed over my comments about drone flying over property and being annoying, disturbing your peace is annoying so you just need to prove the level of annoyance

I guess one person's "disagreeing" is another's "brushing off", but I did and still do believe I addressed your points with specific and valid facts.

I don't presume to know or be able to guess what is or isn't against the law in another country, so you won't hear me arguing with you about what's legal in the United Kingdom. I do, however, know a fair amount about what's legal and isn't in the United States, especially with respect to flying drones, and in this country there's almost no chance of being charged with a crime just for flying over someone's property without permission.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:11
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but you rather you brushed me off saying that the only way one could prove that photo/video was taken is if they were published online, and I don't think that is the only way to prove that photo/video were taking without permission.

Equally you brushed over my comments about drone flying over property and being annoying, disturbing your peace is annoying so you just need to prove the level of annoyance

the only way one could prove that photo/video was taken is if they were published online

Also, I dont see DroneFlying saying that anywhere.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-5-20 06:52
Ok so law enforcement could also gain access to drone flying over somebody's property taking video and photos.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here, but I was referring to providing the FAA with videos or photos taken by someone on the ground in order to demonstrate reckless flight. If you're genuinely asking whether flight over someone's property gives local law enforcement the right to access that drone to inspect the media, the answer is absolutely not.

If you're genuinely asking whether flight over someone's property gives local law enforcement the right to access that drone to inspect the media, the answer is absolutely not.

To be the devil's advocate, if there was actually a crime being committed (such as if there is a state or local law against it), they could just get a search warrant. There are a few of those out there.

See here:
Local: http://dronecenter.bard.edu/file ... Drone-Laws-Data.pdf
State: http://dronecenter.bard.edu/file ... aws-Data-Master.pdf

geofox784 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:19
so you just need to prove the level of annoyance

Many cities have a municipal ordinance for noise. However, good luck finding one that is based off of "annoyance".  They are usually based off of "reasonable" or a certain dB during set hours. Unless you are flying 20' over someone's ear it would be very hard to articulate that a drone (especially one as small as the mavic) is breaking any kind of noise ordinance.

I'm not making it up but rather asking the question, I read so many threads referring to the complete annoyance of the beeping of the RC on a Mavic with a lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.
I also read court cases where guy shoots drone down flying over his property and wins his case and the right to do it.

https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/jud ... one-over-his-house/

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:29
I'm not making it up but rather asking the question, I read so many threads referring to the complete annoyance of the beeping of the RC on a Mavic with a lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.
I also read court cases where guy shoots drone down flying over his property and wins his case and the right to do it.

I read so many threads referring to the complete annoyance of the beeping of the RC on a Mavic with a lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.

I don't remember anyone saying they were worried about being charged with a crime. They just prefer not to bring attention to themselves, particularly not while engaged in an activity that's legal but unpopular.

I also read court cases where guy shoots drone down flying over his property and wins his case and the right to do it.

Yes, the shooting-down issue is still working its way through the courts, but I'll bet you haven't seen any where the pilot was charged with a crime just for flying over someone's property, have you? In the meantime the FAA's position is that shooting down any aircraft -- including a drone -- is a violation of federal law. Also, in most suburban and urban areas, it's illegal to discharge a firearm other than for self-defense, and in most cases it's illegal to destroy someone's property just because you don't like the way they're using it.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:29
I'm not making it up but rather asking the question, I read so many threads referring to the complete annoyance of the beeping of the RC on a Mavic with a lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.
I also read court cases where guy shoots drone down flying over his property and wins his case and the right to do it.

lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.
Yes, but is it breaking the law? No


I also read court cases where guy shoots drone down flying over his property and wins his case
A. He was charged with criminal mischief (for destroying others property) among others charges. He 100% broke the law.
B. The criminal justice system is heavily depended on the judge. The very conservative judge threw it out because he felt in his opinion that it was fair and he thought the pilot was spying. (He was not). The judge has a large amount of discretion.
C. You absolutely do not have the right to shoot down a drone. In fact the FAA has since said that it breaks federal law to do so.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:29
I'm not making it up but rather asking the question, I read so many threads referring to the complete annoyance of the beeping of the RC on a Mavic with a lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.
I also read court cases where guy shoots drone down flying over his property and wins his case and the right to do it.

disturbing your peace is annoying so you just need to prove the level of annoyance


That's a statement not a question

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-5-20 07:35
I read so many threads referring to the complete annoyance of the beeping of the RC on a Mavic with a lot of people saying that it is disturbing everyone around it.

I don't remember anyone saying they were worried about being charged with a crime. They just prefer not to bring attention to themselves, particularly not while engaged in an activity that's legal but unpopular.

According to the article case is finished judge ruled that he had the right to shoot the drone.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 07:45
According to the article case is finished judge ruled that he had the right to shoot the drone.

That was a state (Kentucky) judge; in the United States a case isn't "finished" until it reaches the Supreme Court or until neither side wants to appeal -- and it's very common for cases to be overturned by higher courts, especially in areas like this where the law is still developing.

Plus, there's nothing in this case that supports the claim that it's illegal to fly over someone's property. All this establishes is that someone might have the right to shoot down your drone if you do, which is not the same thing.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-5-20 07:48
That was a state (Kentucky) judge; in the United States a case isn't "finished" until it reaches the Supreme Court or until neither side wants to appeal -- and it's very common for cases to be overturned by higher courts, especially in areas like this where the law is still developing.

Plus, there's nothing in this case that supports the claim that it's illegal to fly over someone's property. All this establishes is that someone might have the right to shoot down your drone if you do, which is not the same thing.

Yes very true looks like a bit of a stand off though, in this case property owner says drone was spying on daughter judge says he has the right to shoot it down, does this offer precedent to others to try the same. After all he only flew over his property 3 times, is 3 the number or would 2 suffice.
The law here is quite specific to fly over somebody's property you must fly at 30 meters flying commercial you must ask permission.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-20 08:05
Yes very true looks like a bit of a stand off though, in this case property owner says drone was spying on daughter judge says he has the right to shoot it down, does this offer precedent to others to try the same. After all he only flew over his property 3 times, is 3 the number or would 2 suffice.
The law here is quite specific to fly over somebody's property you must fly at 30 meters flying commercial you must ask permission.

does this offer precedent to others to try the same

Maybe so, at least for the time being, but I suspect that this will be clarified in the coming years.

The law here is quite specific to fly over somebody's property you must fly at 30 meters flying commercial you must ask permission.

That seems reasonable and it must be nice to have that clarity. Things here are still in a state of flux as you can see.

To get this thread back on topic...

If I'm flying around, I have a large enough yard. If I'm doing shoots, it's mostly easier to line up the shot while in VLOS then using the camera. Even when I'm in VLOS, I still like to fly FPV.

Sometimes though...I get the itch to fly across the street, over the big empty farm, and take a look at the big beautiful lake from overhead....not saying I do or anything

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-3-25 08:21
I can understand VLOS , think it's fair to say it would be difficult for blind people, although I see in some states in us, if your blind it's legal to own and fire a gun. https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/10/america-gun-licences-blind-people

Although my point was about allowing hearing as a means to flying further which the OP thinks is a good idea, which I find bizarre and it makes no sense at all, there are many times I hear aircraft in the sky and look to where I think it's coming from only to realise because of wind and general acoustic,s that I have looked in the opposite direction .

Ha ha, Brilliant!   a blind person with a gun is safer than a Mavic or spark !   its true,  our Laws are pretty crap at times !   and nobody will bat an eyelid,   why on earth dont all the countries share some very simple laws that states, your DRONE :-

a) is your responsibilty, you will be totally responsible for damage it may cause.
b) it must not carry anything other than for what it was originally intended by the manufacturer/builder, or to the capability of your licence.
c) fly under 400ft,     or up to the capability of your licence.
d) never fly closer than 30mtrs to a person,vehicle or structure,  or up to the capability of your licence.
e) Never fly closer than 100mtrs to a  high danger area,  Fuel station/power station/school/Crowds

the Pro's and Enthusiasts,  then could obtain licence grades to prove they are totally capable and proficient, to do anything else.

and thats it !    big fines and big jail terms for anybody carrying weapons or illegal items.
That way if you are totally confident flying to 200mtrs thats ok,  if the next person is in a totally open area over a lake and can fly confidently to 900 mtrs so be it !

geofox784 Posted at 2017-5-18 05:27
Could you sight such rule? Unless there is some specific county, city, or state code against it (very rare), there are no privacy laws pertaining to drones.

Texas has such a law, sort of.

The law here is pretty simple.  It's illegal to take pictures or videos from a UAV of anyone on their private property without their consent, even if the image could be taken using a different method (like looking out a 2nd story window).  Now, there is nothing specific about using a POV system, so you still look into people's back yards, you just can't image them.  There is also a buit-in defense.  If the drone operator accidentally takes images, he only has do delete them immediately to avoid prosecution.

Also, it's OK to take pictures of empty yards and property and even pets or animals there.  Just avoid the people.

It's also illegal to fly over prisons/jails.  I believe the FAA gave approval to that since Texas don't ac control the skies, but I am not aware of other states  where the prison/jail thing is in place.

Many wont accept that they ARE actually flying way further than they are allowed to. Just go to YouTube and check some drone videos or watch some on this forum - saying that the pilot would still see that drone with his eyes is a joke. Sad that currently 37% of all wont admit that they are actually doing this. I kow there are some who never break the rules, but those are definitely not 37% (=51 People)! I do not find it bad, as long as your not going on maximum distance and you´ve got a proper live transmission (I´ve not got a DJI Drone yet, but I´m already making my opinions XD).

to answer the original question:  in the US they do not define specifically what is VLoS to begin with.. they openly state it and broadly so..  the way i interpreted it is simply the maximum potential line of sight..  there is a math formula for this as well..

Line of Sight = √ (2*height1) + √ (2*height2)

this means if you are 6 feet tall, and flying drone  400 feet AGL, VLoS is 31 miles.  technically impossible.... mmmm..maybe?  but it is a visual line of sight that is the formula for calculating the distance to each of the point's horizons..   the drone at 400 feet up has 28 mile horizon and you as a person have a 3 mile horizon..   the FAA intentionally does not explicitly state what VLoS is because it is naturally broad term.  and as long as the POV is fairly lag free, im happy with it remaining vague.. again i like flying via POV, many people do.. if that is how most comfortable flying and you fly most safe with POV, no reason anyone should say different.. if i was forced to fly visually only offscreen then no... i would have probably killed someone already..  i mean has anyone thought about parallaxing effect?  its very hard to judge distances of things that are offset of you.. using pov solves this..


as for is it illegal to fly over other people's property in the US?   no absolutely not illegal.  the airspace above your property doesn't belong to you as a landowner anymore in the states..  used to be a time when you owned everything below your feet and above the skies... but that is no longer possible at this point.   however there is a thing called courtesy, if someone doesn't want to be disturbed or anything and they bring it up, legally you dont have to listen, but i mean,...give them a break..  

is it illegal to shoot a drone down in the US?   technically speaking it is illegal even if you own the drone and it is airborne, however if you own it and on your own property away from people, i doubt anyone will come after you not even the FAA will bother...  however if it isn't your drone, then all i have to say is, best of luck in court.. even if a state says it's ok, federal law overrides it, and im sure the drone owner will appeal it all the way if the state lets it go.   however discharging a firearm in a neighborhood at a drone is incredibly stupid and is already illegal unless protecting yourself from harm.. but shooting a drone out of the sky in a neighborhood, comeply illegal even if no federal law against it, discharging firearm within yards of other people/homes...laws against that already.  not to mention if ur unfortinate enough to live in some states that hate you so much even if you had a home invasion its invalid reason to dischasrge firearm around others..  i beleive it is called "castle laws"  some states do not respect them

is it disturbing the peice in the us?  this is impossible to determine here... many reasons why.. first of all what determined disruption?  certain local areas have different measures, some places noise is measured via a meter, some places its discretion.. other places you have to try really hard to get disturbing the peace charged against you, more likely to get disorderly conduct for not listening to the officer advising you to leave.... some places dont even have an ordinance against noise and disruptions..

I can fly miles from my take off point, just jump on my Back to the Future hover board and follow the drone, oops hover board, elevation 3ft AGL, sheeeeeeeet who's watching my hover board ??

How to shoot yourself in the footby the DJI community  . Two surveys  on one page . One called how far do you fly and the other is do your fly outside VLOS . Lemmings jump at the chance to participate . Makes for a great survey for the FFA  CAA considering almost every one posting owns a drone.  Its not a hidden secret that pilots and goverments  what to see the wings of drones clipped and stupid surveys like this give them the ammunition they need .  Its one thing to post a video that walks the line but to partiipate in a survey that one day might be used as evidence that forces DJI to release a update that caps the distance a drone can fly from its controller to a mile. You  have to wonder about the intentions of the posters .

Oh sure, always 100%....

digitalintruder Posted at 2017-3-24 22:12
Nice try FAA... nice try.   ;-)

Made me laugh out loud...    Note to CAA us guys in the UK never ever ever fly beyond VLOS

the best answer I seen so far came from DJI THOR

I won't vote up there, but I will say that with my Phantom 3, I simply cannot see the drone against a blue sky after about 100 yeards.  Less if there's clouds.

AG0N-Gary Posted at 2017-5-15 09:19
Well, I can't maintain VLOS all the time, but it isn't due to being long range.  It is due to being too hard to see in the bright sun-lit sky, even under a half mile away!

I agree, but where I fly usually, there are no people, no airplaines, not much of anything, but I will say that if I were flying where I see some of the videos on YouTube, that is, in the city, around people, etc, I would most definately keep an eye on my drone, and not let it out of my sight.  BUT, out in the boondocks, I use the drone's camera to keep tabs on it.  That and the little map.

ImHereToCrash Posted at 2017-8-28 16:32
to answer the original question:  in the US they do not define specifically what is VLoS to begin with.. they openly state it and broadly so..  the way i interpreted it is simply the maximum potential line of sight..  there is a math formula for this as well..

Line of Sight = √ (2*height1) + √ (2*height2)

But it's not just about theoretical range to the horizon. It's also about the size of the object and the angle it subtends at the eye. Something the size of an airliner, even if it's above the physical horizon with a clear line of sight, would be impossible to see beyond a certain range. There's a point where the average person's eye just isn't sensitive enough to actually see the drone and obviously the smaller the drone, the shorter that distance is. Added to that, the fact that many drones are grey and can have a very small cross-section depending on their orientation just reduces the range further.

If you were looking at it head on, I'd be surprised if someone with perfect vision could genuinely see a drone the size of a Mavic Mini much beyond about 500m.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 06:01
I am surprised by the results. Nearly every video that you see posted here or elsewhere involves flying further than you would be able to see the small mavic with the naked eye... probably not much further than 1000'.

Amen and Amen. Most (nearly all?) Youtube travel and scenic videos (especially any using follow me mode) were created with the drone flying out of sight some of the time. I do not wish to trigger a bunch of responses from people with supervision (I know it will anyway) but I sincerely doubt that there are very many people who can look at their device and then relocate a mini 2 at 1000'.