York County working on drone restrictions

[Derek]

Here is another, recent, story of more common sense gone wrong.

http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/2015/03/ ... /25168327/

[Graham Lawrie]

Oh dear:( a lot of bad publicity over the pond:(

[Tony]

I was thinking it was York over here, phew... Looked like flamingo land.... Still a bloody stupid act...idiots

[Graham Lawrie]

I was thinking it was York over here, phew... Looked like flamingo land.... Still a bloody stupid act...idiots

Senior moment Tony LOL:) more like away with the faries land for you LOL:)

[Tony]

Haha, very senior moment....

[Marius]

In the video they keep saying "off season". Does that mean that the park was closed while the flying took place?

[Derek]

Yes, the park was closed while the flying took place. The park owners are upset because the "flyers" were on private property without permission.

[Vipertech13]

Wow, I was wondering how I missed that ? Because I live in York County,PA then I seen that it was York County,SC. Any way some dipstick not following basic common sense again! I have a guy at work that flies wherever he feels like flying and has no knowledge of what his plane can do or how to even pre-flight check it just throws it in the air and "flies it" No big deal he says! I am trying to correct this!

[Derek]

My flying buddy is real similar to that, too, Gerald. He puts the battery into his plane and away he goes. No CG check. No preflight check.....and then he complains because he's fighting a tail heavy plane. Last year, he bought a BNF Delta Ray and he was pissed off because I told him that he had to setup his transmitter. He argued with me that a "Bind and fly" plane should be "Bind and fly"...there shouldn't be any "setup". It was a short argument because I simply gave up. A few flights later, he slams this Delta Ray into the ground, at full throttle and damages the flight board....then he calls Horizon Hobby and yells at them, saying that their board went bad and he wanted them to replace it. They refused.

[cml001]

Yeah, they banned them here within a few miles of the National.. Masters Tournament... So for the next few weeks are sketchy here.. I live 2 blocks away.. Had a cop eye ball'n me today from the corner stop sign where he was parked as I hovered the N5C in my yard/street... Kinda funny really.. Total expected him to say something.. But when the tank ran low & I landed... He drove off. Suppose it's not the same way I used to "smoke" out my neighborhood... Hehehehehe.. Ahh the good old daze!

[pvolcko]

Yes, the guy was wrong to fly over private land without permission. However, that is simply trespassing and already illegal. No new law needed.

The story and some politicians seem to be making a big stink over the fact this flight was over and around a roller coaster. It was not in operation (nor was the park) and even if he had crashed into it, it would have done no damage to the coaster track. They're acting as if the guy flew over a coaster while it was in operation when that was not at all the case. It would be mind bogglingly stupid to fly over a coaster while in operation, particularly at close proximity. It would be wreckless endangerment which is also already a crime. No new law needed.

I don't understand the ease at which people demand and implement new, useless laws. We have tons and tons of laws on the books already. Enough where everyone in this country is likely in breach of some law every moment of every day. WE don't need more laws and regulations. The ones we have are largely ignored or gambled against because people either don't respect them or are fairly certain they'll never be arrested and charged with anything.

<off soap box>

[Stambo]

Agreed, mostly Paul but trespassing, does it require a physical presence of a person?
Not sure what the law is in the US but how low do you have to be before you are actually on another persons property.
Full size aviation does this all the time but at much higher altitudes, where is the line drawn?

[cml001]

Can of worms fellas!

[pvolcko]

If a tree branch extends over a property line, you have the right to chop it (particularly if it is a nuisance or endangering a structure). To my thinking you have no more right to fly a quad over someone else's property as you do to hit a baseball over it or throw a frisbee over it. To say nothing of recording a view from within the property or fly in close proximity to structures on the property. And I didn't catch specifically from the new article if he was flying over the property from a piloting position off the property, but given this was some sort of amusement park I was assuming he was at least physically on the grounds of the parking lot, if not actually inside the gated off park facility.

You may be right, Stambo, it may not technically be trespassing. Even if it wasn't, there are plenty of other laws that apply. Photographing/videoing property inside a gated, fenced locale without permission is against the law, right to privacy is certainly expected and protected in this case. While the chances of serious damage were low, there well could have been cosmetic damage inflicted, so again wreckless endangerment to property. This was no mere overflight. He was flying amongst structures on the property without permission, this would certainly be illegal in any passenger or commercial flight, so I see no reason it should't be illegal here.

The point is, there is no need for any additional ordinance to cover this kind of thing specifically, particularly as regards to flights while the park is in operation. It is already well covered.

[Graham Lawrie]

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.[1] The general rule is that airplanes must fly high enough that, in the event of an engine failure, the pilot can land the plane without undue hazards to persons or property on the ground. The exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure. Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace within 500 feet above their lands.

[pvolcko]

If that's true, then again, no need for any new regulation or law. Owner has right to the airspace this r/c model was flying in and can deny permission if he wishes. Of course enforcement is a problem in that case since I doubt local or even state police are empowered to cite a person for violation of an FAA regulation. BEst they could do is refer the matter to the FAA for investigation and assessment of penalty. But again, there are plenty of laws to cover the activity in this video, even without going the FAA regulation route.