הכול
← Back to Squawk list
Police: Man sent up drone to view fatal crash scene
Connecticut police say the FAA is investigating a drone equipped with a camera that appeared over the scene of a car crash. Was it being used for commercial or even journalistic purposes? (news.cnet.com) עוד...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the first amendment press freedoms covers publishing information that they have. It would concern me greatly if it became interpreted that they had carte blanche to do whatever they please in order to gain that information.
They should immediately approve 2 categories of drone usage, in addition to current approves recreational use.
1. Use over private property* up to 400 ft for any private use (recreational, commercial, photography, etc.)
* not in the immediate vicinity of an airport approach
2. Use over public land up to 400 ft for journalistic usage (with a permit). No access to private land without prior express written permission.
In addition, experimentation should not have to wait until the FAA bureaucracy get their butts into gear and issues rules. While it makes sense to continue wait for Domino's, beer and Amazon deliveries to populated areas, until proper rules are stipulated. In rural, undeveloped areas, it wouldn't hurt to experiment. Wouldn't be terrible to allow deliveries (food, drinks, supplies) to remote ice fishermen.
What is learned from remote experimentation can help in provision or regulation of future offerings in populated areas.
1. Use over private property* up to 400 ft for any private use (recreational, commercial, photography, etc.)
* not in the immediate vicinity of an airport approach
2. Use over public land up to 400 ft for journalistic usage (with a permit). No access to private land without prior express written permission.
In addition, experimentation should not have to wait until the FAA bureaucracy get their butts into gear and issues rules. While it makes sense to continue wait for Domino's, beer and Amazon deliveries to populated areas, until proper rules are stipulated. In rural, undeveloped areas, it wouldn't hurt to experiment. Wouldn't be terrible to allow deliveries (food, drinks, supplies) to remote ice fishermen.
What is learned from remote experimentation can help in provision or regulation of future offerings in populated areas.
YES!
I think we all know there are people out there with ahh, shall we say, "less common sense than the average person." As the technology improves and the cost continues to drop, I suspect people are going to do stupid things and cause a lot of issues that may hinder acceptance of the it. Over private property you say... their own private property I hope. I and many others will not be happy with their neighbors, say, overflying their backyards at 8' especially with photographic equipment. Or what about 6" off the ground? I bet fido won't be all that thrilled with it either. I bet people will be unhappy if 10' over their backyard becomes the thoroughfare for the Amazon and pizza. Right now, many people consider anything not visible from the street to be their "private" space. Anyone peeping over the fence is not going to be all that welcome. (See the hubbub about google street view and their cameras) Sure, someone could hire a helicopter or plane to overflight, but they'll have to be 1000' up and it's expensive to operate, and is far from stealthy. Like you said though, rural would be a great place for experimentation.
How high above other people's property should you have to be to maintain safety? What are the consequences of not doing so? Liability and right-of-way?
I think a lot of the discomfort with the technology comes from disconnect between the device and its owner/controller. Who's driving by my house? Well, I may not know, but I can read the plates on the car, or see the driver. Who's flying that drone circling my house? Neighbor? PI? Police? The NSA? The Amazon drone who's lose? Some guy casing my house to rob it?
What constitutes "journalistic usage?" Who's a "journalist?" I know this has been somewhat covered in government and the courts, and I'm sure all of them, you and I and everyone else have their own definition. So this will throw that into the courts for interpretation. I'm sure the paparazzi and the celebrities they follow would have different feelings about any proposal.
The current alternatives are expensive to operate, and new technology lowers the bar on the cost/experimentation/reward ratios. I think this has great potential, and I'd love to see what things people come up with. (I love the beer delivery idea) I just think that we need some minimal, basic regulations, and give people time to adjust to these new things.
Wow, that ended up being a lot longer than I thought it would.
How high above other people's property should you have to be to maintain safety? What are the consequences of not doing so? Liability and right-of-way?
I think a lot of the discomfort with the technology comes from disconnect between the device and its owner/controller. Who's driving by my house? Well, I may not know, but I can read the plates on the car, or see the driver. Who's flying that drone circling my house? Neighbor? PI? Police? The NSA? The Amazon drone who's lose? Some guy casing my house to rob it?
What constitutes "journalistic usage?" Who's a "journalist?" I know this has been somewhat covered in government and the courts, and I'm sure all of them, you and I and everyone else have their own definition. So this will throw that into the courts for interpretation. I'm sure the paparazzi and the celebrities they follow would have different feelings about any proposal.
The current alternatives are expensive to operate, and new technology lowers the bar on the cost/experimentation/reward ratios. I think this has great potential, and I'd love to see what things people come up with. (I love the beer delivery idea) I just think that we need some minimal, basic regulations, and give people time to adjust to these new things.
Wow, that ended up being a lot longer than I thought it would.
Fly one over my house below 1,000 feet and I'll consider it a skeet target.
LOL, me too
I didn't realize until you presented your objections, how good my initial suggestion is.
Private property - what you do on your own property is your business. Period.
This would cover most uses. Farmers spraying their own fields. A company inspecting their own pipelines, thier own bridges, or other infrastructure which they own or are responsible for maintaining/ inspecting. Photographer or real estate agent taking photography of a property (with express prior written permission of property owner.)
Up to 400 ft on your own property shouldn't interfere with other aircraft, except in immediate vicinity of a runway.
No one else should ever have access to your property, ever, without your prior express written permission, or a specific court order, ever. Period.
Public property - journalist (only with a permit). I might add that a phone call to local police may be required as well, if permit is more than single use permit.
This would allow overflying of streets and highways in isolated situations, only when a newsworthy event that would otherwise require use of a news helicopter.
This would be an initial limited trial, that should be useful in the creation of more permanent rules.
Private property - what you do on your own property is your business. Period.
This would cover most uses. Farmers spraying their own fields. A company inspecting their own pipelines, thier own bridges, or other infrastructure which they own or are responsible for maintaining/ inspecting. Photographer or real estate agent taking photography of a property (with express prior written permission of property owner.)
Up to 400 ft on your own property shouldn't interfere with other aircraft, except in immediate vicinity of a runway.
No one else should ever have access to your property, ever, without your prior express written permission, or a specific court order, ever. Period.
Public property - journalist (only with a permit). I might add that a phone call to local police may be required as well, if permit is more than single use permit.
This would allow overflying of streets and highways in isolated situations, only when a newsworthy event that would otherwise require use of a news helicopter.
This would be an initial limited trial, that should be useful in the creation of more permanent rules.
There may be a regulation, but it is wholly unconstitutional. The first words of the 1st Amendment that say "Congress shall make no law..." means no one else can prevent the press from using remote cameras either. The current FAA would have us believe there is some over-riding reason allowing them prior restraint of the press. Case law would argue against that position. There can certainly be a prohibition against interference with licensed aircraft, but model aircraft are seldom operated very high off the ground.
"