- Joined
- Mar 6, 2017
- Messages
- 287
- Reactions
- 603
This one is straight up valuable. No product reviews.
Last edited by a moderator:
7 tips to avoid the wrath of the FAA.
- Thread starter 51 Drones
- Start date
This video should be required viewing for all new pilots, and some experienced ones as well. Nice job @51 Drones!
I disagree with him about monetized YouTube postings. It pertains to intent of flight. If you post regularly shortly after flight and make money off of it, then sure. But occasionally posting as an afterthought, then no.
Doesn’t apply to the video. He was clear.
PhantomFandom
Well-Known Member
Hey Russ,
Great job on the video. EXCELLENT! Just some comments and slight corrections. I know it may seem like nit-picking but a video that explains how to do things correctly, should in itself be totally correct:
- In step 1 you say that a Part 107 pilot must register every drone that pilot owns. That is not technically true. A Part 107 pilot only needs to register each drone that will be used for Part 107 flights. Drones that will be used strictly for recreational flights do not need to be individually registered. I do this with my small fleet, I register the ones that I know will be used for commercial operations and do not register the ones that will always be used strictly for recreational flights. Those drones (over 250 grams) obviously still need a registration number displayed on them, but the pilot can use his/her personal registration number on all of them.
- Also in Step 1 you mention the necessity to register any drone over 250 grams. It is noteworthy to also add that if a Part 107 pilot uses a Mavic Mini (or any other drone under 250 grams) then that drone must also be registered even though it is below the weight cutoff.
- Step 2 is the checklist. You mention that the pilot should do a compass or IMU calibration if the app prompts them to. A compass calibration is not always necessary and in many cases can do more harm than good, if the cause of that discrepancy is due to metallic objects close to the drone at launch.
- In Step 3 you cover airspace check and LAANC authorization. I would simply add that although excellent and usually correct, none of those apps are authoritative sources. The only true authoritative source is the FAA itself (VFR sectional charts, UAS Facilities Map, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc...). Of course that is way too much to mention in a brief video but a pilot may need to know that the apps can at times be wrong.
Russ has a good video. I suggest everyone listen to it, and do as he says.
A.O.
Well-Known Member
Not sure about parking on any roadside because its an easement. Its an easement for the road people to use not just anyone, it is NOT public property. I have over 3700 feet of road frontage, and have had people give me that line when they put signs up.. first time the county (easement people) made them take them down.. now I just do it.
Yes the county has a road easement, but I still own that property to the center of the road!!
Good video though...
Yes the county has a road easement, but I still own that property to the center of the road!!
Good video though...
An easement is part of a property that you may own, but do not control use of or access to. So you can legally fly from an easement. And the property owner can't stop you.
In your case, the county probably decided it wasn't worth their time to keep telling you to take them down. Or, the people doing it were told by their superiors to knock it off. Everyone puts signs up on easements. Where I live, they're pretty relaxed about signs on easements (real estate, garage sale, etc.), but they will come and tell you to go take them down if you leave them up too long.
One other point of clarification about Russ' video. KittyHawk does not own B4UFly. It is still an FAA product. They they were contracted by the FAA to redesign it. And they did a commendable job.
A.O.
Well-Known Member
So if someone is out there... its time for me to mow.
And I know that in my county it is illegal to erect a sign on a road easement
I will have to check out all the laws in my state/county further!
Why? Just let them fly. I have no doubt if it was you flying, you'd appreciate it if they didn't mow. Doesn't seem very neighborly to mow just because someone is flying from your easement.
Here in my county in Florida, the property in front of our houses are right of way. County owns it but we can use it up to a point. Usually a utility pole demarcs where my property ends and right of way begins.
Easement on the other hand I own, but must provide access for utilities. Cable and phone (remember copper land lines?) are back there. There may be an easement between houses.
Easement on the other hand I own, but must provide access for utilities. Cable and phone (remember copper land lines?) are back there. There may be an easement between houses.
Hey. Karen here.. does not have to be a product review or your silly links.. your still plugging your channel.. look if you didn’t want negative feedback. [removed by ADMIN, house cleaning]
Last edited by a moderator:
A.O.
Well-Known Member
If it were me flying I WOULD NOT be doing it without permission from the property owner. Doesn't seem neighborly to just go on someone elses place and go flying or anything else for that matter!!
Sounds like trespassing to me.
Ken-Mav-Mtl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 220
- Reactions
- 199
Hi Russ,
At approx 9 minutes into the video, the issue of flying over someone's private property is addressed. The video (which is excellent and very informative for new drone pilots) gives the impression that the airspace over property can be used by drone pilots.
I won't challenge this assertion but simply wish to point out that there is a long history of claims to use of the space above property, going back to the 16th century, and even back to the days of the Roman Empire where the Latin maxim:
"CUJUS EST SOLUM EJUS USQUE AD COELUM" which, literally translated, means
"He who possesses the land possesses also that which is above it".
(the following opinion includes excerpts from the McGill Law Journal article published in 1953 by Yehuda Abramovitch)
This old maxim is no longer true.
In various jurisdictions over time the practical rule has evolved to include rights to the space above land that can reasonably be used by the land owner, and merely transient innocent passage cannot offend the owner:
"...a Canadian court held that the owner of land is not an owner of unlimited airspace over his land, for airspace
is res omnius communis; the owner of land has only a limited right in airspace over it, his right being limited by what he can possess or occupy for the use and enjoyment of his land."
With the advent of aviation, the application of the Latin maxim would lead to claims of aircraft violating a land owner's rights, so the evolution of fly over rights took new form:
"In 1921, the American Bar Association's Special Committee on the Law of
Aviation repudiated the theory stated by the maxim as inapplicable to air
rights in the field of aviation"
The article goes on to say:
"The maxim has in practice given the landowner the right of the effective
use of his property, without interference by flights which hamper his real
enjoyment of the land, but it has never given him an absolute right in airspace
above his land"
My understanding of current rules regarding overflights above private property take into account 3 factors:
a) Statutory regulations such as FAA in USA or Transport Canada in Canada, where rules exist regarding various classes of airspace
b) Privacy statutes and regulations that make it an offence to invade personal privacy, and drones have a great ability to invade personal privacy since they are well equipped to do so, and
c) Nuisance laws that give a land owner the right to sue where any disturbance goes beyond the mere tolerance of innocent overflight.
So while the position taken in the video is "correct" in that no one owns the airspace above land, account must be taken of the obligation not to be a nuisance to the landowner and to respect the right of personal privacy.
At approx 9 minutes into the video, the issue of flying over someone's private property is addressed. The video (which is excellent and very informative for new drone pilots) gives the impression that the airspace over property can be used by drone pilots.
I won't challenge this assertion but simply wish to point out that there is a long history of claims to use of the space above property, going back to the 16th century, and even back to the days of the Roman Empire where the Latin maxim:
"CUJUS EST SOLUM EJUS USQUE AD COELUM" which, literally translated, means
"He who possesses the land possesses also that which is above it".
(the following opinion includes excerpts from the McGill Law Journal article published in 1953 by Yehuda Abramovitch)
This old maxim is no longer true.
In various jurisdictions over time the practical rule has evolved to include rights to the space above land that can reasonably be used by the land owner, and merely transient innocent passage cannot offend the owner:
"...a Canadian court held that the owner of land is not an owner of unlimited airspace over his land, for airspace
is res omnius communis; the owner of land has only a limited right in airspace over it, his right being limited by what he can possess or occupy for the use and enjoyment of his land."
With the advent of aviation, the application of the Latin maxim would lead to claims of aircraft violating a land owner's rights, so the evolution of fly over rights took new form:
"In 1921, the American Bar Association's Special Committee on the Law of
Aviation repudiated the theory stated by the maxim as inapplicable to air
rights in the field of aviation"
The article goes on to say:
"The maxim has in practice given the landowner the right of the effective
use of his property, without interference by flights which hamper his real
enjoyment of the land, but it has never given him an absolute right in airspace
above his land"
My understanding of current rules regarding overflights above private property take into account 3 factors:
a) Statutory regulations such as FAA in USA or Transport Canada in Canada, where rules exist regarding various classes of airspace
b) Privacy statutes and regulations that make it an offence to invade personal privacy, and drones have a great ability to invade personal privacy since they are well equipped to do so, and
c) Nuisance laws that give a land owner the right to sue where any disturbance goes beyond the mere tolerance of innocent overflight.
So while the position taken in the video is "correct" in that no one owns the airspace above land, account must be taken of the obligation not to be a nuisance to the landowner and to respect the right of personal privacy.
Miss Chrisy Co
Well-Known Member
As someone who is a vendor, I kind of agree, I was required to get a vendor account because I put my company website in my signature and posted about my products. YouTubers are kind of similar, the difference is their products are videos and not tangible but still give a monetary gain to the poster/youtuber.
Last edited by a moderator:
JMC3
Well-Known Member
I believe for me, the video gave me excellent suggestions. I think for most responsible pilots Its just good to keep learning things I am all for flying safe. One thing that was not addressed is insurance. I have always used AMA policy for all my RC aircraft and its saved my bacon on one occasion. even though it a policy that pays after you home owners policy paid first there are many areas in the city that require insurance just to have access to their property. I fly in Albuquerque at the balloon park and you cannot have access to their field without insurance. The people who need to watch the video are the instant flyers from hobby shop to park in one hour people.
PhantomFandom
Well-Known Member
I cannot speak to the airspace over Canada or any other country. Here in the USA it is very clear in FAA regulations and laws passed by congress that the airspace over the entire continental United States is controlled by one and only one single entity, and that entity is the FAA. So that is what the video was referring to and was absolutely correct. What that means to the RPIC is that no one else (not land owners, not homeowners, not commercial property owners, not state government authorities, and not local jurisdictions) can make any laws, ordinances, requests, rules, etc... that restrict or attempt to control the airspace in any way not sanctioned by the FAA.
As to your second and third points regarding personal privacy and nuisance, yes absolutely correct but those are laws that are already on the books and not specific to drones. A homeowner for instance cannot reasonably claim that their privacy is being invaded if they are in their front yard (i.e. in public) and a drone is flying 300 feet up over their property, any more than they could claim that for a neighbor walking by with a 35mm camera or even a cell phone. The point is that the laws need to be applied equally, no matter what the supposed privacy issue.
Same for the "nuisance" aspect. A homeowner cannot reasonably say that a drone at 100 feet is loud, noisy, and a nuisance when that very same neighbor is outside at 8:00 AM with their rider mower. A lawn mower in most cases is louder and more annoying than a drone at altitude.
So let's make sure that airspace control is left up to the FAA and let's enforce the privacy/nuisance cases on equal footing with any other method of photography or noise making.
PhantomFandom
Well-Known Member
I see what you're saying there and did not think of that prior to you bringing it up. I guess there is the question to what degree one is "marketing" or "selling".
I believe the rules on the forums here do allow you to add a website link in your signature, as long as you are not making posts to actively sell your products. So perhaps your first statement was a bit inaccurate? It was not the signature that required you to get a vendor account but rather posts to sell your wares. Please correct me if I am wrong there.
However I do definitely see how that relates to the video that was posted by Russ (51 Drones). If he had listed the 7 points simply in a text posting, then it is purely informational and no marketing. However the video is definitely marketing his services as it has his company intro and his company logo clearly in the background at all times. I think you have a very valid point.
JMC3
Well-Known Member
PhantomFandom, you have some excellent points. Its sad that were not living in a country that cares who is regulating who. Ok, so before the fur flies...Judges are and have been making up law although its beyond their jurisdiction. Police do not have the laws regarding what FAA or others regulate and If they do all they are concerned with is making the [Admin Removed] happy. You get some screaming [Admin Removed] and who do you think is going to loose? I am all for proper regulations and enforcement but recent activities at state and federal level leave me wondering. So many laws and rules have been broken by those who are supposedly in charge we could spend hours counting them.
One thing that still bothers me is how Amazon was planning to deliver packages by drone. I'm a fairly tolerant person but that effort I think crosses the line. I dont know how they planned doing it but looking up at thousands of drones filling the sky bothers even me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
2 Pro Early April panorama shots in Minnesota...on a very warm 80 degree day.- Started by MavicFlyer2
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Forum statistics
