I was Narked on....

[GadgetGuy]

With the news of the assassination attempt in Venezuela DHS is calling for Congress to do something about drones and you do stuff like this? Please be responsible or just sell your drone.

It has not yet been established that any drones were actually involved in the explosion. Firemen on the scene believed the explosion was a propane tank explosion in a nearby apartment. The only drones present were there for security, and under control of the security forces, not some assassins.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I guess we're on everyone's radar when we go flying.
I always keep that in mind.

So very true...

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

It has not yet been established that any drones were actually involved in the explosion. Firemen on the scene believed the explosion was a propane tank explosion in a nearby apartment. The only drones present were there for security, and under control of the security forces, not some assassins.

What about the footage of the drone that exploded?

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

Illegal to fly over dams and Corps land that is not within a NFZ? I see information advising against it, but this advice also includes industrial complexes. Do you have information on the law prohibiting it?

Here's the law.

Prohibition on the Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) on Federal Lands under the Jurisdiction of the New England District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers > North Atlantic Division > North Atlantic Division News Releases

The use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), such as drones, are prohibited on or above federal lands and waters managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District. This prohibition applies regardless of the location of the operator.

Federal Aviation Administration definitions: An unmanned aircraft is a component of a UAS. It is defined by statute as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft (Public Law 112-95, Section 331(8)).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulations 36 CFR 327.4b states: “operation of aircraft on project lands at other than those designated by the District Commander is prohibited.” Persons found in violation of these regulations may be subject to criminal or civil penalties pursuant to 36 C.F.R 327.25.

No areas within the New England District’s jurisdiction, including recreation sites, dams, reservoirs and the Cape Cod Canal, have been designated for drone use by the District Commander. This also includes lands under lease agreements with a third parties, such as camp grounds and certain recreation areas. Any other UASs that are operating within New England District’s jurisdiction have been specifically approved by the District Commander.

 

[GadgetGuy]

What about the footage of the drone that exploded?

Got a link?

 

[With The Birds]

Got a link?

This was posted on the forum earlier in the thread covering the event, dont recall who posted it (still had it open in my browser).

How the Drone Attack on Maduro Unfolded in Venezuela

If this is some sort of hoax it’s well done.

 

[GadgetGuy]

This was posted on the forum earlier in the thread covering the event, dont recall who posted it (still had it open in my browser).

How the Drone Attack on Maduro Unfolded in Venezuela

If this is some sort of hoax it’s well done.

Thanks for sharing the link. With all due respect, that footage is spliced together from various different sources, to illustrate what they believed happened. It is not authentic footage from any reliable source at the scene. There is no continuous footage that shows a drone causing an explosion targeted at anyone. Yes, an explosion took place. Yes, there were drones in the sky, as the security forces are known to have used drones themselves for crowd surveillance. However, nothing concete has established that the drones were attacking. Every other headline since refers to it as an alleged drone attack, since it still has not been established that it was, in fact, a drone attack. To me, so far, this is as reliable as the 500+ airline pilot drone sighting reports compiled by the FAA, that the FAA itself has finally admitted are mostly bogus.

FAA Drone Sighting Data is UNRELIABLE. Here's what the FAA said......

 

[With The Birds]

Thanks for sharing the link. With all due respect, that footage is spliced together from various different sources, to illustrate what they believed happened. It is not authentic footage from any reliable source at the scene. There is no continuous footage that shows a drone causing an explosion targeted at anyone. Yes, an explosion took place. Yes, there were drones in the sky, as the security forces are known to have used drones themselves for crowd surveillance. However, nothing concete has established that the drones were attacking. Every other headline since refers to it as an alleged drone attack, since it still has not been established that it was, in fact, a drone attack. To me, so far, this is as reliable as the 500+ airline pilot drone sighting reports compiled by the FAA, that the FAA itself has finally admitted are mostly bogus.

FAA Drone Sighting Data is UNRELIABLE. Here's what the FAA said......

You said “got a link” I shared. Make of it what you will. Time will tell. I agree it could be nothing more than skilful editing.

 

[GadgetGuy]

You said “got a link” I shared. Make of it what you will. Time will tell. I agree it could be nothing more than skilful editing.

Indeed. I wasn't meaning to fault you at all. I believe I read yesterday that the news source of that video has now admitted the drone footage was taken from other sources, and they "did not intend to mislead" and should have been more clear about using footage from other drone sources for illustration purposes. Unfortunately, the worldwide drone hysteria is so great that it appears, from all available information to date, the Venezuelan government is exploiting this likely accidental explosion for political purposes, to justify their crackdown on their political opponents, while blaming it on attacking drones, piloted by the opposition! They are also blaming it on DJI M600 drones!

 

[RedDog7]

Bad luck David, Move to Australia, so far we don't have so many restrictions, at least not like yourself. Hey, have you considered it could have been another flyer who got upset about you flying there when they can't? Judging by some of the comments I'd say there's a good chance. A case of sour grapes maybe? I guess it must be nice to be so squeeky clean you can demean others when they get a little naughty. I think you're right, keep your videos off social media and keep them for your friends and family to watch, or at least deny anyone the chance of finding you for those "naughty" videos. You could always post them on Facebook and keep it for those you know. Lock the riff raff out

The problem you may have now is that they have your name and possibly your car's licence plate. I'd imagine there could be some database for those being caught like yourself. When I read of these situations I tend to wonder how often Quadcopters are used by the authorities in National Parks to find lost trekkers. Luckily we rarely have negative feedback on quadcopters, except when a certain politician is photographed flying one of course. Perhaps you need some positive feedback on the news bulletins. We had one a while back when two boys were washed out to sea, they used a quadcopter to carry some foam out to them, the quad dropped the foam and the two boys used it to keep themselves afloat whilst they got a helicopter to them. It made headlines all over the country. All we seem to get from the US is people landing on the white house lawn and carrying drugs to prisoners.

Any David, there's no law about posting those videos they caught you on, You may as well keep them up. Just don't post any more

 

[Osmosis]

Here's the law.

Prohibition on the Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) on Federal Lands under the Jurisdiction of the New England District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers > North Atlantic Division > North Atlantic Division News Releases

The use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), such as drones, are prohibited on or above federal lands and waters managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District. This prohibition applies regardless of the location of the operator.

Federal Aviation Administration definitions: An unmanned aircraft is a component of a UAS. It is defined by statute as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft (Public Law 112-95, Section 331(8)).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulations 36 CFR 327.4b states: “operation of aircraft on project lands at other than those designated by the District Commander is prohibited.” Persons found in violation of these regulations may be subject to criminal or civil penalties pursuant to 36 C.F.R 327.25.

No areas within the New England District’s jurisdiction, including recreation sites, dams, reservoirs and the Cape Cod Canal, have been designated for drone use by the District Commander. This also includes lands under lease agreements with a third parties, such as camp grounds and certain recreation areas. Any other UASs that are operating within New England District’s jurisdiction have been specifically approved by the District Commander.

Thank you for posting this.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to keep up with all these rules that pop-up. This looks like another rule that adds to the “patchwork quilt” of inconsistent regulations that is just making the problem worse (FAA's words). The FAA has also stated that they have sovereign regulatory authority of all US airspace.

I've been involved in photo shoots over Corps leased land to do rehabilitated seal release aerials in Cape Cod, MA and questioned their "no-fly" statements. After some discussion, everyone agreed that as long as we took-off and landed on other property they had no issues (and of course follow all other 107 rules).

So someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear that anyone other than the FAA has the authority to regulate airspace. Furthermore, if it was regulated correctly I would expect to see it delineated on FAA and other no-fly maps (such as AirMap)

So why arent these restricted areas delineated in Airmap?

 

[The Roach]

Thank you for posting this.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to keep up with all these rules that pop-up. This looks like another rule that adds to the “patchwork quilt” of inconsistent regulations that is just making the problem worse (FAA's words). The FAA has also stated that they have sovereign regulatory authority of all US airspace.

I've been involved in photo shoots over Corps leased land to do rehabilitated seal release aerials in Cape Cod, MA and questioned their "no-fly" statements. After some discussion, everyone agreed that as long as we took-off and landed on other property they had no issues (and of course follow all other 107 rules).

So someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear that anyone other than the FAA has the authority to regulate airspace. Furthermore, if it was regulated correctly I would expect to see it delineated on FAA and other no-fly maps (such as AirMap)

So why arent these restricted areas delineated in Airmap?

Agree - I had a long conversation with the ACoE online. As long as you don't take off on their property, you certainly can fly over it. They have entire lakes listed as NFZ. You must call 30 days in advance, pay a fee and then are allowed to take off and land on ACoE property. They DO NOT have the jurisdiction to control the airspace itself.

 

[Chicken Man]

[There is a small NFZ over the Dam just like most other Dams in this country. I don't hover over a Dam causing unwanted attention, I buzz on by high up.

There's the problem. You knew it was illegal and flew over the dam anyway. And you ruin it for others by getting more rules and regulations. You dont just break the law a little bit. You break it or you dont.

 

[bsartist]

[There is a small NFZ over the Dam just like most other Dams in this country. I don't hover over a Dam causing unwanted attention, I buzz on by high up.

There's the problem. You knew it was illegal and flew over the dam anyway. And you ruin it for others by getting more rules and regulations. You dont just break the law a little bit. You break it or you dont.

Technically speaking there *are* differing degrees of breaking laws and that’s why there are varying degrees of penalties for most laws depending on those degrees. Violations aren’t the same A misdemeanors which aren’t the same as B misdemeanors which aren’t the same as an A felony.

I’m not trying to be pedantic but I think simplifying things too much like that can lead to disproportionate flogging and indignation here.

Now, I know a bunch of people will miss the point and accuse me of advocating flouting the law. I’m not. But the punishment should fit the crime. Which is simply why I challenge your assertion with all due respect.

The OP was wrong for flying the NFZ. Since ignorance is not a defense he’s probably just as guilty (legally speaking) if he didn’t know. By knowing he’s even more morally culpable I guess. So I agree with you there.

Having said all that, there is a different point which I made in my other post on this thread. And one which I think the OP tried to make but was drowned out over the issue of the illegal flight.

To restate that point (and all of this assumes that things unfolded the way the OP surmises): the whole citation thing for that ILLEGAL flight appears to have grown out of a LEGAL flight some time later. During the subsequent legal flight, a civilian appears to have complained to a ranger about said legal flight. Despite it being legal, the ranger appears to have launched an investigation on the OP and looked BACK in order to find out if he’s ever done anything wrong and came up with the prior illegal flight and reported him.

While none of that investigation may be illegal (questionable if the ranger ran his boat registration without cause (cops aren’t allowed to just run anyone’s plates)) I do think it’s cause for concern for it to develop that way. Sure he got a valid citation - may have even got off easy. But I don’t think the ends always justify the means. I’m sure we’ve all done something wrong sometime in our past and if someone wants to dig enough, they’ll find something back there. Do we want to be subject of that kind of scrutiny every time we take off legally and some bystander complains to a cop or ranger? I don’t think so. We can become targets of undue or selective scrutiny.

In order to see this problem we just need to separate things out a little and not let our indignation over the illegal flight get in the way. Yeah he was wrong on that flight. Yeah he deserved a citation. Maybe even a fine. Yeah he’s a bad apple for knowingly doing it. But let’s put all that in a box for now and consider the problems with how it unfolded.

Again, this all assumes things unfolded the way the OP surmises. It may not be so. Therefore my point is rhetorical. But relevant to the discussion nonetheless.

 

[With The Birds]

Technically speaking there *are* differing degrees of breaking laws and that’s why there are varying degrees of penalties for most laws depending on those degrees. Violations aren’t the same A misdemeanors which aren’t the same as B misdemeanors which aren’t the same as an A felony.

I’m not trying to be pedantic but I think simplifying things too much like that can lead to disproportionate flogging and indignation here.

Now, I know a bunch of people will miss the point and accuse me of advocating flouting the law. I’m not. But the punishment should fit the crime. Which is simply why I challenge your assertion with all due respect.

The OP was wrong for flying the NFZ. Since ignorance is not a defense he’s probably just as guilty (legally speaking) if he didn’t know. By knowing he’s even more morally culpable I guess. So I agree with you there.

Having said all that, there is a different point which I made in my other post on this thread. And one which I think the OP tried to make but was drowned out over the issue of the illegal flight.

To restate that point (and all of this assumes that things unfolded the way the OP surmises): the whole citation thing for that ILLEGAL flight appears to have grown out of a LEGAL flight some time later. During the subsequent legal flight, a civilian appears to have complained to a ranger about said legal flight. Despite it being legal, the ranger appears to have launched an investigation on the OP and looked BACK in order to find out if he’s ever done anything wrong and came up with the prior illegal flight and reported him.

While none of that investigation may be illegal (questionable if the ranger ran his boat registration without cause (cops aren’t allowed to just run anyone’s plates)) I do think it’s cause for concern for it to develop that way. Sure he got a valid citation - may have even got off easy. But I don’t think the ends always justify the means. I’m sure we’ve all done something wrong sometime in our past and if someone wants to dig enough, they’ll find something back there. Do we want to be subject of that kind of scrutiny every time we take off legally and some bystander complains to a cop or ranger? I don’t think so. We can become targets of undue or selective scrutiny.

In order to see this problem we just need to separate things out a little and not let our indignation over the illegal flight get in the way. Yeah he was wrong on that flight. Yeah he deserved a citation. Maybe even a fine. Yeah he’s a bad apple for knowingly doing it. But let’s put all that in a box for now and consider the problems with how it unfolded.

Again, this all assumes things unfolded the way the OP surmises. It may not be so. Therefore my point is rhetorical. But relevant to the discussion nonetheless.

This scenario is not unlike someone recieving a penalty notice in the mail for flicking a cigarette but out a vehicle window and moaming and groaning and trying to work out who saw them and reported it. I have just been through that with a mate, he has been grizzling about it for three weeks to the point the blokes at the pub have banned it as a topic of conversation.

 

[bsartist]

This scenario is not unlike someone recieving a penalty notice in the mail for flicking a cigarette but out a vehicle window and moaming and groaning and trying to work out who saw them and reported it. I have just been through that with a mate, he has been grizzling about it for three weeks to the point the blokes at the pub have banned it as a topic of conversation.

No. It’s more like someone saw him smoking in a designated smoking area and complained to a cop. Nothing he could do about him smoking in that spot. But I bet he’s flicked a butt out his window at some point. Lemme go see if I can find anyone that saw him do it. I’ll start with his carpool buddies.

LOL. Ok. My tongue is somewhat planted in my cheek. But it’s kind of a valid comparison. ;-)

 

[With The Birds]

No. It’s more like someone saw him smoking in a designated smoking area and complained to a cop. Nothing he could do about him smoking in that spot. But I bet he’s flicked a butt out his window at some point. Lemme go see if I can find anyone that saw him do it. I’ll start with his carpool buddies.

LOL. Ok. My tongue is somewhat planted in my cheek. But it’s kind of a valid comparison. ;-)

Amongst the car pool buddies the prime candidate would be the one who thought they deserved the promotion to his position or the one who has a less flashy car.

 

[WV. Rootman]

[There is a small NFZ over the Dam just like most other Dams in this country. I don't hover over a Dam causing unwanted attention, I buzz on by high up.

There's the problem. You knew it was illegal and flew over the dam anyway. And you ruin it for others by getting more rules and regulations. You dont just break the law a little bit. You break it or you dont.

"You dont just break the law a little bit. You break it or you dont". are your words.
"I don't hover over a Dam causing unwanted attention, I buzz on by high up."Are your words. So, you fly over them, just higher and faster so you don't draw attention. You condemn yourself. lol

 

[With The Birds]

"You dont just break the law a little bit. You break it or you dont". are your words.
"I don't hover over a Dam causing unwanted attention, I buzz on by high up."Are your words. So, you fly over them, just higher and faster so you don't draw attention. You condemn yourself. lol

I think the point is there are degrees to an offence. An example might be assault, could be common, occasioning bodily harm, with a weapon, intent to murder, etc....

 

[WV. Rootman]

I think the point is there are degrees to an offence. An example might be assault, could be common, occasioning bodily harm, with a weapon, intent to murder, etc....

No, I quoted post 73.