I understand those concerns, and most of those examples fall well within the "reasonable man" approach. My caution is that "expression/privacy"* argument tracked for as long as everything was manned and/or obvious. But autonomous drones who can pop up 400' are a potential game changer. Technology has the potential to change a lot of laws. So previously, if you wanted privacy from public areas, you could plant trees, put up a fence line, a curtain, or the like. Now someone pops up over any of that and claims that's his/her "right" to operate from public lands and his/her "right" to video anything they can see from the drone. *I wasn't tracking that "expression" was the argument against privacy, but that doesn't change much.

(Written on 12/24/2018)(Permalink)

Hi! I want to fly my model airplanes without unnecessary drama or hand-cuffs. Please don't confuse the issue. You have the same right to fly over public property as you have to drive over it - both subject to regulation and access control. Hovering over someone else's property is a different story, as is hovering beside someone else's property. I guess your reference to the 1st Amendment is freedom of the press. It is not freedom to surveil. And before you start to puff up, just because something is technically legal now, doesn't mean that it will remain so. And waving it about has the potential to galvanize the folks who make the rules to fix that for you. Replace your drone with a camera tower and think through how this will play out. If you are taking a couple snapshots and moving along, the people will be with you. If you are recording an event for someone, the people will be with you. But if you are just out "exercising your rights" to video tape anything with

(Written on 12/23/2018)(Permalink)

And car operators going through an intersection with a green light have no legal responsibility to see and avoid someone running a red light. Technically correct, practically meaningless at protecting lives. -- But I do agree the reference is more about the pilot's failure to maintain altitude.

(Written on 12/14/2018)(Permalink)

You are correct in that you can claim that you never said law, you actually said "reg". But the spirit and intent are the same. While I understand the effectiveness of the "admit nothing, deny everything, and counter accuse" strategy, simply repeating the same strawman does not make it valid and does not change what I said. Even if there was confusion between a direct statement in law/reg verses the combined effect of law/reg, I have explained the nature and basis for my statement twice. I have provided citations of the relevant laws. You have had the chance to review, challenge, or refute the citations and the construction of the argument. You have had the chance to provide citations of your own, or construct a counter-argument. You have not provided any argument beyond personal disbelief and this strawman. The statement stands. Without an actual counter-argument, there is nothing more to discuss on that front. Good luck and god speed your journey.

(Written on 02/24/2018)(Permalink)

I never had any intent or desire in establishing credibility with you personally, still don't really - but this will make for interesting conversations at work and they *will* get into the legal definitions, so Allons-y. You were the one who asserted there is some law exactly stating the legal minimum distance between aircraft is 100 ft. I said the legal separation is only 100 ft. And I explained the construction of this statement in my reply - which you ignored. The references that comprise my statement were clear and well established by your discussion of the laws governing where and how aircraft and drones may operate. However, if you wish to refresh yourself on "the refs": ------ 14 CFR 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. (c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or st

(Written on 02/24/2018)(Permalink)

First, I was neither discussing nor defending the actions of any actor in the particular incident. Unless you were part of the incident or the investigation, you likely have no more information or insight than what is in the articles which state that the helicopter was operating at low altitude, turned around, saw a drone, and decided to maneuver to avoid a collision, then experienced a tail rotor strike. I was discussing the reactionary, unreasonable, and frankly dangerous attitude and approach that ignores any reasonable path forward or discussion. That attitude is going to get someone hurt because it leads to folks still driving at 50 mph down the street blithely ignoring the reality that no, we aren't going to ban driveway basketball, but yes, sometimes the ball will bounce out into the street. To the first point: Repeated quotation of "does not interfere with or gives way to any manned aircraft" does not change the law, nor force it to conform to your personal strict int

(Written on 02/24/2018)(Permalink)

"The "mentality" in reality is exactly like you say that it "CANNOT" be." And the sad part is that some folks will believe that position is justified, become entrenched in that mindset, let it affect their behavior, demeanor, and ultimately their reactions -- just making things more dangerous. No one is debating that drones should yield to manned aircraft. Most of your comments are twisting and torturing both the other person's opinion and the law (for example, nothing says drones cannot operate within 5 miles of any airport, but some are controlled). And specifically, the exclamations over the "audacity" of a drone being anywhere near a manned aircraft - deliberately and actively denying any consideration that those conditions may occur even if both were conscientious operators operating within parameters. The legal separation is only 100 ft. So ignoring the reality and asserting that "A drone pilot CANNOT operate his drone in an area where he COULD be surprised by a man

(Written on 02/24/2018)(Permalink)

Why does this self-vote for itself?

(Written on 02/03/2018)(Permalink)

Actually, California is one of only ~11 states with Two-Party consent rules on recording conversations. Click-bait as an article or not, I can see solid points on both sides of the debate about the appropriateness of using the recording here. Perception vs Truth. Accountability vs Chilling effect on discussion/debate. Witch-hunts vs Learning/Training. Expectation of privacy in the workplace, especially when dealing with matters related to public safety vs Slippery slope to wider use (like Bill Babis states below). But I think the policy part boils down to how you value the discussion of potential mistakes and internal self-correcting (Which is part of the value of two people there, right?) and then the impact/influence of policy on that. The best advice I got on (non-aviation) investigations was: The fundamental question for the investigator is: Is the objective in this situation to find out what happened to reduce future events, or to inform a decision about accountabilit

(Written on 02/03/2018)(Permalink)