Marcel Graham

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

2 Followers

About Marcel Graham

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ha! Is it possible to agree with everyone at the same time? Here is my two cents. Safety, safety, safety. We have all see the videos of drones falling out the sky on to people at these types of events. Every accident makes our jobs harder with the poor publicity that follows. If this person was operating safely, I would probably just asked what he was flying and go on with my day, If he was operating over people, or other unsafe manner, I would defiantly question it. It is like @Av8Chuck said you don't call 1-800-howamIdriving if they are just speeding passed you. You call if they are swerving or visibly texting. With that said, Did this pilot take a paying gig away from a licensed pilot? We will never know, but if so that is wrong also.
  2. http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/12/he-flew-a-drone-to-take-photos-for-a-friend-now-hes-facing-55k-in-government-fines/ It's pretty clear. FAA Only looks at the chance of getting paid. There is ACTUALLY no way of knowing if a person got paid or not. everyone will say they didn't get paid in the long run.
  3. My kid said the same thing! Came across this. http://lakeberryessanews.com That seems to be the source of the Video. Still confused on the Copyrighted music on a news site. Maybe they have their ASCAP fees payed up. Who knows. All things set aside. That dam is a power plant. I would stay away.
  4. Wow, I go to work for a few days and POW all heck broke loose. Thank you all for your responses. Just to clarify, I asked the question for a few reasons. First, after checking Skyvector i didn't see any reason a person couldn't fly there. After checking for a state law, I didn't see any reason that a person couldn't fly there. I was checking because I didn't know if there was some magical powers with the PART 107 that would allow us to fly in an area we shouldn't be. I don't think there is since the P107 is considerably more restrictive than a recreational flyer at this point. More importantly this is how you learn about stuff. @Uaviator53's break down of Arizona UAV law for example is what I am talking about. I came across this exact layout (below this paragraph) in my research. But after reading it would not have devised that is small reservoir dam would fall under this category. I would've come to the conclusion that this would apply to the Hoover dam or something along those lines. A small reservoir dam I would not figure as a "Critical Facility" but according to the explanation "(d) A water or wastewater treatment facility and water development, distribution or conveyance system, including a dam." It is clearly off limits if this dam was in Arizona but since it is in California that is a different ball of wax all together. Arizona SB 1449 - (enacted May 11, 2016) Prohibits certain operations of UAS, including operation in violation of FAA regulations and operation that interferes with first responders. The law prohibits operating near, or using UAS to take images of, a critical facility. While it is Youtube click bait it was picked up by several news agencies, that is how I came across it. I felt all along that this guy is just trying to keep people off his "Turf" but posting the disclaimer but I wanted to check. Keep it real gentlemen, and thanks for the info.
  5. I looked but I didn't find one for California. I am right though, there is not a FAA Rule, right?
  6. @Uaviator53 Sweet setup and Bight as hell. That looks great. Thank you for sharing. I am not sure why we are not using UAVs for more law enforcement, Search and rescue with infrared stuff like that. Lighting an accident scene is a great Idea and so much cheaper than a helicopter. Keep fighting the good fight.
  7. By now we have all seen this video of the Morning Glory Spillway in California. While the Video is stunning something caught my eye on the video. The pilot put a disclaimer that reads "Do not operate drones within 400' of infrastructure. This Video filmed by professional media UAV pilot" I am unaware of any regulation that does not allow me to operate within 400' of a dam. It looks to me that this dam is in G airspace and since it just started flowing on Saturday if it was in restricted space there would not be anytime to get a waiver. So my questions are... Is this pilot just blowing smoke about this regulation or does something really exist and if so how does having a P107 exclude you from abiding such a regulation that would have been clearly made for the safety of the dam?
  8. @Steve Bennett Thanks steve! Sorry, I didn't see yours!
  9. What are you flying and what lighting system are you using?
  10. Excellent @timmy67. Great Job!
  11. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39051971 This is interesting but I fail to see the need. Why launch from the truck? By the time you load, launch, retrieve and reload you could have drove there. plus who wants their package placed in the center of your driveway.
  12. One question no one has asked is HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE for the project. How much time? Regardless unless you are talking a military grade drone I don't think you are doing this with a commercial UAV quickly. Manned Aircraft seems to be the way to go. 400sq KM is, as you know, a huge amount of area to cover with a UAV. Even If you don't have the VLS rules we have in the USA in India you are still talking safely about .5 mile to 1 mile ONLY IF THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTIONS as most UAVs are VLS with the transmitter. Buildings, trees, ETC... will get in the way. Plus, with a Phantom 4 you are only talking 18 or 19 minutes before the Low Batt alarm starts going off.
  13. I am hoping for more enforcement. Justify all of us spending the time and money to do it right. Have a great move!
  14. I did mine in a High School Auditorium. Good Luck.