• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by teamplayer

  1. I've little to say about the subject, continued.


    A nod to UAV Coach, for all they do, noting online debates are my least favorite endevour here.


    Responding to Chuck, Yes I did know their spending power on classified issues.  
    Careful 🙂 when you say the 70's want their satellites back.  They fall out of orbit regularly, and any old backyard can be the hapless destination.  


    Responding to the question and discussion as posed:

    The question itself is an oxymoron on two points.

    1.  Similar to the argument that guns don't kill people,  drones don't collect sensitive information, spies do. 

         There is nothing to prevent a spy from using a drone regardless of where it was manufactured.  


    2.  As I have stated, The Peoples Republic of China has enough spy capability, they don't need DJI.  

         The most critical mistake a spy can make is to underestimate the adversary.  


    In this instance, the CounterIntelligence agencies, and America has several; are remiss in their duty to demonstrate competence.

  2. From experience;  here is the hazard that you must avoid.  


    What you do after the winetasting matters.  If you operate anything, be it a drone, or a car, or an electric toothbrush -  if you are involved in an accident, even though it

    is not your fault, accident investigators will determine what you did prior to the accident.  This could make you liable. 


    So, do whatever you want beforehand, but legally intoxicated or not, your are still liable afterwards.

  3. There are several facets to this issue.  Starting with an understanding of the term "Public Commons".  Both a city park, and the airspace above it are: Public Commons.  Spaces designated for public use.  While both are designated for public use, they have different governing bodies.  And very different reasons for the way they are governed.


    1.  The map enclosed is the FAA drone map.   This can be viewed at

    As you can see from the attached map, the airspace you mentioned is available for up to 200 feet AGL.  Your complaint is the ground level approach.  You want to use LAND to launch your UAV that is not governed by the FAA.  So the flight would be legal, but the launch would not be...  May want to talk to a neighbor who would understand your predicament.


    My input is this.  This map also shows significant land away from congested areas to practice your craft.  Be professional, and understand why governing bodies make the rules they do...


    I would expect to see more restriction of urban drone usage, in particular - for security reasons.

    I caught this online recently and expect that we will see an predictable upheaval in the industry at some point.

    This is a Washington Post Article on the Kalashnikov Exploding drone.  -Note-  I do not support this mindset.


    • Like 1

  4. I did not include the notam itself. Obviously, I did not write it!  :D

    Title 49  governs regulations concerning Transportation, in any form. 

    The Airspace is under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government.  It doesn't matter if your standing in Antarctica, if it takes place in the U.S., it falls under U.S. jurisdiction.  Federalism, in all it's wonderful nuances, gives the superior authority to the Federal Government.  So, while Barney Fife may arrest you, the case still falls under Federal Regulation.  Still with me?  

  5. Notice was given on December 20th, 2018 of all classes (including G) of airspace given over from the FAA to National Security Interests.    

    What does this mean for the UAV pilot? 

    Local jurisdictions, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice may, at their discretion, direct local officials to enforce laws.

    Read and dissect the Notam.  Much of what UAV pilots do under Title 48 will now fall under Title 49.

  6. I am not disputing what AV8Chuck said, however;  a non-profit will not garner enough attention to create a stir in regards to your footage.  The adverse impact on any challenge to non-profits is enough to dissuade most government entities from prosecuting.  

    More to the point, use the earnings to go get your FAA 107.  Money well spent. 

    Lastly, they can use the footage now, and compensate you later.  You should trust them, they trusted an unlicensed pilot.  ;)