Filming passing trains?

[FalconOne]

Not sure but I don’t believe rail road rights of way are afforded any more airspace restrictions that that of private property owners. Rail road companies outside of Amtrak are not government owned.

this is what most Rail Services will go by:

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drone) Policy
Unmanned aircraft systems (or "drones") flown for commercial or recreational purposes must adhere to the following:

• Union Pacific operates in a safety-sensitive environment. Never operate a drone in a manner that could distract or otherwise endanger yourself, Union Pacific employees, equipment or the public.
• All drone pilots must operate in compliance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and safety guidelines. Flying a drone in a reckless manner is a violation of federal law and FAA regulations and could result in civil fines or criminal action.
• Drones may not take off from, land on or fly over Union Pacific property unless the pilot is authorized to do so in writing by a specific agreement with Union Pacific.

For aerial photography/video requests, please contact Tom Lange, AVP-Corp. Comm., at [email protected].

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Definitely not looking to land on, or fly directly over. I'm looking at 3/4 isometric views, or about eye level from the side, about a 45 degree angle to the oncoming train. About what you'd see sitting at the tracks waiting to cross and looking out the window. Between the drafts trains create and the magnetic field they generate, I'm certainly not interested in getting too close.

If the handgrip didn't require rechargeable AA batteries I can't find, I'd just carry that with me and wait till I get caught by a train and stick it out the window.

 

[PatR]

Define “reckless manner”. Even the FAA fails to do that. Launching from private property belonging to others without permission should be a no brainer. Don’t. Trespassing is prohibited, and if posted as all railroads do, makes it s prosecutable offense.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Define “reckless manner”.

The FAA shouldn't have to link to the dictionary.

marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences

(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.
"reckless driving"
synonyms: rash, careless, thoughtless, heedless, unheeding, hasty, overhasty, precipitate, precipitous, impetuous, impulsive, daredevil, devil-may-care;
irresponsible, foolhardy, audacious, overadventurous;
ill-advised, injudicious, madcap, imprudent, unwise, ill-considered;
informal kamikaze;
literary temerarious

If anyone needs more clarity than that, I suggest enrolling in the nearest elementary school.

 

[PatR]

Not being snarky, have you reviewed any of the myriad of FAA violation filings and NTSB findings where they use careless and reckless operation as a listed violation or causal factor? They can be extremely loose with their definition and use it as a “catch all” to amplify charges.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

I'm sure they do, but the burden of proof is still on them. They have to clearly define to the court how the accused was being reckless as defined by standard dictionaries available to the general public. Although they like to think they do not have to.

Remember the Winnebago lawsuit where the manual did not clearly state you couldn't set the cruise control and get up to make a sandwich? Winnebago had to rewrite the book to state that. Same thing here; when the FAA/NTSB loses a lawsuit for not being specific, they'll clarify.