Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Requesting help from you experienced folks on some regulations

RPR

Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
650
One by one they fold....... Gifts & Trips....

 
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
4,048
Reaction score
1,842
Age
63
Location
Ocoee, Florida
Not every site has this policy here in Florida, if they do, it's not enforced, especially where track homes are being built.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
345
Age
61
Location
MidWest - Iowa
I was not commenting on job site security, etc. I was interested in how Lennar was imposing fines on people for trespassing. I wish we could do it.
Why can you guys not have an imposed policy? Every site as an asset management policy.
That's interesting... something driven by higher populated regions. Not sure smaller mid-west cities would extend that authority to Company Security services.

This is only as a result of drone landing / crashing on property correct? There isn't any trespassing if manages to successfully remain in the air and land outside property boundaries.
This isn't a temporary NFZ, so open skies.

Doesn't the company need to have a LEO agreement, granted by local governing body, basically granting Companie's security to issue fines within the construct of local laws. They aren't able to impose their own governing body and laws, and their Security officers are under the same scrutiny as LEO's in proper issuance & procedures.
 

RPR

Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
650
That's interesting... something driven by higher populated regions. Not sure smaller mid-west cities would extend that authority to Company Security services.

This is only as a result of drone landing / crashing on property correct? There isn't any trespassing if manages to successfully remain in the air and land outside property boundaries.
This isn't a temporary NFZ, so open skies.

Doesn't the company need to have a LEO agreement, granted by local governing body, basically granting Companie's security to issue fines within the construct of local laws. They aren't able to impose their own governing body and laws, and their Security officers are under the same scrutiny as LEO's in proper issuance & procedures.
No one is arguing. Within the compounds of the site you are not to trespass. The skies are open, don’t crash inside the pits. Security officers can detain until LEO gets to the scene. The policy is common sense.

Mortenson Las Vegas Raiders stadium build. You cannot fly within two block radius, not over the pit if you do not have permission and they do not have regular security, but the Las Vegas PD. And yes Mortenson/Mc Carthy owns the sky and land on their Las Vegas Raiders Stadium build.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
4,048
Reaction score
1,842
Age
63
Location
Ocoee, Florida
Interesting, how did they obtain the rights of owning the sky? Ohhhhh,💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💸💸💸💸💸💸
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
345
Age
61
Location
MidWest - Iowa
No one is arguing. Within the compounds of the site you are not to trespass. The skies are open, don’t crash inside the pits. Security officers can detain until LEO gets to the scene. The policy is common sense.

Mortenson Las Vegas Raiders stadium build. You cannot fly within two block radius, not over the pit if you do not have permission and they do not have regular security, but the Las Vegas PD. And yes Mortenson/Mc Carthy owns the sky and land on their Las Vegas Raiders Stadium build.
Lol... and that's another reason I like my quite little mid-west region.

Been in Vegas once in 60 plus years... dragged there by Wife and company Conference.

I take it City has been given NFZ and via local airports?

It does present better opportunities, I'll agree there.
 

RPR

Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
650
I take it City has been given NFZ and via local airports?
NFZ imposed in the strip. It was a headache, when I got there.. I had to physically go to the McCarran Int. Airport to get another extra waiver signed.
 

RPR

Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
650
Interesting, how did they obtain the rights of owning the sky? Ohhhhh,
Yo! It’s nuts!

I heard stories on the operators that worked on the Sales Force building in SF. They had a no drone zone, because other drones from wanna be operators was getting the action and it made hard for the real operators to conduct their mission.

And SFPD was proactive in implementing this.
There’s an app that gives part 107 operators jobs, but its shady, there’s a lot of weekend flyers here in San Francisco and some all retired early. Like the one who crash and almost hitting a woman and her child. And the even was captured in the local news.
 

PatR

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
9,843
Reaction score
5,209
Location
N. California
Doug,

The area would have to have been issued a TFR as the FAA does not create NFZ’s. If the property just had a NOTAM without reference to a TFR flight in that airspace would be legal.

Landing, taking off, or physically encroaching private property will cause legal violations, but those have to be imposed by an officer of the court/law. A private citizen, which includes most security guards, can make a citizen’s arrest but that puts them in a lot of civil jeopardy. Should they choose to physically restrain someone until legal authorities arrived that jeopardy would increase exponentially.

Bottom line, the FAA still owns the air, not private businesses or homeowners any higher than they can reasonably use. Good manners would have people respecting the airspace over private property but often that’s not the way it is. Here in CA there’s nothing I’ve found in published law that prohibits photographing private property that is devoid of people. If people are present on that property a prohibition against photographing them and their activities goes into play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dougcjohn and RPR

RPR

Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
650
What Pat says.. and absolutely no private planes and helicopters, except for the Raiders media, PD Heli, and I guess the owners can fly through and over the Mortenson/Mc Carthy build in Las Vegas. They also have not allowed the goggle helicopters to map the area. This site is really strict. My first time to see so much security, and restrictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dougcjohn
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
345
Age
61
Location
MidWest - Iowa
Doug,

The area would have to have been issued a TFR as the FAA does not create NFZ’s. If the property just had a NOTAM without reference to a TFR flight in that airspace would be legal.

Landing, taking off, or physically encroaching private property will cause legal violations, but those have to be imposed by an officer of the court/law. A private citizen, which includes most security guards, can make a citizen’s arrest but that puts them in a lot of civil jeopardy. Should they choose to physically restrain someone until legal authorities arrived that jeopardy would increase exponentially.

Bottom line, the FAA still owns the air, not private businesses or homeowners any higher than they can reasonably use. Good manners would have people respecting the airspace over private property but often that’s not the way it is. Here in CA there’s nothing I’ve found in published law that prohibits photographing private property that is devoid of people. If people are present on that property a prohibition against photographing them and their activities goes into play.
Misspoke in hast between errand stops... yes, meant TFR... I often refer to it as a Temp NFZ. You are correct and understandable a stadium would have a TFR.

No question on whom owns the air... think that was other post in thread.

Totally agree on security service & risk of legal action. I was wondering if some agreement was established when inquired on authority and governing body and would be under same scrutiny as LEO. Restraining can be allowed in some instances, a psuedo Deputy status for Security Sevice if criteria meet... which is not often. I too questioned the restraining, a good defense would have a good time with forced restraining by security service... but didn't know the circumstances for this City Governance and allowances... of all cities, this could be one that exercised additional latitude.

I don't think private property and aerial trespassing has been technically challenged, thus private property photography I would assume included. Very Interesting, Didn't know CA had a prohibition over populated property... is that due to celebrities? Has that been challenged... filming vs fly over say for 3D terrain modeling. That could broach into airspace rights is what I was pondering. Agree, being polite would prevent any issues... and airspace in my area is considered 20-30 feet above your highest structure's roof line.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
30
Reaction score
8
Age
60
In the land of Oz the iniitially real estate photography was considered a commercial activity. The federal regulator (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the real estate industry lobbiest's) decided that real estate photographers did not need to be licenced to use drones for commercial real estate photography. Not a good result.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
4,048
Reaction score
1,842
Age
63
Location
Ocoee, Florida
In the land of Oz the iniitially real estate photography was considered a commercial activity. The federal regulator (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the real estate industry lobbiest's) decided that real estate photographers did not need to be licenced to use drones for commercial real estate photography. Not a good result.
You're kidding, right?
 

PatR

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
9,843
Reaction score
5,209
Location
N. California
Phaedrus accurately covered the law, one that has been used against land lubber paparazzi. I don’t know that has yet been used against an aerial operator but it’s certainly applicable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phaedrus

Phaedrus

Premium Pilot
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
904
Age
63
Can't recall either. But this is likely what they would use in this state. The bottom line is don't be "that guy". I tend to use the approach of asking myself if I looked up and saw my drone how P!$$&d off would I be?
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
345
Age
61
Location
MidWest - Iowa
This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.

That’s what I assumed, paparazzi & celebrities motivated.
From the law reference link, Sec a & b focus on key wording “in order to capture...” and “attempts to capture” person(s) on property, an action paparazzi would perform. Both these would require “subject” to be main or primary attention within video or photos to not be an easy argument. If this was an ocean beach property and someone flying a drone up beach to capture scenery, ocean, landscape and flew over occupied property. Or if residential area and flying a wide angle shot of neighboring home for realty; neither would fall under the above section.

The challenge directed to include aerial is the additional verbiage in sec b “regardless of whether there is a physical trespass...” suggests telephoto lens from a distance. High perch, helicopter, drone, etc.

The argument to prove is knowingly enters, and for purpose to capture human subjects on property. The LEO depending on area might over react in celebrity neighborhoods and more relaxed in common neighborhoods. Both could be a legal challenge to prove intent vs unintentional capture.

Being CA, I’d assume there’s Attorneys specializing in Paparazzi offensives.. like medical malpractice (aka ambulance chasers) specialist in most states.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
345
Age
61
Location
MidWest - Iowa
Can't recall either. But this is likely what they would use in this state. The bottom line is don't be "that guy". I tend to use the approach of asking myself if I looked up and saw my drone how P!$$&d off would I be?
That’s a great way to look at it too!
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
345
Age
61
Location
MidWest - Iowa
Phaedrus accurately covered the law, one that has been used against land lubber paparazzi. I don’t know that has yet been used against an aerial operator but it’s certainly applicable.
This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.

Have they fined or arrested drone pilots? You indicate used against drone operators? Was there an outcome or bench ruling? I do recall helicopters and people taking tail numbers on a few paparazzi cases... but don’t recall the outcome.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
16,644
Messages
194,036
Members
19,318
Latest member
Old Crows