Drone morality

Because everybody seems to be obsessed about it, and it's getting annoying, here's a thread for just that, so we can move that conversation from the MS thread

Not to disappoint you, but it's going to have to wait till business hours tomorrow, when most of the big debaters are on the company clock, to continue this discussion. Which should be a morality debate all it's own.

I'm self employed, so JUST THIS ONCE I have some moral high ground to stand upon. #sarcasm

Nice to be able to quickly switch between desktop screens so that I can quickly switch from Pointbuzz to my open spreadsheet.

Pete, I wasn't referring to you. You have your opinions and don't try to cram them down people's throats ad nauseum. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy that is so evident, and yet goes unresponded to every single time.

We've actually met at bubbles a couple times in the hot tub. You seemed like a very nice guy.

Hey thanks, I try to be!😀

We have a few posters on here that simply post for the sake of 'always being right' and pick apart quotes, again, for the sole sake of 'being right.' Confession: When I see a post filled with multiple quotes with a reply written to address it... I skip it. So congrats on wasting your time.

I've stopped participating in these types of discussion because in the end, it accomplishes nothing and is a huge waste of time. Whether its politics, your favorite cookie, roller coasters or flying drones.

I see longtime posters who rarely post anymore because I'm sure they feel the same way. There could be far more interesting discussions here but stifled because of these online pissing matches.

While I applaud you for starting this thread, it won't accomplish anything.

~Rob

I was personally tempted to do the same thing, though, I figured on having more luck if we moved the people wanting to talk about Mean Streak over here.

There is no morality here. I simply chalk this one up to, "Don't make a rule/law that cannot be enforced." We are having this discussion in the Parks and Recreation world. Should we, or should we not, allow drones in the parks? They could be a safety concern with either distracted athletes or even drone interference in a sporting event. That said, when a drone can be flown over our park several miles away...how would I stop it? Shooting it out of the air isn't really practical.

All I can really do is limit people from taking off and landing in the parks and even that would be hard to patrol.

I don't know about that. Sure, some policies cannot be enforced to 100% effectiveness, but the mere existence of the policy deters most people, I would think.

Consider CP's smoking policy. Can the park realistically, among their thousands of daily guests, prevent all smokers from smoking outside the smoking areas? Of course not. There will always be some self-entitled jackass that lights up on the midway or in line, knowing full well they aren't supposed to be. But the policy does deter considerate people from lighting up outside smoking areas.

The drone policy seems similar. Sure, there will always be some "special" person who thinks they're above the policy, or whatever. But decent, considerate people (read: adults) will abide by the policy because it's the right thing to do.

djDaemon said:
Sure, there will always be some "special" PILOT who thinks they're above the policy,

You may have overlooked the respect due to these federally licensed professionals.

djDaemon said:

Sure, there will always be some "special" person who thinks they're above the policy, or whatever.

If they are even aware of the policy, which as far as I know is at the bottom of the FAQ page on the website and nowhere else. Someone who went through the proper training that is required and follows the actual law may think they are in the clear, as pointed out many times by others in this thread. If a licensed pilot does everything the FAA requires them to do, why would they think there could be more to it than what they were taught by the FAA? If the FAA tells me I can legally fly in that location, why on earth would I think that Cedar Point might make up a policy that trumps the FAA?

Because it's private property? Do you feel justified flying a drone over your neighbors house?

the simple fact of this matter is that the 'licensing' hasn't caught up with technology yet, which is often the case with govenrment. These license were created with more of a hobbyistr r/c airplane in mind then available drone tech now.

There's ambiguous ill-defined terminology in the rules and regulations, as well as conflicting regulations at state/local levels. This will most likely not be truly straightened out legally until there's a major lawsuit or legal challenge (possibly something like a suit from one of these colliding with a person on the front seat of a train at 400' in the air). Even the 'licensing' is more of a Cracker Jack box prize than a real pilot's license, to call it a pilot license is pure hyperbole.

CP Maverick said:

Because it's private property? Do you feel justified flying a drone over your neighbors house?

We've already covered that its not though. Again, if all your training tells you that its ok and legal to do so, why would you question that it is not?

This was just in the Sandusky Register.

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/story/201706180021

As stated in the other thread:

The U.S Congress passed legislation that defines airspace above private property as a "Public Highway."

And the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that airspace above private property is a "Public Highway" in United States vs Causby.

It is no more immoral for a duly licensed vehicle operator to operate a properly registered vehicle in the public highway that exists above Cedar Point than it is to operate a vehicle on the public highways around Sandusky.

As a private entity, Cedar Point has no more business regulating the use of public highways than I do.

I, as a private entity just like Cedar Point, have now officially written a "Policy" and have hereby published it:

"It is against my policy for any PointBuzz member to operate a vehicle on highways 2, 6, and 250."

So, henceforth Brandon would be violating my policy if he drives on those roads, even though I asked him not to.

Brandon has labelled persons who violate a private entity's policy about utilization of public highways various undesirable things. So by his logic, he must also fall into all of those negative categories he outlined if he drives his vehicle on these roads in violation of my policy.

My policy is, obviously utterly ridiculous because who the hell am I to tell anyone here with a registered vehicle and a license to operate it that they can't utilize the public highways nearby.

CP's drone policy is exactly the same concept.

So, what you're telling me is that I can drive my car above Cedar Point?;)

Joking aside, my view is purely from a safety standpoint. I could care less how "trained" a drone pilot is or what kind of "certification" that person has. Because you just never know what could happen. Sure, that same logic can be said of many other kinds of things in life and, perhaps, it's not in anyone's best interest to become paranoid about them. But I feel like drones are one thing that can be more realistically regulated. In Cedar Point's case, I don't think it's asking much to not allow drones to be flown over the park. Stick to the perimeter of the peninsula where a potential malfunction only results in a sunken $600 toy.

Now, I've been in the park when drones were being used (for video shoots). Of course, there was nothing to worry about since the pilots were clearly skilled enough to operate them. They never went far from the area of the shoot and there was no real worry of danger to other guests since the park was closed during those shoots. What I worry about is the moment someone decides to fly a drone into or close enough to the park on a busy day but experiences a malfunction of some kind. Resulting in the drone, potentially, crashing into a guest. Is it really a douche move to be, somewhat, concerned about such an instance? You can vouch all you want about how skilled or safe a "certified" drone pilot is but the truth is that there will always be that person who wants to do something that's technically legal but perhaps not the safest idea.

Rippin said:
This was just in the Sandusky Register.

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/story/201706180021

It will be interesting to follow this to see what Cedar Fairs input is, I'm sure corporate counsel could lend some very good guidance to the city on the legality of regulations and oversight.

99er said:

CP Maverick said:

Because it's private property? Do you feel justified flying a drone over your neighbors house?

We've already covered that its not though. Again, if all your training tells you that its ok and legal to do so, why would you question that it is not?

Because drones are almost entirely used for photography. I'm not going to be okay with someone flying over and possibly photographing my property without my permission. I'm not talking about the use of space. I'm talking about invasion of privacy and the moral questions brought up by the "legal" definitions of where you are permitted to fly drones. It's disrespectful to the property owners. I can't stop someone from parking on the street in front of my house, but it's courteous to let me know that you are using the space adjacent to my property.

This topic is about morality, not legality. It's legal to be an absolute d-bag, but it's not socially acceptable.

It seems to me the entire "because it's legal" argument is a broken record. I read FAR 107. The rules only apply to licensed operators. Its's clear that only rules benefiting the legality are mentioned. At no point was the voluntary best practices developed by the FAA in conjunction with the AMA ever cited in the argument. They can be found here HERE.

The entire argument is based on the assumption the pilot of this drone is licensed and not operating on private property. We have no way of proving yes or no.

The other issue is for someone with pilot in their username not address safety issues. Safety should be paramount for the pilot of any conveyance.

Whether this person is a licensed drone operator or not, they failed at being respectful according to the voluntary guidelines of the FAA and the AMA.

• If you think someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, don’t violate that privacy by taking pictures, video, or otherwise gathering sensitive data, unless you’ve got a very good reason.

I don't think flying over an open amusement park is very good reason.