Drone morality

Speaking of drones.... I flick on ESPN2 at this moment and there is something on called DRL, Drone Racing League. I never knew this existed. They are flying them in a stadium at high speeds through goal posts & tunnels, amazing control but some lose control and crash.

As former Mean Streak construction progresses further it would be neat to have one of these, under direction of CP of course, fly the whole course. It could fly right through the structure as the track winds around.

It would be both legal and moral.

Incidentlally, I field 2 to 3 calls per day from licensed drone operators seeking to operate within the airspace. For every responsible drone operator I am guessing there are quite a few who just fly them skirting the proper requirements, perhaps purposely or out of ignorance.

Lash said:

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 did in fact discuss the voluntary guidelines when I originally commented about this subject back in late September or early October. It is in the since-closed 200-page RMC MS thread.

I didn't bring it up again because a) I really didn't intend to get deep back into the drone discussion again here, b) It is non-binding and says so within, and c) I'm not convinced it is applicable even in principle alone to the drone flight in question.

I would say that nobody has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for most anything out in the open and in plain view from a public highway. If you look at how the courts have defined "reasonable expectation of privacy" (not in the context of drones but in the context of other things, such as Paparazzi and such) you might be surprised at how many things are considered fair game in this country.

It'd be a different story if he'd shot video through your hotel window and watched you romping your partner.

I also don't believe that there was any "sensitive data" released by filming MS from the air at this point in time. Six Flags isn't going to see that video and determine the specs such that they can rush to open a taller coaster before RMC MS to claim the publicity for holding whatever records.

The drone pilot also did not fly over the congested areas of the park where large groups of people were present. He flew over the vicinity of MS which is closed and if anything has a very small number of construction workers present - a number of people who could be easily avoided as far as flying directly above.

As far as safety goes, I have not mentioned safety because this discussion has seemed to be focused on the legality and morality of drone flight over CP when CP has a policy in place "prohibiting" such flight, even though the airspace above CP is a "Public Highway" per the US Congress and US Supreme Court.

Any mentions of safety that I have seen have been ancillary in nature.

I could certainly delve into a discussion about aviation safety, but to me that is a different topic and it might be a stretch to start discussing too many aviation topics in an amusement park forum.

I will simply say this, as a long-time licensed pilot and aircraft owner (with a perfect safety record and zero FAA actions against me), safety is of paramount concern.

For the most part, I believe the general public has a great degree of phobia about air safety, and these irrational fears are rooted in ignorance.

It is not easy to get a private pilot license. It is one of the most challenging things I've done. The FAA written test requires so much knowledge, and the practical exam (flight test) requires you to demonstrate a number of challenging maneuvers to very precise tolerances and you fail if you can't do them all near-perfectly. And, the flight test is NOT given by the instructor who you've built rapport with and who might be inclined to be lenient. Rather, it is given by an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner who got his/her job only by invitation from the FAA, and who usually has a ton of airline and or military piloting experience.

And, pilots must have continuing education and demonstrate proficiency flying an aircraft every two years.

Aircraft certification is quite stringent too.

My point is, when the uninformed general public sees a small aircraft overhead, they often tend to have a lot of concerns that are baseless.

When I see a pilot flying overhead, my assumption (unless I specifically see evidence to the contrary) is that they are quite qualified, capable, and safe, because unlike automobile drivers, that is almost always the case with pilots.

Admittedly, drone flight is different to the comparitively low barrier to entry as far as skill and certification.

Perhaps the margin of safety is less than manned aircraft. But perhaps the increased risk is not that great. Non-certified manned aircraft such as LSAs and Experimentals have a very good safety record. Ultralight aircraft, which require no pilot license or training whatsoever to legally fly, don't tend to fall from the sky into people's houses or into amusement parks, for example. Point being, lack of airframe certification does not necessarily mean unsafe. But I think there is a public knee-jerk fear without rational basis when someone says the word "drone."

I did not see anything in the drone flight in question that looked reckless, inherently dangerous any more so than any other normal daily activity like getting in your car etc., or that seemed to indicate the remote pilot was unskilled.

When you drive your car, you are engaging in an activity that poses risk to people around you. But we don't think people are dicks for driving their cars and we don't legislate away these things because there is an element of risk. It just depends on how remote the risk is. I would argue that the risk of having significant property damage or injury from someone flying a drone in a size category like the one in question (sUAS) is extremely remote. You are much more likely to be hit by a car on CP's property, but we don't regulate away the right to drive. You could be injured on one of Cedar Point's rides, but we don't pass laws preventing the operation of amusement rides (Ed Markey be damned).

I don't think there is anything substantially unsafe in a skilled remote pilot operating a well-maintained drone above Cedar Point in good weather, when uncovered people aren't directly below the unmanned aircraft, when a safe altitude and distance is maintained above and from structures and gatherings of people and so forth.

Now, if someone had not reasonably ensured that their drone was in good mechanical shape, was not an experienced and competent drone pilot, had flown in bad weather, had flown too close to a structure to be reasonably safe, had hovered outside the window of a board room meeting and photographed the park's 5-year plan or the exact specs of RMC MS prior to release, et. cetera et. cetera, then I would be against it.

Me personally, I wouldn't fly a drone over CP when it is open and populated. And I might well avoid it altogether just to avoid the potential ****storm, even if I would prevail legally in the end.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with someone doing so in a safe and responsible manner as long as the place from which they are remote piloting is not on CP's land.

If someone flies recklessly or dangerously above CP or anywhere else, I'll be the first to call them a dick.

Now, if CP tried to tell me I couldn't fly my manned aircraft above their land at a safe altitude an in accordance with all FAA regulations, I would immediately challenge that breach upon my rights by overflying CP extensively with my tail number in plain view.

I wouldn't do that with a drone because I don't give the southern end of a northbound rat about drones.

But for someone who does, the principle is the same.

Seriously........

But I don't think there is anything wrong with someone doing so in a safe and responsible manner as long as the place from which they are remote piloting is not on CP's land.

In essence, I believe that's all that's really being asked.

Also.....

But we don't think people are dicks for driving their cars and we don't legislate away these things because there is an element of risk.

You must have an easy ride into work. ;)
I see at least 10 people a day I wish would have their cars legislated away. :P

CP: Please don't fly drones over our property.

Pilot: Nana na nana you can't stop me!

^ The mechanism by which your own pathologies and psyche filter, color, and distort your perceptions is nothing short of fascinating.

That seems like an awfully personal reply to vague and indirect hyperbole.

Or is intentional exaggeration outside the realm of reasonable discussion now?

CP Maverick, when you said:

"Pilot: Nana na nana you can't stop me!"

I interpreted that as a response to my post just a couple of spots above, given that I am the only person I am aware of here who identifies as a pilot.

If you weren't referring to me or my posts, then kindly disregard and I apologize if you took it as an attack.

My reply was not meant to be in insult, but rather to be taken literally at face value as my genuine reaction to how people have taken some of my posts.

For example, in response to me opining that the pilot who shot the drone video in question was not being a "dick" or being "douchey", another member called me a "bad neighbor" on more than one occasion. Incidentally, I was elected Vice President one year and President the next 2 years of my homeowner's association. That doesn't happen by being a bad neighbor.

I believe that my input to the discussion on the drone legality subject has been nuanced, thoughtful and fact-based, and I haven't resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with me "dicks", "douches", "bad neighbors", or "someone who thinks they're so special." And when I have returned serve so to speak, I have done so by simply applying someone's own logic and labels to an alternate but analogous scenario to illustrate the flaws in that logic.

I think "Nana na nana you can't stop me!" is so far from the tone and content of my posts including the lengthy one I had just written, that I am quite amazed that anyone could read what I wrote and come away with that interpretation of it.

Likewise, some of the perceptions of my posts have been so far removed from what actually goes through my mind that I am genuinely quite surprised.

There is a lot of psychology around how our own predispositions color and distort our perceptions. We all do it to some degree or another, but many folks have no self-awareness of it. I do indeed find it fascinating.

People's perceptions are a function of themselves and are often revealing in ways they don't realize.

Proud HOA president.... that explains a lot.

The topic isn't about legality.

<snip> Well, I had written a long and eloquent digest referencing the balance between liberty and security and how it ties into drones and HOAs and everything. I even quoted Capt. Picard. But what I realized after reading it over before pressing "Submit Reply", was that it was not really particularly relevant.

So, I leave you with the last sentence:

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a terrific short story about equality. It is called Harrison Bergeron and I suggest you give it a read.

^Nice, Nice, Very Nice,
So many people in the same device...

I think I'm in love with a pilot.

^ Please send photo ;-)

Oh my...

The HOA thing does explain alot...This is the person that helps enforce the stupid bylaws / etc that come with HOAs. Absolutely pathetic.

The only things more pathetic than stupid HOA bylaws are:

A. People who sign a mortgage in an HOA neighborhood who have never read the bylaws.

B. People who have read and agreed to HOA bylaws by signing a mortgage and then complain about said rules.

C. Realtors shocked when you actually read the HOA bylaws, talk to the board about your concerns with them, then rescind your offer based on said bylaws and interaction with the board.

I haven't read Bergeron since high school, but I for one would love to hear how Cedar Point's request to not fly drones above their park is related.

I mean part of the HOA issue too is the fee amount. I hate to say it but any fee is ridiculous. Common maintenance and upkeep is not my issue. If I wanted to take care of Common Maintenance, I'd have a commercial lease/mortgage, not a home mortgage..

The HOA deal also struck me a bit raw as the HOA in charge of the plot of land my grandparents built a house on had ridiculous rules. The best part was, the land the house + HOA was on was all my families land until recently. The plot my grandparents built on was never sold or acquired by the developer, but the HOA still applied and has stuck their noses in our property numerous times.

Grandpa has a better sense of humor than I did though. Not allowed to have pink flamingos in the front yard at all.

They never said anything about Orange spraypainted ones ;) haha. That went on for quite awhile.

I'm so glad I bought a home in an older neighborhood that doesn't have any HOA nonsense. :)