RMC Streak Photo Update - May 7, 2017

And the ride operator at the entrance has to give out a pamphlet outlining FAA regulations regarding drones before you can ride. Also, they could have a shooting gallery with drone targets as extra points.

"Douchey Drone Pilot 1 looks too intense for me."

Can you imagine the on-ride photo and merchandise sales for DP.... I think there is great potential for DP videos and photos.

And locating it surrounded by the new DroneHawk is just cross marketing genius

See, this is why we need a dome. Can be open all year, and then can keep drones away by making the dome a one way mirror.

Seems like a bad idea but only because I'm currently reading Under the Dome by Stephen King.

XS NightClub said:

Line Jumping is not "illegal", counting cards is not "illegal".... yet somehow there are policies in effect, that are enforced and lead to the legal refusal of admission to private properties backed by enforcement of criminal prosecution.

Line jumping is something that occurs on the park's property. Therefore, the park has a right to write a policy prohibiting that action and enforce policy violations by removal from private property.

Same for casinos and counting cards.

However, drone flight in public airspace adjacent to (in this case, above) CP's private property IS NOT an action that takes place in private property. It is an action that takes place in PUBLIC PROPERTY (airspace) next to private property.

That is the difference.

So by all means continue to violate the private property policies by exercise your rights, and see what happens when private property owners exercise their rights.

Again, they are not "private property policies" as the airspace above Cedar Point is public, not private.

And as Kevin points out, its clear what is meant by "authorized" use in the CP policy.

No, a policy is what it says it is. It is not up to you or anyone else to modify the verbiage to give it a different potential interpretation. It says "unauthorized." It does not say "Unauthorized by Cedar Point."

Drone flight in compliance with FAR 107 is explicitly authorized by FAR 107. Assuming the pilot had proper qualifications and adhered to all of the provisions of FAR 107, he abided by the policy to the letter.

Now, if the pilot did not have the proper remote pilot certification, or if the pilot failed to adhere to the provisions of Part 107 (for example, did not maintain line of sight, flew in less than 3 miles visibility, flew directly above unsheltered persons, etc.) then the flight would be unauthorized and be in violation of CP's policy.

I don't doubt that CP's intention was likely different than what they wrote, but that is on them to write an unambiguous policy, and the policy says what the policy says.

As it stands, there is no evidence that the drone pilot violated CP's policy as written, and whether or not he did is legally irrelevant.

I would argue there is nothing immoral about what the drone pilot did either.

If CP wrote a policy asking local Sandusky residents to stay off of Route 6 during park operating hours so that their guests could arrive at the park with less traffic, obviously they would have no legal basis to enforce such a policy. And, would it be immoral for a local resident who wants to travel on Route 6 to ignore the park's wishes? Of course not.

Absolutely no difference for use of public airspace.

If they go with the Gerstlauer trains like with Iron Rattler, then this could be the figurehead for Drone Hawk:

DA20Pilot said:

I don't doubt that CP's intention was likely different than what they wrote, but that is on them to write an unambiguous policy, and the policy says what the policy says.

Again, it speaks to your character that you understand what the park's intent is with their policy, yet still see no moral issue in violating the understood policy.

You are the reason so many "golden rule" laws need to be on the books. Because some people just can't be counted on to be cool to others.

Yea well you're a redwings fan. You have no moral policy.,

djDaemon said:

Again, it speaks to your character that you understand what the park's intent is with their policy, yet still see no moral issue in violating the understood policy.

I most certainly see a moral issue with failing to adhere to a private entity's policy when on that private entity's property.

But there is no moral issue when failing to adhere to a private entity's policy when I am not on that entity's property, I have no contractual obligations to that entity, and I am not an employee of that entity, and when that entity has absolutely no moral basis whatsoever to dictate what I do when not upon that entity's private property.

I see a much bigger moral issue when a private entity attempts to exert control over public property and deprive authorized users of public property their rights to use said public property.

I would think such a moral crusader should have equivalent disdain for this immorality.

Do you adhere to all of Cedar Point's policies when you are not on Cedar Point's property?

If not, hypocrisy I say.

For example, Cedar Point has a policy that you are not allowed to bring food and beverage into the park except for bottled water.

But, do you adhere to this policy and refrain from bringing food and water with you when you are in a public park? Or in your car on a public road?

Of course not.

The point is, NOBODY has ANY moral or legal obligation to adhere to the policy of ANY private business or individual WHEN NOT UPON that entity's private property, not contractually bound to so do, and not an employee of that entity.

And the airspace above CP is not CP's private property any more than the City of Sandusky's boat launch is.

While under the jurisdiction of Cedar Point's policies (i.e. on CP's land) I would adhere to those policies.

I didn’t think it was possible for my head to hurt more than after a ride on MS. Then I read the last four pages of this thread...

Great comment Buckeye!

After this thread I'm going to walk off a cliff because I "legally" can.

I would say we need to have a drinking game for every time djDaemon is involved in an incredibly pointless, 100% opinion based argument where nobody will ever win and there is not an objective right or wrong, but I'd rather not kill us all with alcohol poisoning. For the love of God, if you have so many problems with so many people on here then take it to the very usefull PM's. I agree with you here and *still* just want you to stop clogging the thread. If you think you're morally right then be the bigger man, know when to stop responding, then they'll stop too.

I must ask why people are for flying a plane above the lake and bay to get aerial shots, but not a drone? Cedar Point doesn't own the lake or the bay.

The same question applies to a boat.

Now, this video is different, because the moment he starts flying the drone directly over the park, he is in violation, but until he crosses that line, I see no issue.

You mean like this?

No problem all. In fact, note in his comment he actually states:

"I skirted around the shore to get as close as possible while safely staying out of the park."

Well done, Pilot!

It's also worth noting that the user removed the video being discussed from Youtube. I wonder why? He/she certainly wasn't violating any park policies or anything.

While I admire the marketing campaign CP has put on for Mean Streak 2.0, I'm also getting very tired of it because I feel it has brought out the worst of the coaster enthusiast community. Reading the last few pages of this topic has only reinforced that feeling.

Time for me to take another break from PointBuzz until this train wreck of a discussion blows over.

Keep in mind that violating the policies set by the park could result in further policy changes that make it more unpleasant and inconvenient to those who have done nothing wrong. It just takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone. So nobody should be condoning breaking these policies set by the park. Doesn't matter if the pilot was on property or not, the drone was, even though it was in the airspace, it's still above their property in which they ask us not to fly drones. If you want the park to set more stricter policies that make it more difficult for everyone visiting the park, then go ahead and keep ignoring their requests.

Maybe I misunderstood these statements:

An entry into another’s airspace is a trespass even if the trespasser doesn’t touch the surface of the earth. Airplanes may trespass by flying low over a person’s property, for example. An airplane trespasses by flying low enough over the surface to interfere with the owner’s reasonable use and enjoyment of her surface.

And

You can’t fly a small UAS over anyone who is not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a covered stationary vehicle. No operations from a moving vehicle are allowed unless you are flying over a sparsely populated area.

All I can say, watching from afar, is how much a lot of people need more hobbies. I'm excited about the new ride, but this obsession over photos and how they're obtained is ridiculous.