RMC Streak Photo Update - May 7, 2017

Can this conversation either be moved to a "Drones and Airspace useless debate" thread or some one let me know when this thing is over. It's clear that there will never be a winner to this debate so why even have it. It's not even on topic.

TTD6262 said:

If you think you're morally right then be the bigger man, know when to stop responding, then they'll stop too.

I really really really hope that's true.

Chris

So as somebody mentioned yesterday, aka 5 pages back, It looks as if work has slowed down significantly. Haven't seen any new track layed in about 3 weeks now.

Perpetual Obsession said:

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.

What marketing campaign? They won't even admit that they are building a roller coaster. All the hype is created by coaster enthusiasts, people with long zoom lenses and drone pilots.

And no patience. ;)

If you think this discussion is bad, you haven't been around long enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a "passionate" discussion about the type of snooping-on-new-projects that some choose to engage in, especially in a thread titled "RMC Streak Photo Update". As Jeff notes, I am amazed at the lengths some will go to just to get a shot (or video) to gain momentary internet attention.

I am also amazed at people's emotional response to Cedar Point's lack of whatever. What more needs announced, exactly? No, we don't know exact stats or the name, but if you're here you know that Mean Streak is being converted by RMC, and you also have a pretty good idea of some the elements involved. You know the announcement will be soon, and it will be opening in 2018.

Just enjoy the ride; pun intended.

I'm just surprised they haven't extended the "They're Coming" to any signage or anything else that would generate more conversation. Our conversation is minimal compared to hanging a banner on the side of the structure that says "They're Wild and Unruly."

Pete said:
What marketing campaign? They won't even admit that they are building a roller coaster. All the hype is created by coaster enthusiasts, people with long zoom lenses and drone pilots.

In my opinion there has most definitely been a marketing campaign and a brilliant one at that. From Richard Michael Crosby at Last Rites, to the "Nothing to see here, move along." attitude, to Tony turning the camera in that go Cubs go video, to the recent The're Coming videos (explicit admission that they are building a coaster) It has been all about stoking the enthusiasts to take "unauthorized" photos and creating viral hype through them and select ambiguous states in media interviews.

I have to agree with both of you (above).

On one hand, I am a bit surprised that there isn't more "in the park" teasers. It is a bit odd that there is little acknowledgment of it. That said, the ride isn't exactly something people can pass by like Gatekeeper, Maverick, or Valravn...it's more or less hidden unless you drive around Perimeter Rd. or ride the train in that direction, so maybe that's the reason?

That said, I love what they have done. The "funeral" for Mean Streak was pretty unprecedented in terms of what a park has done to say goodbye to a ride, nit to mention the red-glowing grave that suggested the coaster having something "alive" buried with it. That was simply genius.

And there is something to be said of the little vague teasers as well. Anyone connected to Cedar Point via social media is aware and able to put the obvious pieces together.

Frankly, this is the most excited I have been about a new install in quite some time, and that excitement is not negated by the fact that, for the most part, we are aware of what is coming.

At this point, I'm thinking there may be another teaser of the announcement date, and that's probably about it. I'm sure Tony et. al have something fun in store for the actual announcement, and that's worth waiting for.

MaverickLaunch said:

Calling people a douche is a dick move.

So is calling people a dick a douche move ;)

Spending time on a coaster forum calling people douches, during working hours when you're being paid by a company to do actual work, is most definitely a dick move, not to mention immoral and unethical.

What else am I supposed to do while code compiles or queries are being run? .Net takes quite awhile to merge stuff through or pull a current build...soooo it's either this or Reddit lol

Anyways back to another ****post here. Here's everything in a nutshell. No one is saying anything done regarding drone flight is technically illegal in the FAAs eyes. However when all of us are in a way a representation of enthusiasts, and all of us like pretty sweet events that the parks literally don't even have to do, the best thing is for us to oblige them, and play along with their rules. If you decide to not play along, well the douche card gets played.

Or we can just call all drones over CP....

MaverickLaunch.......dude can go on some serious religious rants about others as we have seen in the past and then goes insulting people and just being a dick. Not only is it hypocritical, sadly that's the norm with these people. Just scroll past his rants, they are literally the old man yelling at cars to slow down passing his house.

Speaking of new track and work done, we noticed a very busy crane yesterday and later we saw what I believe is new track heading up to the MCBR. It looks hoppy and a little twisty.
(Like a good IPA)

But back on topic...
of course amusement parks have no-drone policies. And I believe what they're trying to prevent is customers coming into the park and flying their drones all over the place in a selfie attempt to record their best day ever. Get shots of each other high up on rides. Or cutting up while strolling down the midway. You know, just like my neighbors do whenever they have a party. It would be a nightmare full of all kinds of hazards to other guests, employees, and property.

The park issued strict warnings about photos of the happenings at MS while the park was closed for the season. If someone is on a boat and chooses to fly a drone around I imagine there's not much they can do about it save for shooting the thing down. I also imagine they don't care as much about it as some of us would like to think.
The crux of the ridiculous argument here seems to be "But the park says so, and we're so respectful that we should obey them." I know during my visit yesterday I broke a few rules and caused no one there any harm. I saw others that broke some rules too. Men without their shirts, photographers climbing on benches and rails, beer drinkers catching a smoke in a secluded area. Stuff like that. Oh well.

I for one have to admit I was tickled pink to see the footage and I'd like to thank the rogue pilot who captured those images. Sorry.

CP Maverick said:

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.

First, I sincerely applaud you for posting something based on actual research and documentation.

True, Part 107 states you cannot fly above an uncovered non--participant. But, if you flew your drone, say, 50 feet to the side of a person, then you are not above them.

As for the "trespassing" part of your post, this is someone's summarization of their interpretation of the law, and a) does not apply to aircraft operating at or above the FAA designated safe flight altitude (whether manned or remote-piloted); and b) is not referring to criminal trespass but rather the landowner's potential rights to financial compensation for such "trespass."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined the extent of a landowner's airspace rights and the fact that a PUBLIC HIGHWAY exists in the airspace above private land.

The case is United States vs. Causby.

United States v. Causby
328 U.S. 256 (1946)

U.S SUPREME COURT FINDINGS:

The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261.

The court overturned the prior concept that ownership of land includes the airspace above it all the way to the end of the atmosphere. It did so stating that it was obsolete in the modern world where aircraft exist.

The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261, 328 U. S. 266.

The airspace above the minimum safe altitude as defined by the FAA is a PUBLIC HIGHWAY, per legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1926. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law as valid.

The question then becomes "What is the minimum safe altitude per the FAA?"

The below regulations initially defined it as follows:

The minimum prescribed by the authority is 500 feet during the day and 1000 feet at night for air carriers (Civil Air Regulations, Pt. 61, §§ 61.7400, 61.7401, Code Fed.Reg.Cum.Supp., Tit. 14, ch. 1) and from 300 to 1000 feet for other aircraft. Id., Pt. 60, §§ 60.350-60.3505, Fed.Reg.Cum.Supp., supra. Page 328 U. S. 263

So, if I fly a drone at 300 feet or above, I am occupying a public highway, not private land. (Hence why CP needs permission from the FAA to build attractions such as TTD).

BUT, a legal argument could be made that a sUAS (drone) could be flown lower than 300 feet and still be within a "public highway."

The court did not specify the altitude at which the public highway begins, they stated that it begins wherever the FAA regulations say is minimum safe altitude. The court CITED existing law on the books at the time that sets that limit at 300 feet. BUT, any new FAA minimum safe altitude regulation would cause the altitude at which the public highway in the sky begins.

Part 107 does not specify a minimum safe altitude for drones, only a maximum of 400 feet.

Thus, the airspace is DEFINITELY a PUBLIC HIGHWAY at 300 feet and up, and MAY BE a public highway at any altitude below 400 feet that otherwise is within the limits of Part 107 (line of sight, not directly above unsheltered people, etc.). This has not yet been litigated in court nor codified in law.

It is neither illegal nor immoral to use a public highway.

The court DID find that there are certain airspace rights in private property ONCE YOU ARE BELOW 300 FEET- i.e. the right to erect buildings upon that land and plant trees and so forth.

They also stated that landowners are entitled to financial compensation if their land was effectively seized by the extent of the airspace incursion(s).

(d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Pp. 328 U. S. 261-262, 328 U. S. 264-267.

They went on to elaborate on what would constitute such a breach.

The example was an airport runway constructed immediately adjacent to private land such that bombers, military transports, and fighters constantly landing on the runway would fly 67 feet above the house.

Below is the threshold that the court found constituted "so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." such that the landowner would be entitled to compensation.

Drone flight does not remotely rise to this level.

"Since the United States began operations in May, 1942, its four-motored heavy bombers, other planes of the heavier type, and its fighter planes have frequently passed over respondents' land buildings in considerable numbers and rather close together. They come close enough at times to appear barely to miss the tops of the trees, and at times so close to the tops of the trees as to blow the old leaves off. The noise is startling. And, at night, the glare from the planes brightly lights up the place. As a result of the noise, respondents had to give up their chicken business. As many as six to ten of their chickens were killed in one day by flying into the walls from fright. The total chickens lost in that manner was about 150. Production also fell off. The result was the destruction of the use of the property as a commercial chicken farm. Respondents are frequently deprived of their sleep..." Page 328 U. S. 259

To summarize:

1) The airspace which is at or above the minimum safe altitude for flight as defined by the FAA is a public highway according to Congress and the U.S Supreme Court.

2) This public highway definitely includes airspace at or above 300 feet.

3) The public highway would extend lower if the FAA designated a minimum safe flight altitude below 300 feet.

4) It could be argued that Part 107 implicitly extends the minimum safe flight for drones down to the surface, but this has not been decided.

5) The rights of landowners to seek financial compensation for intrusion of aircraft into the airspace above their land DOES NOT EXIST above 300 feet.

6) Drone flight such as the one in the video does not rise to the level of the example cited by the court as being "so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land" EVEN WHEN BELOW 300 feet.

So, fly a drone above CP at between 300 feet and 400 feet in compliance with FAR Part 107 and local regulations and you are definitely operating on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY.

It is not immoral to legally use a public highway.

If one believes that someone is acting immorally by flying in a public highway against a private entity's wishes, then one must also believe that it would be immoral to drive your car down the interstate if some private person or business didn't want you to.

Otherwise, by definition, you're a hypocrite.

What IS immoral is a private business claiming the right to regulate or prevent the use of a public highway.

I'm sure this will come as a relief to some who aren't interested in this subject matter: I have no desire to discuss this further, however I may be inclined to reply to any factual inaccuracies as I've done herein or any post where I'm quoted.

Unless of course Jeff or Walt restrict further discussion on the topic. I DO respect the policies and private property rights of others when using their property ;-)

Hopefully we'll see some more construction updates or other RMC MS news and the thread will self-redirect to content we are all interested in seeing herein.

Soooooo, who's excited for RMC Mean Streak?

If you guys want to talk about drones, there's a thread for that

https://pointbuzz.com/Forums/Topic/drone-morality#578653

Thanks there, Thread Police.

As someone closer to GP than enthusiast on the spectrum, what makes an RMC I Box coaster different than a traditional tubular steel? Are there elements or other characteristics that can only be achieved with the flat track?

This should get you started:

https://www.rockymtnconstruction.com/ibox-track.php

Thanks, I have seen that and understand the limitations of wood but what I do not understand is the advantage over tubular steel.

I think it just comes down to their history and how they started by putting box beams on top of old wooden track sections. They have all the engineering and fabrication set up to work with those shapes. Beyond that, I don't think there's any actual advantage to the design.

The "Raptor" or "T-Rex" single beam tracks claim to reduce the amount of materials needed for a given project.