Camera reset

[The Editor]

I am not saying it is right or wrong but when you have held PFAW for awhile you just get used to in depth mission planning and researching fully ALL aspects of a potential flying site including local bylaws.
Additionally, there is usually one (or more) NT representatives present to make sure things are done in accordance with their permissions.
It can be handy when you have to nip off for a wee though....they guard your Peli cases for you!

 

[Drumsagard]

Thanks guys, good to know this sort of stuff

 

[GreyArea]

"It did help that the filming was then agreed to be used by them for a secondary purpose." - sorry don't know how to do the clever "quote" thing...

Excuse my cynicism...but if it suits their aims, then bugger the safety of the animals...

I read their byelaws page specifically the one that mentions the Norfolk coast. I notice they paid particular concern to activites which "potentially could contravene National Trust rules on photography and filming"; which I'm afraid my cynical old eyes can only perceive as "depriving them of revenue".

Landowners preventing the poor from hunting the stag that they "own", or charging rents to grow crops on "their" lands, then taking a tithe of the food grown as well. How many years have passed and what a small distance we have travelled. The rich (landed) stay rich by the process of keeping the poor (unlanded) in their state of poverty.

Yes, a political statement and on the face of it nothing to do with drones...except all poverty really represents is a lack of freedoms. If you have nothing, you have no choices. If you have the land, you make the rules, in conjunction with others who own land.

The peasants aren't invited when the squire makes the rules.

However...since I am a peasant, consider me duly chastised...that's the other thing about rich landowners...they can afford better lawyers than I can.

 

[GreyArea]

By the way...I do regard the PFAW as another tax...you pay money and you're allowed to do things...making you subservient to those people who permit you to do them (to use my earlier analogy, it defnitely seems to turn poachers into gamekeepers).

I'll exclude you in advance in this Editor since you've been polite and informative at all times, but in my mind it will always stand for "Permit for Arrogant Whining"...

 

[andrew259]

Good grief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GreyArea]

Yeah, y'know if I had my time over again I'd delete this entire thread.

 

[GreyArea]

I am not saying it is right or wrong but when you have held PFAW for awhile you just get used to in depth mission planning and researching fully ALL aspects of a potential flying site including local bylaws.

And you forget, perhaps, the fun you used to have from just turning up somewhere, and flying. :-(. I'm not advocating recklessness (or I'd have flown down and said "hi" to the guy on the hill...or gone up to 800ft and took a huge panorama...or even flown over the caravans if there were children playing outside. No. If there were, I'd have flown from somewhere else).

But I don't get paid for this and time is precious. I don't believe I fly in a way that would endanger anyone or anything, and in the event I inadvertently damage a "thing"; I have the insurance (which does not I accept "put all things right" should a drone injure someone, which is why rules about people outweigh rules about structures) I also consider the value of structures too...you've been on my channel so you've probably tracked down Newsome Mill by now...posted mostly out of social conscience...it's hard to see how I could have done any damage worth noticing.

But I digress...it's my hobby, not my profession. I can't AFFORD to make it my profession and I'm painfully aware that to be successful at it I'd need to be a better photographer, better video editor (and probably better businessman). I'm also time limited in that I won't be able to do this for long for reasons I'm not going to discuss here. It frustrates me that people put barriers in the way, that's all. It doubly frustrates me when the barriers obviously have an element of commerciality, but are presented as being "safety related" (for instance...a drone without a camera can approach within 50m. A drone with a camera...150m. Obviously an exploding GoPro has a blast radius :-/).

But...I have now succeeded in turning this into another thread about regs, which is what I said two or three days ago I did not want to happen.

It's a pity you can't reset the camera more smoothly.

End.

 

[IrishSights]

@GreyArea, don't get disheartened at the thread, it's been good for to air what grew out of your OP even though it went off topic. Others read it and maybe learn something new.

On an insurance note, at least under my commercial policy, they will only cover for a claim if I was flying fully under CAP722. So if it crashed inadvertently on a 'thing' like a car or anything else in breach of CAP722 flying, it would not be covered for PL or hull damage leaving me wide open. PFAW or not. Not sure the wording of enthusiast policy insurance flying though.

Always good to air these things.

 

[GreyArea]

I did say I was dropping this, but...according to NT Land Map, my chosen takeoff site is NOT actually NT land. More by luck than judgement I suppose, but at least it's one to take off the list.

 

[The Editor]

I did say I was dropping this, but...according to NT Land Map, my chosen takeoff site is NOT actually NT land. More by luck than judgement I suppose, but at least it's one to take off the list.

You forget it's not just the take off and landing but the flying within for NT properties/estates. They have bylaws granted that control the flying over and not just taking off or landing.
Like I said - no problem, but you will be better informed for future.

 

[GreyArea]

All I seem to be better informed about is the host of places I am forbidden to fly.

Look out for my next YouTube video, "a patch of grass, 300m from anything, not owned by anyone, and bereft of any interesting features whatsoever"

I say "watch out for it", because I doubt anyone else will...

I'd say "anyone want to buy an Inspire", but I'm pretty sure that's what everyone with PfAW wants from hobby fliers. So no. I shall persevere, until everyone realises I'm not delivering bombs, scouting for burglars, spying on their wife or trying to injure their children.

 

[The Editor]

I refer back to my post #12 in this thread:

It usually makes people angry if it is pointed out they are flying illegally and this more often than not starts a flaming debate on the forum.

 

[GreyArea]

No, not angry, just a little melancholy...perhaps some irritation at PfAW'ers (seriously, when do they get to make any money when they spend so much of their time finding other videos on YouTube to criticise?)...but no, no real anger.

 

[The Editor]

No, not angry, just a little melancholy...perhaps some irritation at PfAW'ers (seriously, when do they get to make any money when they spend so much of their time finding other videos on YouTube to criticise?)...but no, no real anger.

AND moderate this forum!
I will leave this thread open for now as I think there is some good information in there which other pilots may not be aware of and has come out of the discussion.
Don't be disheartened and as I said before, my intention was not to dig or cause offence - simply educate and help others with regards to safe (and legal) flying.

 

[IrishSights]

No, not angry, just a little melancholy...perhaps some irritation at PfAW'ers (seriously, when do they get to make any money when they spend so much of their time finding other videos on YouTube to criticise?)...but no, no real anger.

A little harsh on all PFAW holders! Youtube scouring is not on my or I guess most holders list of 'must dos'. I think it sometimes can come across as being 'no-alls' when it is just because Ground School has given us a little bit more knowledge than we had before we went through the process. This is not an excuse to patronise others...we were all hobbyists at some point however if ignorance leads some to inadvertantly put themselves outside the law then I feel for them as I would not want them to get into any trouble either with the law or face a civil claim. It is hard to navigate chosing words and tack on forums to get that balance to come across.

Generally PFAW holders want to help...at least I do.

 

[andrew259]

What is frustrating about this thread and OP is that he posted a video which the editor quite rightly pointed out the legal issues with that flight...

At which point he asked for feedback as to where he went wrong...

At that point every response he got was met with a indignant defence - and clearly he didn't wish to learn from the wisdom being offered (I learnt from this thread thanks to the Editor here)

I'm reminded of people that post videos on YouTube showing speeding offences and then are surprised when the police call.

If you ask for feedback - then if you've broken rules don't be surprised people will tell you so.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk