Flying Drones in Parks

The J Stands for Jay

Hal3000 wrote: »

So, tell me this. If a photographer came up close to your face and started dangerously waving his camera nearly hitting you and then when you walk away he proceeds to follow you, you would do nothing? If a dog goes to attack you, would you just lie there and ask the owner to politely call their dog off ? Do you really believe that you would act in such a fashion ? Give us your real answer, not some populous opinion that makes you look sensible in front of your friends here. By defending myself under threat I am in no way engaging in illegal activity so please stop suggesting such.

I would go no further than telling the photographer to **** off.
An attacking dog is a different story. My defence would be a kick followed by running away.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hal3000 wrote: »

How do you know it was not recording ?

You're the one making presumptive accusations not me.

Gatling

HAL I heard Saudi Arabia might be selling off some anti aircraft systems .

Might be worth investing in for protection your airspace

Snotty

Love the way the OP orgional post just says it was flying overhead but then when it was pointed out it was nonsense, suddenly the story changes and it was close to their head and menacing.
OP, if any of that was true you would have put it in your initial post, complete BS thread by what seems like a very petty person.

Hal3000

Gatling wrote: »

HAL I heard Saudi Arabia might be selling off some anti aircraft systems .

Might be worth investing in for protection your airspace

Great stuff thanks man.

Samuel T. Cogley

In an attempt to steer this towards legal discussion are you within your rights?

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

My understanding of that is the court / jury does have a role in deciding whether you actually believe there is a threat and I'm not sure you'd be winning there.

Gangu

Hal3000 wrote: »

Thanks but we are in the minority here. People on this thread seem to be in a favor of a world where citizens with drones willfully capture our every move for their personal or kids entertainment. Christ it’s like an episode of Black Mirror.

Ironic in some ways but yes. That’s their view. You have to wonder why. I suspect it is BS trolling a bit to be honest.

Hal3000

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In an attempt to steer this towards legal discussion are you within your rights?

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

My understanding of that is the court / jury does have a role in deciding whether you actually believe there is a threat and I'm not sure you'd be winning there.

Don’t worry I’ll find a competent brief who can argue the valid defense or protecting myself when under threat. My civil rights haven’t been completely eroded just yet.

TuringBot47

Hal3000 wrote: »

..make them look like a lunatic for not wanting a airborne recording device flying dangerously close to them.

Have you ever actually held a drone?
They're very light, lighter than a football.
Nothing dangerous about them.... irritating yes, dangerous no.
Most also have blade guards on them too, more to protect the delicate plastic blades.

Drones are not allowed to fly in any public park.
But sure dogs are supposed to be on a lead and the owners pick up their dog shit.

Maybe next time you see some man with a pitbull off the leash you'll act the hard man too.

Reati

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Have you ever actually held a drone?
They're very light, lighter than a football.
Nothing dangerous about them.... irritating yes, dangerous no.
Most also have blade guards on them too, more to protect the delicate plastic blades.

Depends on the drone. I use drones that I really wouldn't like to get a whack off, but then again they have advanced obstacle avoidance sensors and cost between 15k and 100k depending on payload so I don't imagine the kids was flying one of those around.

This is a typical case of someone with a massive chip on shoulder. The legal position of drones has been posted in my previous post (something I needed to study in depth and pass a test on to get a license) and toy drones like I bet this kid was playing with (defined as under a certain weight) wouldn't be covered by it.

Hal3000

Reati wrote: »

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Have you ever actually held a drone?
They're very light, lighter than a football.
Nothing dangerous about them.... irritating yes, dangerous no.
Most also have blade guards on them too, more to protect the delicate plastic blades.

Depends on the drone. I use drones that I really wouldn't like to get a whack off, but then again they have advanced obstacle avoidance sensors and cost between 15k and 100k depending on payload so I don't imagine the kids was flying one of those around.

This is a typical case of someone with a massive chip on shoulder. The legal position of drones has been posted in my previous post (something I needed to study in depth and pass a test on to get a license) and toy drones like I bet this kid was playing with (defined as under a certain weight) wouldn't be covered by it.

No it was a massive drone near my shoulder actually. I love how you all seem to know the exact size of this drone even though no one you were present.

Reati

Hal3000 wrote: »

No it was a massive drone near my shoulder actually. I love how you all seem to know the exact size of this drone even though no one you were present.

Because I know the size and cost of many drones. "Massive" drones aren't remotely cheap nor common and most parents don't buy kids drones that costs the same as a small 2nd hand car.

Next if it was a "massive" drone it would aproblem for your story as it'd be equipped with obstacle avoidance so it never have got remotely near enough to you to be any danger.

jochenstacker

Hal3000 wrote: »

Don’t worry I’ll find a competent brief who can argue the valid defense or protecting myself when under threat. My civil rights haven’t been completely eroded just yet.

I'd say, if witnesses (and indeed drone footage ) could attest that the drone flew straight at you and you had to swat it away to prevent it from hitting you, no court in the land could do you for criminal damage.
All arguments aside, nobody would say otherwise.
If, on the other hand, it turns out that you grabbed a tree branch, ran after the drone and jumped six foot into the air to hit it, things might look different.

Padre_Pio

Just another Walter Mitty, p*ssed off that kids are having fun.

Can imagine you going around St. Anne's like this:
https://youtu.be/B3RJUMm-hd0

rd1izb7lvpuksx

Reati wrote: »

Depends on the drone. I use drones that I really wouldn't like to get a whack off, but then again they have advanced obstacle avoidance sensors and cost between 15k and 100k depending on payload so I don't imagine the kids was flying one of those around.

This is a typical case of someone with a massive chip on shoulder. The legal position of drones has been posted in my previous post (something I needed to study in depth and pass a test on to get a license) and toy drones like I bet this kid was playing with (defined as under a certain weight) wouldn't be covered by it.

Even cheap light drones can cause injury if they fall, and most people underestimate the rotational inertia in plastic rotors.



Also, you might want to re-read the IAA rules you studied (for your "license" that doesn't exist - maybe you mean Specific Operating Permission from the IAA?) - there is no size or type of drone that is exempt from the IAA restrictions. Not all require registration, but none are allowed in public parks or to be flown over others without permission.

Hal3000

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Just another Walter Mitty, p*ssed off that kids are having fun.

Can imagine you going around St. Anne's like this:
https://youtu.be/B3RJUMm-hd0

I’m so glad you could contribute to the discussion in such a meaningful way.

Hal3000

Lorelei Eager Metropolitan wrote: »

Even cheap light drones can cause injury if they fall, and most people underestimate the rotational inertia in plastic rotors.



Also, you might want to re-read the IAA rules you studied (for your "license" that doesn't exist - maybe you mean Specific Operating Permission from the IAA?) - there is no size or type of drone that is exempt from the IAA restrictions. Not all require registration, but none are allowed in public parks or to be flown over others without permission.

I’m really impressed with the amount of drone expertise on this forum. Some are also able to name the size and cost of the drone without even seeing it.

Rubberchikken

pathetic whining and looking for any reason to whinge/argue imo.

these things recording are no different to cctv on most streets, dash cams in cars etc.

relax bud.

Sleeper12

Hal3000 wrote:

I’ll take my chances. Similar to scrotes who own dogs and let them run free without muzzles in parks. I won’t sit back and say ahhh it’s ok sure it’s a public place it’s expected that we might be mauled or followed by recording aircrafts.

Dogs are allowed off the lead in St Anne's part every day day till 11am and for the last hour of opening time for the park. Muzzles aren't required for the vast majority of dogs day or night.

Effects

Hal3000 wrote: »

I’m really impressed with the amount of drone expertise on this forum. Some are also able to name the size and cost of the drone without even seeing it.

You said it was massive. So that had to be bigger than a phantom, and you’re looking at about €3500 for a DJI Inspire.

Don’t get angry at people who know more about drones than you do.

Reati

Lorelei Eager Metropolitan wrote: »

Also, you might want to re-read the IAA rules you studied (for your "license" that doesn't exist - maybe you mean Specific Operating Permission from the IAA?)

It was called a aerial works permit back then, then a RPAS pilot license. They then removed the need for it in for doing aerial work in Dec 2015, so they now now its a SOP primarily for operating in C airspace and in places where there is additional considerations for safe operation. You still need to sit and pass the exam.

Lorelei Eager Metropolitan wrote: »

There is no size or type of drone that is exempt from the IAA restrictions. Not all require registration, but none are allowed in public parks or to be flown over others without permission.

Eh yes, SI is explicit about exemptions. I highlighted the key bits for this case.

(2) This Order shall not apply to:

(c) to drones and small unmanned aircraft of less than 1 kilogram
maximum mass less fuel and constructed of wood, paper or frangible
plastic and containing no substantial parts, when operated below 15m
above the ground or water and in a manner that does not create a hazard to persons, property or other aircraft.

So a kid with a small toy drone could fly is in the park without breaking any RPAS related rules as long sd it's below 15mts. This is the most likely events that happened here.

Note there is a key line of not creating a hazard that's would apply here if the kid was actually stalking the OP as claimed.

In fairness to the OP, even though his story is made up, as someone who regularly flies a drone myself, I do think there are certains ways of using them that can be polite and courteous, and ways that are indeed a bit menacing.

Most drones will auto-cut-out once they touch something. So if the drone hits a person, or a tree or whatever, it'll just stop dead and hit the ground. These are sometimes (but not always) the ones you'd see kids playing with.


Other ones, usually the 'enthusiast' level stuff will keep on propelling even if a collision occurs. When I was first learning to fly a new drone a few years ago, I accidentally crashed it, and it ended up hitting me in the leg. It cut the shins of me (literally cut, as in there was blood) and my foot got a bad doing, too. If I purposely flew my drone at a person, I'd definitely hurt them, and cut them badly with it.


However, most ones that kids use will generally not last long in the air anyway. They're like bad kites at times, and they often struggle to stay up, and tend to instead kinda slowly glide to the ground. These are less likely to hurt you, but i still think it's bad form to use them in a busy park. At the same time, i can understand, if you've a child that's mad to play with a drone, it's kinda hard to go anywhere else with it.



In regards to the OP, as has been said, you've no right to privacy. You do have a right not to be harassed though, so if you asked them to stop and they continued, you'd be within your rights to contact the Gardai. Unfortunately, the Gardai struggle with basic policing, so i wouldn't expect them to either 1) show up or 2) be useful.

Best thing you can do is accept that the drone is there. My drone is a 'proper' drone and the battery will last 20 minutes on a hot day if i just let it hover and don't ask much of it in terms of movement. I'd say most kids would do well to get beyond 10 minutes on a great day, and 5 if there's a bit of wind. It's a short term pain.

Hal3000

Rubberchikken wrote: »

pathetic whining and looking for any reason to whinge/argue imo.

these things recording are no different to cctv on most streets, dash cams in cars etc.

relax bud.

Perfectly relaxed thank you. I can whine as much as I want or is this another right people are going to try to take away from me ? I was being followed by something I didn’t want to be followed by so forgive me for not being more gracious in the presence of a flying - potentially recording device.

jochenstacker

Hal3000 wrote: »

Perfectly relaxed thank you. I can whine as much as I want or is this another right people are going to try to take away from me ? I was being followed by something I didn’t want to be followed by so forgive me for not being more gracious in the presence of a flying - potentially recording device.

It must have been a harrowing experience. You may need years of therapy for this level of trauma.

Hal3000

jochenstacker wrote: »

It must have been a harrowing experience. You may need years of therapy for this level of trauma.

Scraping the bottom of barrel now lads. I’m happy that I was able to get my point across without having to resort to posts like this.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hal3000 wrote: »

Scraping the bottom of barrel now lads. I’m happy that I was able to get my point across without having to resort to posts like this.

You haven't though. You claim it was close but not said how close, how heavy you believe it was, how you know it was recording among many other questions.

Hal3000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You haven't though. You claim it was close but not said how close, how heavy you believe it was, how you know it was recording among many other questions.

Suspected it was recording never said it was recording.

A couple of feet away from my face and over my head after.

Can’t be sure on the weight and I won’t make a guess as all the drone experts here will fly in with smart responses. I’m sensible enough to know that if this thing hit me it would have hurt.

Padre_Pio

Hal3000 wrote: »

Perfectly relaxed thank you. I can whine as much as I want or is this another right people are going to try to take away from me ? I was being followed by something I didn’t want to be followed by so forgive me for not being more gracious in the presence of a flying - potentially recording device.

You have a right to whine?

Hal3000

Padre_Pio wrote: »

You have a right to whine?

Yes, or complain / give out whatever you want to call it.

Hal3000

Mr.S wrote: »

So...not that close

Whatever you think.