Photographer cited, had drone confiscated for documenting Hart Island mass burials with his drone

On 2020-04-18 16:37, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 2:48 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 14:31, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 1:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 05:43, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-17 17:04, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 2:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is an article on the matter:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/069755...grapher-cited-
drone-documenting-hart-island-mass-burials-with-his-drone

I bought an inexpensive drone last year, to give a try to drone
photography. Until now I haven't been able to take interesting
shots with it. For a reason or another in most places it's
forbidden to use drones.
"He was cited for violating NYC Administrative Code § 10–126, which
prohibits the takeoff and landing of drones within New York City
(NYC)."

Steinmetz wrote in response:
"‘I’m not trying to be an advocate, but my encounter with the
NYPD [on Tuesday] was not about any safety or privacy
considerations that I assume the law was designed for."

1) Perhaps Steinmetz doesn't realize that this response serves no
other purpose than advocacy (free press, open distribution of
information, etc.). Or he's lying.

2) Laws regarding drones are not arbitrary and open to user
definitions. He violated the law, and lost his drone. Boo Hoo.
Ironically, had he been able to fly his paraglider over the scene
to take the shots, he probably would not have been cited at all,
providing that he didn't violate other airspace restrictions.

I am really tired of folks that think they can do whatever they
want with their drones.

Most drone laws are over the top arbitrary.Â* Canada is much worse
than the US in that respect.Â* (I'm licensed in Canada and
registered in the US).

The photographer only violated the NYC restriction which is
largely (like 99.99%) unenforced as long as operators comply with
the FAA rules (which are subject to interpretation depending on
the sort of operation you're doing...).

OK, so it's clear which side of the fence you're standing on. ;-D
As a private pilot, I'm standing on the other side of that fence.
When I see drone users violating the laws, I think the punishment
is totally inadequate. As in too far short of a 9mm in their
heads.Â* ;-)

Then you can see on a chart that Hart island is class E airspace
from the surface to 500 ASL.Â* All that remains then is the NYC rule
which is very outdated and applied arbitrarily as in this case.

As a commercially licensed pilot and flight instructor, I can tell
you for a fact that drone laws in most countries are over the top
dumb in most locales.Â* The USA is actually fairly liberal (for
private use) compared to most countries.

To be fair, a lot (but far from all) drone users are over the top
dumb as well - that doesn't merit what you advocate, however.

Many laws and rules in this country are outdated and dumb, but they
are still the law and the rules, not subject to arbitrary
interpretation by individuals.

The city interprets them arbitrarily by not invoking them almost all
of the time and in this case was selective.


To be clear, I'm an advocate for safety and people not stupidly
putting others' lives at risk. But, what it takes to achieve that
with drones is more than what is being done at this point. A few
serious consequences for the violators instead of their victims just
might speed up the process.

I don't see how the photographer mentioned put anyone at risk.Â* He may
have offended people the dignity of burial, but that is that.

It has nothing at all to do with whether Steinmetz put anyone at risk.
Again, in your view a photographer is within their rights to violate
rules based on their opinion about them. In mine, they have no such
rights; it's as simple as that.

And, as I pointed out in my first reply, had he used his paraglider
instead of his drone, there probably would not have been any
consequences (if your charts are current...mine are not).

Just proving what nonsense it is - since a drone would be 100x less
dangerous to photograph that than a paraglider. NYC applies that 'law'
very selectively (that is to say almost never). So fining him is
hypocritical.

Saying "but it's the law!!!!" is asinine at best.

On 2020-04-18 17:02, newshound wrote:
On 17/04/2020 23:42, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-17 14:51, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is an article on the matter:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/069755...grapher-cited-
drone-documenting-hart-island-mass-burials-with-his-drone

Hart Island is a park belonging to NYC and is within the boundaries of
NYC.

New York City—Administrative Code § 10-126(c) // 2017

This administrative code makes it unlawful for any person avigating an
aircraft (including drones) to take off or land, except in an
emergency, at any place within the limits of the city other than
places of landing designated by the department of transportation or
the port of New York authority.Â* To avigate is defined in the code as
“To pilot, steer, direct, fly, or manage an aircraft in or through the
air, whether controlled from the ground or otherwise.�

New York City—City Restriction // 2017

This city restriction declares that drones are illegal to fly in New
York City, and advises anyone who sees a drone being flown to call 911.


As it happens I'll be flying both my drones tomorrow... legally.

And to be fair, New York has more reason than most places to be nervous
about unidentifiable overflights.

All a/c are required to carry a mode-C transponder w/i 30 NM of LGA or
JFK. (Mode-C reports the a/c altitude along with the transponder code).

If you ever saw how much uncontrolled (legal) flight takes place along
the Hudson surface to 1300 feet.... A good thing: Scully didn't need to
ask permission to land on the Hudson... Requirements are to listen and
announce on a specific frequency and to carry a mode-C transponder
(altitude reporting).

(IIRC the East River is uncontrolled from the Hudson up to just past the
Queensborough bridge surface to 1300 feet or so ... that means very good
views of the UN, for example) ... I believe the area where the WTC is
located is uncontrolled surface to 1500 too.

A lot of exec helos and sightseeing helos/airplanes in that airspace.
No ATC. Everyone just has to listen, announce, look, use their ADS-B
equipment correctly and be very, very careful.

The only restricted airspace in NYC is TFR 7/5997, a 1 NM radius,
surface to 2999 feet AGL, around a certain downtown building with a
familiar name. (Restricted by NOTAM).

All of this stuff is far, far more dangerous than a guy taking photos
with a drone out at Hart Island...

On 4/18/2020 5:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 16:37, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 2:48 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 14:31, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 1:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 05:43, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-17 17:04, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 2:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is an article on the matter:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/069755...grapher-cited-
drone-documenting-hart-island-mass-burials-with-his-drone

I bought an inexpensive drone last year, to give a try to drone
photography. Until now I haven't been able to take interesting
shots with it. For a reason or another in most places it's
forbidden to use drones.
"He was cited for violating NYC Administrative Code § 10–126,
which
prohibits the takeoff and landing of drones within New York City
(NYC)."

Steinmetz wrote in response:
"‘I’m not trying to be an advocate, but my encounter with the
NYPD [on Tuesday] was not about any safety or privacy
considerations that I assume the law was designed for."

1) Perhaps Steinmetz doesn't realize that this response serves
no other purpose than advocacy (free press, open distribution of
information, etc.). Or he's lying.

2) Laws regarding drones are not arbitrary and open to user
definitions. He violated the law, and lost his drone. Boo Hoo.
Ironically, had he been able to fly his paraglider over the
scene to take the shots, he probably would not have been cited
at all, providing that he didn't violate other airspace
restrictions.

I am really tired of folks that think they can do whatever they
want with their drones.

Most drone laws are over the top arbitrary.Â* Canada is much worse
than the US in that respect.Â* (I'm licensed in Canada and
registered in the US).

The photographer only violated the NYC restriction which is
largely (like 99.99%) unenforced as long as operators comply with
the FAA rules (which are subject to interpretation depending on
the sort of operation you're doing...).

OK, so it's clear which side of the fence you're standing on. ;-D
As a private pilot, I'm standing on the other side of that fence.
When I see drone users violating the laws, I think the punishment
is totally inadequate. As in too far short of a 9mm in their
heads.Â* ;-)

Then you can see on a chart that Hart island is class E airspace
from the surface to 500 ASL.Â* All that remains then is the NYC rule
which is very outdated and applied arbitrarily as in this case.

As a commercially licensed pilot and flight instructor, I can tell
you for a fact that drone laws in most countries are over the top
dumb in most locales.Â* The USA is actually fairly liberal (for
private use) compared to most countries.

To be fair, a lot (but far from all) drone users are over the top
dumb as well - that doesn't merit what you advocate, however.

Many laws and rules in this country are outdated and dumb, but they
are still the law and the rules, not subject to arbitrary
interpretation by individuals.

The city interprets them arbitrarily by not invoking them almost all
of the time and in this case was selective.


To be clear, I'm an advocate for safety and people not stupidly
putting others' lives at risk. But, what it takes to achieve that
with drones is more than what is being done at this point. A few
serious consequences for the violators instead of their victims just
might speed up the process.

I don't see how the photographer mentioned put anyone at risk.Â* He
may have offended people the dignity of burial, but that is that.

It has nothing at all to do with whether Steinmetz put anyone at risk.
Again, in your view a photographer is within their rights to violate
rules based on their opinion about them. In mine, they have no such
rights; it's as simple as that.

And, as I pointed out in my first reply, had he used his paraglider
instead of his drone, there probably would not have been any
consequences (if your charts are current...mine are not).

Just proving what nonsense it is - since a drone would be 100x less
dangerous to photograph that than a paraglider.Â* NYC applies that 'law'
very selectively (that is to say almost never).Â* So fining him is
hypocritical.

Saying "but it's the law!!!!" is asinine at best.

Perhaps our difference in view is based on how we deal with facts. It is
a fact that if a law exists and someone violates it, they may face
consequences. It doesn't matter whether the law makes sense. It is also
a fact that ALL laws are applied inconsistently for various reasons.
Practically every speeding ticket I've ever gotten was when I was pulled
out of the middle of a line of cars and trucks going the same speed, but
I was driving a Porsche. The judges didn't care.

So, the real asinine perspective is thinking that such facts equate to a
nullification of the laws.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article ,
says...
As it happens I'll be flying both my drones tomorrow... legally.

By the way, where did you fly the drones and what did you shoot?
Just curious.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2020-04-18 22:12, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 5:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 16:37, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 2:48 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 14:31, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 1:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 05:43, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-17 17:04, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 2:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is an article on the matter:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/069755...grapher-cited-
drone-documenting-hart-island-mass-burials-with-his-drone

I bought an inexpensive drone last year, to give a try to drone
photography. Until now I haven't been able to take interesting
shots with it. For a reason or another in most places it's
forbidden to use drones.
"He was cited for violating NYC Administrative Code § 10–126,
which
prohibits the takeoff and landing of drones within New York
City (NYC)."

Steinmetz wrote in response:
"‘I’m not trying to be an advocate, but my encounter with the
NYPD [on Tuesday] was not about any safety or privacy
considerations that I assume the law was designed for."

1) Perhaps Steinmetz doesn't realize that this response serves
no other purpose than advocacy (free press, open distribution
of information, etc.). Or he's lying.

2) Laws regarding drones are not arbitrary and open to user
definitions. He violated the law, and lost his drone. Boo Hoo.
Ironically, had he been able to fly his paraglider over the
scene to take the shots, he probably would not have been cited
at all, providing that he didn't violate other airspace
restrictions.

I am really tired of folks that think they can do whatever they
want with their drones.

Most drone laws are over the top arbitrary.Â* Canada is much
worse than the US in that respect.Â* (I'm licensed in Canada and
registered in the US).

The photographer only violated the NYC restriction which is
largely (like 99.99%) unenforced as long as operators comply
with the FAA rules (which are subject to interpretation
depending on the sort of operation you're doing...).

OK, so it's clear which side of the fence you're standing on. ;-D
As a private pilot, I'm standing on the other side of that fence.
When I see drone users violating the laws, I think the punishment
is totally inadequate. As in too far short of a 9mm in their [1
heads.Â* ;-)

Then you can see on a chart that Hart island is class E airspace
from the surface to 500 ASL.Â* All that remains then is the NYC
rule which is very outdated and applied arbitrarily as in this case.

As a commercially licensed pilot and flight instructor, I can tell
you for a fact that drone laws in most countries are over the top
dumb in most locales.Â* The USA is actually fairly liberal (for
private use) compared to most countries.

To be fair, a lot (but far from all) drone users are over the top
dumb as well - that doesn't merit what you advocate, however.

Many laws and rules in this country are outdated and dumb, but they
are still the law and the rules, not subject to arbitrary
interpretation by individuals.

The city interprets them arbitrarily by not invoking them almost all
of the time and in this case was selective.


To be clear, I'm an advocate for safety and people not stupidly
putting others' lives at risk. But, what it takes to achieve that
with drones is more than what is being done at this point. A few
serious consequences for the violators instead of their victims
just might speed up the process.

I don't see how the photographer mentioned put anyone at risk.Â* He
may have offended people the dignity of burial, but that is that.

It has nothing at all to do with whether Steinmetz put anyone at
risk. Again, in your view a photographer is within their rights to
violate rules based on their opinion about them. In mine, they have
no such rights; it's as simple as that.

And, as I pointed out in my first reply, had he used his paraglider
instead of his drone, there probably would not have been any
consequences (if your charts are current...mine are not).

Just proving what nonsense it is - since a drone would be 100x less
dangerous to photograph that than a paraglider.Â* NYC applies that
'law' very selectively (that is to say almost never).Â* So fining him
is hypocritical.

Saying "but it's the law!!!!" is asinine at best.

Perhaps our difference in view is based on how we deal with facts. It is
a fact that if a law exists and someone violates it, they may face
consequences. It doesn't matter whether the law makes sense. It is also
a fact that ALL laws are applied inconsistently for various reasons.
Practically every speeding ticket I've ever gotten was when I was pulled
out of the middle of a line of cars and trucks going the same speed, but
I was driving a Porsche. The judges didn't care.

So, the real asinine perspective is thinking that such facts equate to a
nullification of the laws.

Get off your high horse. Your paraglider example nullified your 'safety
advocacy' statement. The legal paraglider would have been much more
dangerous than a drone for photography.

Again (And I'm done now) NYC doesn't even enforce that law much. Only
in this case because it offended some. Not because he put anyone
remotely in danger.

And of course you never exceeded the limit with your Porche because you
obey all laws perfectly (because: safety? No! Because: law!) otherwise
you would volunteer for that 9mm solution. Right Boy Scout?

On 2020-04-19 07:26, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...
As it happens I'll be flying both my drones tomorrow... legally.

By the way, where did you fly the drones and what did you shoot?
Just curious.

It was battery maintenance flying after the winter. So I 1) flew over
some woods nearby looking for deer and bears. Shot video, nothing
noteworthy. 2) Shot near an estuary, over and along the river, etc.

Only flew 1 of the 2 drones. I'll get the other one up as soon as possible.

Screenshot of video. (Not a 'still').
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jeth0hs0b0...-04-19-003.png

On 4/19/2020 9:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 22:12, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 5:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 16:37, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 2:48 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 14:31, Neil wrote:
On 4/18/2020 1:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-18 05:43, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-04-17 17:04, Neil wrote:
On 4/17/2020 2:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is an article on the matter:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/069755...grapher-cited-
drone-documenting-hart-island-mass-burials-with-his-drone

I bought an inexpensive drone last year, to give a try to drone
photography. Until now I haven't been able to take interesting
shots with it. For a reason or another in most places it's
forbidden to use drones.
"He was cited for violating NYC Administrative Code § 10–126,
which
prohibits the takeoff and landing of drones within New York
City (NYC)."

Steinmetz wrote in response:
"‘I’m not trying to be an advocate, but my encounter with the
NYPD [on Tuesday] was not about any safety or privacy
considerations that I assume the law was designed for."

1) Perhaps Steinmetz doesn't realize that this response serves
no other purpose than advocacy (free press, open distribution
of information, etc.). Or he's lying.

2) Laws regarding drones are not arbitrary and open to user
definitions. He violated the law, and lost his drone. Boo Hoo.
Ironically, had he been able to fly his paraglider over the
scene to take the shots, he probably would not have been cited
at all, providing that he didn't violate other airspace
restrictions.

I am really tired of folks that think they can do whatever
they want with their drones.

Most drone laws are over the top arbitrary.Â* Canada is much
worse than the US in that respect.Â* (I'm licensed in Canada and
registered in the US).

The photographer only violated the NYC restriction which is
largely (like 99.99%) unenforced as long as operators comply
with the FAA rules (which are subject to interpretation
depending on the sort of operation you're doing...).

OK, so it's clear which side of the fence you're standing on.
;-D As a private pilot, I'm standing on the other side of that
fence. When I see drone users violating the laws, I think the
punishment is totally inadequate. As in too far short of a 9mm
in theirÂ*Â*Â*Â* [1
heads.Â* ;-)

Then you can see on a chart that Hart island is class E airspace
from the surface to 500 ASL.Â* All that remains then is the NYC
rule which is very outdated and applied arbitrarily as in this case.

As a commercially licensed pilot and flight instructor, I can
tell you for a fact that drone laws in most countries are over
the top dumb in most locales.Â* The USA is actually fairly liberal
(for private use) compared to most countries.

To be fair, a lot (but far from all) drone users are over the top
dumb as well - that doesn't merit what you advocate, however.

Many laws and rules in this country are outdated and dumb, but
they are still the law and the rules, not subject to arbitrary
interpretation by individuals.

The city interprets them arbitrarily by not invoking them almost
all of the time and in this case was selective.


To be clear, I'm an advocate for safety and people not stupidly
putting others' lives at risk. But, what it takes to achieve that
with drones is more than what is being done at this point. A few
serious consequences for the violators instead of their victims
just might speed up the process.

I don't see how the photographer mentioned put anyone at risk.Â* He
may have offended people the dignity of burial, but that is that.

It has nothing at all to do with whether Steinmetz put anyone at
risk. Again, in your view a photographer is within their rights to
violate rules based on their opinion about them. In mine, they have
no such rights; it's as simple as that.

And, as I pointed out in my first reply, had he used his paraglider
instead of his drone, there probably would not have been any
consequences (if your charts are current...mine are not).

Just proving what nonsense it is - since a drone would be 100x less
dangerous to photograph that than a paraglider.Â* NYC applies that
'law' very selectively (that is to say almost never).Â* So fining him
is hypocritical.

Saying "but it's the law!!!!" is asinine at best.

Perhaps our difference in view is based on how we deal with facts. It
is a fact that if a law exists and someone violates it, they may face
consequences. It doesn't matter whether the law makes sense. It is
also a fact that ALL laws are applied inconsistently for various
reasons. Practically every speeding ticket I've ever gotten was when I
was pulled out of the middle of a line of cars and trucks going the
same speed, but I was driving a Porsche. The judges didn't care.

So, the real asinine perspective is thinking that such facts equate to
a nullification of the laws.

Get off your high horse.Â* Your paraglider example nullified your 'safety
advocacy' statement.Â* The legal paraglider would have been much more
dangerous than a drone for photography.

Again (And I'm done now) NYC doesn't even enforce that law much.Â* Only
in this case because it offended some.Â* Not because he put anyone
remotely in danger.

And of course you never exceeded the limit with your Porche because you
obey all laws perfectly (because: safety?Â* No! Because: law!) otherwise
you would volunteer for that 9mm solution.Â* Right Boy Scout?

If you understood my analogy with the Porsche, you would realize that it
had nothing to do with the car, it was an example of the inconsistent
application of the law. If people are willing to accept the consequences
for their decisions, this whole discussion, as well as the articles on
the loss of Steinmetz' drone would be unnecessary. I accept the risk and
the consequences of mine. Others, not so much.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 2020-04-17 14:51, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is an article on the matter:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/069755...grapher-cited-
drone-documenting-hart-island-mass-burials-with-his-drone

I was finishing up the April Scientific American last night and the
photographer (George Steinmetz) at issue is mentioned in a summary of
books at the end of the magazine (p.66).

He recently published a book, "The Human Planet" which is a nature
photography book devoted to the changing planet and covers many plances
on Earth.

Photos were taken from paraglider or drones.

Just shows, even more, that NYC arbitrarily applied its laws against him
because someone got offended. Not because he did anything remotely
dangerous.

In article ,
says...
Screenshot of video. (Not a 'still').
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jeth0hs0b0...-04-19-003.png

It's about as unimpressive as the stuff I've been able to shoot
so far with my drone in and around Munich. To get some nice
shots you'd have to fly the drone in special places.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2020-04-21 13:43, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...
Screenshot of video. (Not a 'still').
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jeth0hs0b0...-04-19-003.png

It's about as unimpressive as the stuff I've been able to shoot
so far with my drone in and around Munich. To get some nice
shots you'd have to fly the drone in special places.

Like I said, it was battery maintenance and looking for wildlife. That
is also a screen shot from video off of my computer, not a photo. Also
shot mid day, not very warm light.

Further, video is intentionally shot under-saturated and color corrected
in post, after the editing is done. (Called "color grading").

And yes a photo of some boring suburban landscsape is not all that
interesting. However, video of boring suburban landscape is very
revealing and can be very pleasing to watch.