How to bend them regulations - with an unusual "drone"

[Jeff G]

...(1) Less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud;.

Ehhh.... Howzzat???????????????????????????

It's basically saying it must remain visible even in low cloud cover. The FAA is all about line of sight. When they first started regulating drones their wording was all over the place and contradicted itself frequently. You could look in three different sections on there website and come up with three different interpretations. I sometimes think they do this on purpose but then I remember its run by bureaucrats.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Nothing like encouraging people to risk breaking the law! lol It wouldn't be funny though if one would crash onto a house below (or would hit somebody). I suppose you could be out in the middle of nowhere but still I'd think a kite would be harder to control especially with a camera attached to it.

The drones are considered Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and different from those radio controlled (RC) toys that people would use in their backyards, etc. Of course it's fine for kids and adults to fly RC toy planes and kites, if it comes down it wouldn't likely cause any damage, and how far/high can it possibly go? When drones were first being sold & bought they were seen flying as high as planes (seen by pilots) and something small could potentially cause a plane to crash. That's why the FAA developed laws, because too many people were using them in irresponsible ways.

 

[KAP Jasa]

Not gonna lie the thought of strapping my camera to a kite terrifies me, as does spending$1000 on a flying camera. Cool idea and nice photos

... yeah, it's not for the faint of heart - at least the first couple of flights (and every time the wind stops for a moment).

 

[pixmedic]

some great shots there!
cleverly done. might be a good workaround to areas with strictly enforced drone laws. everyone assumes the drones have a camera on them, but how many people think that when they see a kite? i would never have given any thought to it until now.

its interesting how noone bats an eye at shots in abandoned buildings on private property, or on railroad tracks...but start talking about drone photography (and obviously kites) and out come the rules and statutes.

 

[petrochemist]

In the UK, I believe regulation regarding kites & tethered balloons near building are similar to those regarding drones.

I certainly wouldn't want to put my newest camera/lens under a kite, but there are plenty of cheap compacts that could work well, at least if a suitable triggering option is arranged.

Given my success in flying kites with the kids a balloon appeals more to me.
I've even got as far a grabbing a hydrogen generator that was being ditched at work, the chances are it will no longer work by the time I get round to trying a balloon out...

 

[vin88]

In the UK, I believe regulation regarding kites & tethered balloons near building are similar to those regarding drones.

I certainly wouldn't want to put my newest camera/lens under a kite, but there are plenty of cheap compacts that could work well, at least if a suitable triggering option is arranged.

Given my success in flying kites with the kids a balloon appeals more to me.
I've even got as far a grabbing a hydrogen generator that was being ditched at work, the chances are it will no longer work by the time I get round to trying a balloon out...

hydrogen? "remember the Hindenberg" vin

 

[petrochemist]

In the UK, I believe regulation regarding kites & tethered balloons near building are similar to those regarding drones.

I certainly wouldn't want to put my newest camera/lens under a kite, but there are plenty of cheap compacts that could work well, at least if a suitable triggering option is arranged.

Given my success in flying kites with the kids a balloon appeals more to me.
I've even got as far a grabbing a hydrogen generator that was being ditched at work, the chances are it will no longer work by the time I get round to trying a balloon out...

hydrogen? "remember the Hindenberg" vin

I work with hydrogen every day so I'm quite familiar with it's flammability (explosive range in air is 4 to 74%). It also burns with an invisible flame so the flames on the Hindenburg where not just hydrogen.
In addition I doubt there would be a large build up of static charge in a tethered balloon used for relatively short periods. Even if it did catch fire the results wouldn't be too dramatic, just the equivalent of crashing a kite...

 

[vin88]

thanks, an air born camera is a good idea.

 

[DSP121]

Amazing pictures from the sky!

 

[KAP Jasa]

thanks, an air born camera is a good idea.

Thank you!

 

[ac12]

Is your kite line ABSOLUTELY non-conductive.
If not, if the kite comes down over a 25,000+ volt power line, well . . .

As kids we were taught to NOT fly kites near the power lines.

 

[petrochemist]

Is your kite line ABSOLUTELY non-conductive.
If not, if the kite comes down over a 25,000+ volt power line, well . . .

As kids we were taught to NOT fly kites near the power lines.

AFAIK there are no HT power lines within 20 miles of my home. But I guess even 1000 volts would be uncomfortable if your string is damp, so avoiding all powerlines is very wise.

 

[KAP Jasa]

true. trees eat kites and water destroys cameras. but powerlines, they be scary. no flying over roads, houses, powerlines - unless it is absolutely necessary. ;-)