New Signs at the front gate.

a reply to: FosterVS

I think the forum crashed the Lincoln County newspaper server.

The special use airspace is well documented. Just stay outside of it and you should be good.

No photography of signs? Since when has photography become illegal. Time to get the "Photography is not a Crime" people involved. By the time we get enough fecal matter disturbers involved, Lincoln County is going to wish they listened to the commissioner who voted against this law.

As per email from the Lincoln County District Attorney:

You may not fly the drone on private property without consent or on USAF property (the boundaries are marked) with or without video. You may fly the drone on BLM land, subject to BLM rules and regulations. You may not photograph or record any images of private property or USAF property from a drone if the owner finds the images intrusive (even though the drone is flying above permitted space). (The USAF finds almost all images intrusive). As far as altitude, there are no local restrictions on altitude, but there may be federal restrictions.

Still totally ambiguous.

a reply to: FosterVS

OK, here is the shot you need to compose. Park in that area just before the front gate. (Funny how that pull off doesn't have a name.) Hover your drone. Have the camera point at you in the parking lot. Now take a DSLR and photograph the drone looking at you AND get the camo dudes on the hill in the background.

That photo would demonstrate the pure stupidity of this law, and there isn't a thing the DA could do about it. You can invite the Lincoln County Record press photographer to document the event.

For more fun, pull the simcard from the camera and orient the drone to face the base or the dudes. There is no way to tell if you are shall we say shooting blanks. The dudes will have to call the sheriff, who will have to drive in from Alamo. This can waste a great deal of the county's money. Lather, rinse, repeat. The Sheriff will have to make another trip.

This ridiculous law will draw so much attention to the base that they will regret asking for it.

not even worth trying!
There are a bunch of companies that have created drone jammers.
Secruity specialists have been on this one for quite a while, nuke plants,power stations military bases , prisions etc.

examples
www.hypercable.fr...
www.droneshield.com...
www.pcworld.com...
www.popsci.com...

a reply to: Perfect stranger

OK, put the drone on a tripod. The county will still be dissed since the photography they are trying to eliminate will still occur.

Note that French device missed a lot of ISM bands. That is a total piece of junk against a determined hobby flyer.

Further, for the purposes of photography, you could just tether the drone using coax.

www.faa.gov...

This is the section 333 exemption mentioned in the minutes of the commission meeting.

originally posted by: gariac
www.faa.gov...

This is the section 333 exemption mentioned in the minutes of the commission meeting.

An important note are the current rules by the FAA as per section 336:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT
www.faa.gov...

this should do it:

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
this should do it:

Imagine if you had a radio with the range, and FPV video, land this on the runway and taxi it up to one of the hangars. Love the LED afterburners.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: FosterVS

OK, here is the shot you need to compose. Park in that area just before the front gate. (Funny how that pull off doesn't have a name.) Hover your drone. Have the camera point at you in the parking lot. Now take a DSLR and photograph the drone looking at you AND get the camo dudes on the hill in the background.

That photo would demonstrate the pure stupidity of this law, and there isn't a thing the DA could do about it. You can invite the Lincoln County Record press photographer to document the event.

For more fun, pull the simcard from the camera and orient the drone to face the base or the dudes. There is no way to tell if you are shall we say shooting blanks. The dudes will have to call the sheriff, who will have to drive in from Alamo. This can waste a great deal of the county's money. Lather, rinse, repeat. The Sheriff will have to make another trip.

This ridiculous law will draw so much attention to the base that they will regret asking for it.

Oh I'm hovering it right in front of the new sign. Then the picture of drone, sign, camo dudes.
I like your idea, make sure the camera is always pointed AWAY from the border. No harm no foul.

originally posted by: FosterVS

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
this should do it:

Imagine if you had a radio with the range, and FPV video, land this on the runway and taxi it up to one of the hangars. Love the LED afterburners.

well, after all; it could be one of their babies coming home: you know.

a reply to: FosterVS

It might pay to see if the back gate has a similar sign. I've photographed a number of people with the sign and dudes in the same frame. The 180 degree view will potentially see the base property. The border has a funny shape there.

I'd try to track down the Rachel resident with a drone. Maybe get some tips.

a reply to: gariac


as per your request Gariac. Pardon the late response...

originally posted by: HomeyKXTA
a reply to: gariac

as per your request Gariac. Pardon the late response...

73.13 Restrictions.
No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area between the designated altitudes and during the time of designation, unless he has the advance permission of
(a) The using agency described in
§ 73.15; or
(b) The controlling agency described
in § 73.17

The way I read this, there is no official ordinance yet. A bit presumptuous on behalf of the USAF.

#11-ORDINANCE #2015-02
This was the time and place set for public hearing on an ordinance restricting the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft and providing a penalty. Paul D. read the ordinance into the record. Kevin called for public comment. Russell Tracy addressed the Board and stated there are already enough federal regulations and penalties concerning drones. Russell read several of the regulations. Russell asked that the Board not infringe on his civil rights. Russell is against the ordinance. He wants to keep our airways free and under the guidance of the FAA. Russell presented a map of Groom Lake; he finds it hard to believe you can get a drone close enough to get the same level of detail. Russell referred to guidelines from the FAA for how the local law enforcement is to handle drones. Russell asked what will happen to those who have legitimate uses for drones. Russell will apply for Section 333 exemption and be able to fly drones here anyway. Russell is working towards a use for drones. Connie Simkins agrees with several of Russell’s points. Connie advised that the drones are very dangerous around airports because people don’t pay attention to the rules that are already in place. The core problem is rural areas and enforcement. More federal regulations aren’t needed and the Board shouldn’t do something simply because the Air Force asks it. Something is definitely needed in order to give our local law enforcement something to rely on. The ordinance doesn’t ban the use of drones, it simply bans them from restricted areas and from using them on others. Daniel stated there are four prohibitions: 1) no photographs of anyone’s privacy can be taken, 2) no photographs of NV’s Test and Training Range are allowed, 3) anything that would cause someone injury, damage, hurt, inconvenience, or discomfort is disallowed, and 4) no drones can operate within any restricted air space, which includes the airports in LC as well as the Test Range. Connie said we need to be concerned about the affect a drone with/without a camera will have on employees fighting fires. Russell stated the Forest Service is using drones themselves as it gives a better view than anything else available. Russell questioned how this ordinance will affect FS. Russell stated that privacy issues and annoyance need to be clearly defined. Russell doesn’t want the DA to have the ability to prosecute anyone for “annoyance” when it isn’t clearly defined. There is nothing restricting anyone from shooting one down if it’s flying over their property. Paul D. commented that it would be better if the ordinance was restricted to certain areas. A prohibition like this is based upon complaints. As of now, the County has no real authority to take action in these situations. It is difficult to prosecute. Maggie Marston, BLM, advised that the drones are causing issues with wildfire protection. As a consideration, wildfire includes state, private, and county lands. BLM has published pleas in the newspaper asking folks to cease and desist during these types of situations. Kevin called for more public comment. Adam made a motion to approve the ordinance; seconded by Paul M. Varlin stated that the language needs to be more defined and specific. The wording in the ordinance leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. Paul M. stated that the ordinance must be written in such a way that law enforcement has the ability to go forward when someone is creating an annoyance. Varlin was opposed. Motion carried 4-1.

Photographing Defense Installations yada-yada-yada-18 US Code 795 < yawn >

a reply to: FosterVS

You have to look hard for 18 USC 795 being charged. I haven't found a conviction. If you are on the base, being charged with 18 USC 795 is a reality. News crews shoot outside the base with impunity. They no longer have gear stolen on shaky legal grounds.

My gut feeling is the photography aspect is a smoke screen. The USAF just plain doesn't want wankers flying around the border since they themselves often fly under 400 ft.

Here is a scenario to make the USAF nervous. How about someone lands a drone on Freedom Ridge or White Sides. Then the loiter time is much longer since the drone doesn't have to remain in flight.

i bet something like this could slip by:

arstechnica.com...

Drone countermeasures in the link. But can the dudes out fly you?!