I wonder how low Don Wiley will go in showing new homeowner the house under construction? Does he actually fly inside the house? I saw Don flying a drone inside a rec room and he does have great control over the drone.

Flying in the Villages and following the FAA Rules is legal, I have been flying for years but what you need to understand is your living in the villages where people have nothing better to do than to complain about anything and everything, Follow the FAA rules and regulations and you’ll be fine , as a courtesy don’t fly over people or cars or the squares when there’s an event use common sense always fly safe safely and enjoy your flight. Maybe the powers to be in the villages don’t want you flying over their sites for reasons that might legally come back to them in a negative way!

Keep Them Comimg
 

We were greatly influenced by your videos Don. Keep them comimg.

Developer sent letters to only drone pilots.
No letters to anyone else posting videos of the area.
No letters to anybody posting their opinions online, such as this forum. Many of those posts are very negative towards what happens here.
No letters to anyone else doing very similar activities.

Putting info on social media is constitutionally protected free speech. Kindly explain how that "is the issue" considering their actions were taken only against drone operators. That does not fit the events that have happened.

Unless folks were flying around with jet packs on their backs, I'm not sure how they could produce the same sort of video as a drone can produce.

TV construction sites are almost always posted with "No Trespassing" signs, which means unless the videographers have the aforementioned "jet packs" or are using a drone to take video ... it can't be done.

You suspect some movie starlet is nude sun bathing on her rooftop and want to see her and sell some photos to the National Inquirer ... but her home is posted with "No Trespassing" signs? How do you get to see her? Use your Jet Pack or Drone to beat the No Trespassing signs and take the photos.

The public is prohibited from peeking in the windows of your home and taking photos, but any clown with a Drone has no such prohibition?

Therein lies the issue. That exactly fits the events. Otherwise unavailable videos, were posted on the internet. One's 1st Amendment rights of free speech, are tempered by the obligation to obtain the information legitimately. See Lee v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 33 F. App'x 886

That sounds right to me.

A "no trespassing" sign does NOT apply to airspace. Jetpack? LOL. That's really reaching for anything to defend that position. Must be running out of ideas?

"Movie starlet" has nothing to do with anything. But even a flyover and randomly recording her is 100% legal. That's the law. Offering that situation repeatedly will not change the law.

Looking into windows is a whole different topic. None of the drone pilots here are doing that, so that argument is still moot.

"lies the issue" huh? That's flat out wrong. I get you are against drones, but making up unrelated fictional situations, and then trying to connect those to what is going on, is a false assertion of irrelevant circumstances. They have zero merit.

Ahhh .... I see.

So Americans are entitle to privacy by closing their doors & curtains and posting their property as "No Trespassing", but over the last 20 years, we've lost the right to privacy from above?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

& the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Causby (1946) has some how been nullified?

As I attempted to point out. The issue being discussed, is unrelated to "drones", it's related to aerial video surveillance and posting (according to the Developer) illegally obtained videos, on social media sites.

You can legally drive your car down the road, but when you start shooting at people from your car, it becomes a different issue. The car has little or nothing to do with, what you're doing from your vehicle is the issue.

We've never had a right to privacy from above, we just haven't had anything above to be concerned about.

In what way were the videos illegally obtained?

A "No Trespassing" sign has nothing to do with privacy, it has to do with physical presence on private property. Since you do not own the airspace over your property, flying over a property does not represent a physical presence and a "No Trespassing" sign has no applicability.

You are misinterpreting Causby. Causby affirmed that you do not own the airspace over your home above a safe minimum altitude. Causby held that activities in the public airspace which interfered with the use of enjoyment of the private property can be considered a "taking." Unless the drone flights are so low that they interfere with construction, Causby does not apply.

Uh.. The house is under construction and is not owned by the future homeowner yet.

As a FAA 107 certified pilot, I commend Don for taking a leadership position with the other named drone pilots .

From his letter, it's apparent that some pilots have pushed The envelope of safe and certified FAA 107 flying practices.

All certified flyers really need to adhere to the rules of not flying bvlos, never flying over people, and surely not harassing construction workers or flying through buildings...

I'm sure that calmer minds will prevail, and quality legal informational flights will continue.

You Can’t register your land as a no fly zone.

I see that Don and the others are posting drone videos on YouTube again. So what changed?

Skip