This is what gives drone pilots a bad name

Should have never flown by the cab, crew would have never know the drone was there.   Now there is a report for sure.

Neat video, but lots of stupidness.

Mixed emotions.  1 the guy is

Mixed emotions. 

1 the guy is a moron for doing what he is doing. I am sure the conductor of the lead engine was freaked out when he saw that and yes I hope he would have reported to the dispatcher that it happened. 

2 the views you can get are simply incredible and done the right way would be videos that I bet a lot of people would buy and watch. 

Did he looked freaked out?

He didn't notice it for a bit and then simply closed the window. No freaking out, no screaming, no finger, no nothing.

First, the pilot is very

First, the pilot is very good! He has other videos.

Second, was there any harm done? No.

Third, was it considered trespassing? Yes and no.  I'd say he all the right in the world to fly and film, but to fly INTO a boxcar, UNDER and BETWEEN the train and actually LAND on the roof of a car, or THROUGH the bridge, yes I see it as trespassing. It would be the same as walking on RR property. 

Want to get technical about it, distracting the crew so they miss a signal or something else, there could have been issues, minor maybe, but still a possible issue.

I think is was dumb to do most of what he did, but filming the train from a drone from a respectable distance I see nothing wrong with it, like this:

That I definitely agree with

That I definitely agree with it is the landing in/on and going between that I have the problem with.

Considering what a train will

Considering what a train will do to a semi or another train if it hits it.  I'm 99.98% sure if the train hit the drone or the drone hit the train.  That 16oz of plastic will be totaled and the trian would be hard up to find a paint chip.

Yes the flying is amazing I'm sure not many people can do what was done.  Thumbs up for cool factor.

but should he of been doing it?  more than likly not.

Could he of damaged the train?

Well...

I'd like to know about the tracks you can see at :20.

Amazing flying but not the thing to do.

Agree on the tracks...

at :20... that would have been cool to see more of.

As for the drone, and it's pilot... on one hand, it's just as distracting as an idiot bird (back when I was a truck driver, you would sometimes be driving in the mountains, and get some idiot bird that decided to follow you around for a few minutes, diving, and the like) These engineers are professionals and disciplined (I would hope more so than even I was as a truck driver) so I worry less about that, than the fact that the drone pilot was just rude.

Now... if he had permission from the railroad (which we are assuming he didn't) but if he did, that would be another story entirely... and honestly... it doesn't take much to ask, and a lot of railroads are quite nice about it when one does. (even if they say "no" they are still nice about it) Railroads are a business that likes good publicity after all.

Drones are a great tool for exploring a railroad... but, my opinion (for whatever an opinion now days is worth) is stay safe, keep your distance, don't distract the employees, unless all conserned have given their blessings, and the railroad has given permission.

(at least the guy wasn't one of those people who hang out ON the tracks to take photos without permission)

But those tracks though...

at :20... was that some sort of narrow gauge? Something still in use, maybe?

Not narrow gauge train tracks, it is a aqueduct

Not narrow gauge train tracks,  it is a aqueduct for what looks to be a power plant

I Googled it for you.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4801497,-119.9924998,199m/data=!3m1!1e3

Familiar with the location

It is near the California / Nevada boarder on HWY 80.

It is an old and new aqueduct system, there are several along the Truckee river in that area.

well i can see the faa,

well i can see the faa, drawing up a new anti drone reg just for the railroads, all thank to this fool.

sure he can fly, but there are times, places, etc one should not. all the flying "around and above" ok no real problem. but going in, under, and distracting the driver is very bad.

Flying over someone's property is not necessarily illegal, but..

But what this RC aircraft pilot did sounds like it violated some federal rules. Here's some legal mumbo-jumbo about what makes a flight over someone else's property a violation of various laws:

https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-property/

The key phrase for the flight being considered trespassing is this: Did the flight interfere "substantially with the owner’s actual use and enjoyment of his land"? The company could probably make a case that the flight did interfere and there might also be state and local laws and ordinances that apply in this case.

This topic comes up often, but just flying over a person's or company's property is not necessary illegal as long as the RC aircraft meets all the other rules and regulations about restricted airspace, altitude, and so forth.

your link is to a paid none

your link is to a paid none government lawyer.

new rules from the FAA are forth coming this year (2019), but even they are NOT laws, only congress can enact a law. not a un elected or appointed bureaucrat.  and yes the feds have control of the air space above your head all the way to "outer-space". beyond??

but as a general rule, flying say above 10 feet above ones property is considered by faa rules as legal.

over a large group of people? new rule coming out on that, but old rule said NO.

hovering is legal.

spying on you is in and of it's self another law, to be dealt with by local police,

disrupting the flight of a drone by and in all ways is a federal crime. same as if shooting down a 747 loaded with people.

this does create a conflict with the rules.

as in this conflict.  illegal to take off and land in a Nat park.  But very legal to takeoff and land outside of a Nat park, but fly over said park.

but in keeping with the video posted, most of the flight was legal.

right is another question.

please read as i posted before, most of this flight might be wrong. (as must fly within view of the pilot).

and flying close to the driver, could be a fed crime, pending on a couple things not presented in the video.

but this pilot is not a run-o-the mill pilot, he does this for a living, builds his own quad copters. races them, does stunt shows.  the avg consumer drone can not fly the way his was doing in the video.

@Packnrat - Was the information at the link incorrect?

Although the web page was not an official US government web site, does that make the information contained on it and referenced by the court cases listed below incorrect?

Skill level has nothing to do with being considered in trespass. The question is whether the pilot interfered with the owner of the lands use of it. If the railroad, rightly or wrongly, decided that the pilot interfered with the operation of the train, that pilot could be in a lot of hot water.

I've been a private pilot since 1978 so I know all too well the rules involved in flying and I also know that the current situation with RC aircraft is pretty complicated. Federal, state, county, and local laws, rules, and ordinances frequently contradict each other. I just don't think that we need aircraft doing what was done in the video, no matter how good the pilot is, without permission of the railroad. There are lots of trees and other gifts of nature that can be circled and landed on.

Permission...

Do we know this guy didn't have permission? Or are we just making a broad assumption here?

Talking about distraction...

Hmm,

I wonder what the N&W crews thought (or were they warned before??) when their "world lit up" when one of those O Winston Link flash photos was done?? O Winston Link did have the N&W's permission, but I would have liked to have been a fly in the cab when their "world lit up". 

I wonder if you could pull off the same photos today given today's regulatory and operating environment??

Idiot drone flyers.

Idiot drone flyers have created a real mess for model aircraft flyers of any kind, free flight, radio control and even control line. This is typical and I don't have very much if any use for drone flyers of any kind.

Wayne

Idiot drone flyers have

Yes they have. For years upon years RC plane and heli enthusiast enjoyed our hobby amongst ourselves without any public involvement unless we invited it. We most all belonged to the Academy of Model Aeronautics which provides insurance in the rare case of property damage or personal injury. Now we find the FAA is all up in our business and it's mostly if not all because of drones. The guy is a good pilot but drones really don't take that much skill to fly. Not what a regular plane or heli does anyway.

The other point I'd like to make is in these times of hyper awareness because of terrorism concerns, one's motives in doing something like this can be easily questioned. I'm reluctant to even be walking near railroad property taking pictures these days.

On this Doll please point to

On this Doll please point to the spot that hurts...It is a Fantasy According to the "experts"

I think he was lucky to miss

I think he was lucky to miss some wires around the 1:24 mark. 

Upon further research, the entire flight was in violation...

I checked a bit deeper into the FAA rules on RC aircraft, or as they call them "Unmanned aircraft systems". The part of the regulations that govern operating a UAS as a "Recreational flyer" includes a section, as mentioned above, that the aircraft must be within sight of the pilot at all times. This was obviously not the case with this video.

That section of the rules also prohibits the pilot from using a video feed that provides a first-person view of the flight. At the end of the video, it can be seen that after the UAS lands, the pilot takes off the goggles that were providing his first-person view.

So, even if the railroad approved the flight, it looks like the pilot violated the current rules numerous times.

Assumption

Broad assumption, however my assumption is based on knowing some of the people who would be involved in giving permission and there's not a snow ball's chance of that being an approved video.

um... no. he was legal using

um... no. he was legal using the googles. as he had "spotters" around him. yes his assistant can be his visual eyes by faa regs, and general flight rules.

but yes line of sight rule might have been broken. we do not know without being there. as in did he go so far away from launch point nobody could see the quad copter with there un aided eyes? but flying in, around, and under the train. is a violation in the rules.

flying "close" or above the train is not a violation. bothering the driver is.

but yes he does break the general flight rules in most of his videos.

please i am not defending this person. just the general reg, as far stricter rules from the faa are forth coming, making this hobby a joke to most hobbyists. the poster of the video in question. IS NOT a hobbyists.