River Country professional photographer photos

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

It was released today that those new pictures were taken from a drone.  A news channel (I think it was channel 5) out of West PalmBeach was reporting it.  It came across my phone but I am at the Fort.  Maybe someone can go find the article?

I found this where the photographer confirms he rented a boat and used a drone. He also claims he has been banned by Disney.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3501682/The-creepiest-place-Earth-inside-abandoned-Disney-World-park-one-two-close.html

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Travisma 1,317]

4 hours ago, AuburnJen said:

It was released today that those new pictures were taken from a drone.  A news channel (I think it was channel 5) out of West PalmBeach was reporting it.  It came across my phone but I am at the Fort.  Maybe someone can go find the article?

That could be just as bad since drones are banned from Disney property

[twiceblessed....nacole 433]

8 hours ago, Travisma said:

That could be just as bad since drones are banned from Disney property

Didn't know that.  We were there at Christmas and a boy down the loop got a drone... heck, I think it was a drone.  Now, as I'm typing, I'm not sure.  It was something that flew way up.  Ahhh... anyway, poor boy lost it (we think in a tree) and could not find it. Several neighbors tried looking for it (even getting up on the RV to see if we could see anything); didn't find it.  Poor kid.  Or should I say, poor parents as I'm guessing it wasn't cheap.

[Travisma 1,317]

4 minutes ago, twiceblessed....nacole said:

Didn't know that.  We were there at Christmas and a boy down the loop got a drone... heck, I think it was a drone.  Now, as I'm typing, I'm not sure.  It was something that flew way up.  Ahhh... anyway, poor boy lost it (we think in a tree) and could not find it. Several neighbors tried looking for it (even getting up on the RV to see if we could see anything); didn't find it.  Poor kid.  Or should I say, poor parents as I'm guessing it wasn't cheap.

There's a big difference between a kids toy one and the multi hundreds of $$$ ones that are a lot bigger and heavier.  But I'm not sure where Disney would draw the line.  The entire property is covered by a no fly zone. 

This is from a Disney rule page

PROHIBITED ITEMS

The following items may not be brought into the Parks:

1. Recreational devices such as drones, remote control toys, skateboards, scooters, inline skates or shoes with built-in wheels.

And from a blog page

There has been some videos posted as of late from a DJI Phantom flying over WDW. While yes nice videos, BEWARE the FAA has a TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction), though this TFR has been in place for MANY YEARS, over the entire property. You can read it here, http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html This is a Special Security TFR which means if you fly don't expect the FAA but you should expect the FBI to knock on your door.

As a drone flyer myself I would love to fly around property in remote areas but the bottom line is DON'T. These devices are still very young and can have problems which could harm people on the ground. So even if you don't care about the legal ramifications think about others on their vacations in WDW.

 

The Disney TFR was put in place to limit aerial advertising. The official reason is security, but the reality is Disney lobbied for it to limit banner planes.

You can still fly over Disney parks in a manned aircraft at 3000 ft, from which you can gather plenty of good behind the scenes pictures with a good camera. A recent MiceChat article had just this for Avatarland like 2 weeks ago.

The FAA rules on general drone use are for safety (as almost all FAA rules are). They are concerned primarily with threats to manned aircraft and secondarily about safety of people and property on the ground. The vast majority of drone flights will end safely, but the rules are there to ensure that even in the unlikely event of a failure, people and property are protected. Manned aircraft are handled the same way. They need to operate at an altitude such that in the event of an engine failure they can maneuver to avoid people and property. The way most quads are operated, they can't do that. They can't glide like a winged aircraft or auto-rotate like a helicopter. Falling from a few hundred feet, they'll get going plenty fast to cause damage.

 

Someone may eventually take them to court to allow drone flights, especially if Disney starts using them in their own shows, but I doubt they will get very far.  Disney is private property and they can ban what they want.

 

[Avatab.... Steve 124]

2 hours ago, Travisma said:

 

As a drone flyer myself I would love to fly around property in remote areas but the bottom line is DON'T. These devices are still very young and can have problems which could harm people on the ground. So even if you don't care about the legal ramifications think about others on their vacations in WDW.

 

The way most quads are operated, they can't do that. They can't glide like a winged aircraft or auto-rotate like a helicopter. Falling from a few hundred feet, they'll get going plenty fast to cause damage.

 

 

 

Exactly. 

Even a small hobby drone can do some serious harm if it smacks someone in the head.

 

[Travisma 1,317]

Those pictures are doubly amazing if he took them with a drone.

But how did he get under the vines and branches and then inside of that office looking place?

He must be an extraordinary pilot!

And the Disney boat captains let him launch a supposedly banned object and kept him in place while he flew around and took pictures?

Were they reprimanded?

He must've been flying for a while to be able to maneuver all around in there, so he couldn't have been doing it clandestinely.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

24 minutes ago, Travisma said:

Those pictures are doubly amazing if he took them with a drone.

But how did he get under the vines and branches and then inside of that office looking place?

He must be an extraordinary pilot!

And the Disney boat captains let him launch a supposedly banned object and kept him in place while he flew around and took pictures?

Were they reprimanded?

He must've been flying for a while to be able to maneuver all around in there, so he couldn't have been doing it clandestinely.

I think in the article he said he rented a Disney boat - it didn't specify if it was a Sea Raycer or pontoon or what. But even if he was out there by himself in a rental, usually if anyone is hanging around near the shore line too long or getting too close, the "police" boats are on them pretty quickly.  And as you said, even if he used a drone from off shore, it had to have taken him a while to get all these shots.

I'm taking the Daily Mail story with a grain of salt. From what I understand, their reputation for accuracy can be a bit suspect at times.

Plus if this guy really does try and keep his true identity a secret... well who knows if the person they talked to is actually him. 

[Travisma 1,317]

27 minutes ago, BradyBzLyn...Mo said:

I think in the article he said he rented a Disney boat - it didn't specify if it was a Sea Raycer or pontoon or what. But even if he was out there by himself in a rental, usually if anyone is hanging around near the shore line too long or getting too close, the "police" boats are on them pretty quickly.  And as you said, even if he used a drone from off shore, it had to have taken him a while to get all these shots.

I'm taking the Daily Mail story with a grain of salt. From what I understand, their reputation for accuracy can be a bit suspect at times.

Plus if this guy really does try and keep his true identity a secret... well who knows if the person they talked to is actually him. 

True, I didn't think about a pontoon which would be a good launch pad and a little less suspicious if you were carrying a duffle with a drone in it.

Maybe he had a getaway driver boating him in circles while he concentrated on piloting the drone.

But those pictures were very clear and under a lot of overhanging stuff.  Could a drone do all that?

 

[keith_h 420]

If I wanted to do something like that I'd rent a pontoon boat and have a couple of fishing poles out. My guess is the police boats would ignore a friendly fishing boat as they went about their business. Not knowing where the photographer was positioned I could see the potential to lose control of the drone while it was flying around RC. Seems like a lot of risk with a fairly expensive item just to get some pictures. Maybe he is just using the drone statement as a cover to hide another unknown way into RC so he can use it in the future. 

[Helmsey......Todd 134]

I call BS on the drone thing. Some "drones" are more than capable of carrying equipment to take those pics, but flying POV would be hard to get into some of those places.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

58 minutes ago, Travisma said:

Maybe he had a getaway driver boating him in circles while he concentrated on piloting the drone.

But those pictures were very clear and under a lot of overhanging stuff.  Could a drone do all that?

 

That's a funny visual to imagine.

I was wondering the same thing.  That would be a whole lot of fancy flying.  I have to go back and look, but isn't there a shot of inside one of the buildings?

43 minutes ago, keith_h said:

Maybe he is just using the drone statement as a cover to hide another unknown way into RC so he can use it in the future. 

Ah now THAT would make sense!  Shuts up the people hounding him about how he got the shots (mostly) and doesn't give anyone else any bright ideas.

24 minutes ago, Helmsey......Todd said:

I call BS on the drone thing. Some "drones" are more than capable of carrying equipment to take those pics, but flying POV would be hard to get into some of those places.

Yep.  My money is on either the person they interviewed isn't even the real guy, or he's just making stuff up to throw them off the scent.

There's a bit in there about how he's ok with the ban because he wasn't planning to go back as it had become too expensive.  If you poke around this guy's site, he hardly seems like the Disney fanatic type that's all worried about the cost of park tickets. 

[geoffdaddy 33]

IIRC, drones are prohibited around Disney not by virtue of Disney rules, but rather FAA rules... there is something like a 2-3 mile radius exclusion zone around WDW.

[geoffdaddy 33]

Ahhh... here we go...

 

• Walt Disney World Resort, in Central Florida (near Orlando). The zone extends to 3,000 feet (910 metres) in a 3-nautical-mile (5.6-kilometre) radius centered from the Main Spire of Cinderella Castle in the Magic Kingdom Theme Park.

Temporary restrictions over Disney parks were made permanent with language added to a 2003 federal spending bill.^[11] 

[Travisma 1,317]

And the new handout you get at check in showing pictures of authorized/unauthorized vehicles has a picture of drones in the unauthorized section.

[caveat lector 181]

 Just imagine sitting on clementine beach and trying to relax away the stresses of everyday life. Unfortunately the setting is wrecked by some dumb a## selfishly and dangerously flouting the rules.  All drones should be required to have a properly placed target. If it's close enough for you to see the target, you are within your right to "take it out".