That's absurd generally, but for purposes of this rule specifically, I think it works out totally fine, yes. Because if you replace the human jumping with a vehicle jumping (being that the rule is regarding vehicles, not humans) then the answer to the question of whether a violation has occurred is "yes" -- repeated violations does not matter when answering. For flying vehicles, only taking off or landing in the park is a violation.
How about hovering? at what height does it become not the park? 10 centimeters above the park is one thing and space is at 100 kilometers, but there's a lot of room in between those for disagreement.
At what point is a helicopter hovering above the park in violation?
This is why you need a lawyer familiar with the local regulations, which clarify these things. Thus this test is invalid because there should be an “there is not enough information to answer” answer.
That's absurd generally, but for purposes of this rule specifically, I think it works out totally fine, yes. Because if you replace the human jumping with a vehicle jumping (being that the rule is regarding vehicles, not humans) then the answer to the question of whether a violation has occurred is "yes" -- repeated violations does not matter when answering. For flying vehicles, only taking off or landing in the park is a violation.
How about hovering? at what height does it become not the park? 10 centimeters above the park is one thing and space is at 100 kilometers, but there's a lot of room in between those for disagreement.
At what point is a helicopter hovering above the park in violation?
This is why you need a lawyer familiar with the local regulations, which clarify these things. Thus this test is invalid because there should be an “there is not enough information to answer” answer.
1 reply →