April 20, 2014

Elyria
Mostly sunny
75°F
test

Aerial photo shows the explosion zone

An aerial photo showing the destruction on Columbia Avenue in Elyria

An aerial photo showing the destruction on Columbia Avenue in Elyria.  BRUCE BISHOP/CHRONICLE

An aerial view of 116 Columbia, which exploded Friday night. The blast ruined a neighboring home and left others in the neighborhood with significant damage.

  • Lisa

    Nice shot!!

  • Bob Sweatt

    Sorry about the house. Bit that is an awesome picture.

  • Terry Thomas Photos

    Bruce, how did you get that photo? If it was from an airplane or mast, OK. But if you used a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) then you broke FAA rules. The CT could face a fine of up to $10,000. Just thought you might like to know.

    Terry Thomas
    former Lorain Journal photojournalist
    Atlanta, Georgia

    • Zen Grouch

      Just out of curiosity…

      …which FAA rules were broken if a drone was used to take this photo?

    • Bill

      Go troll your old haunting grounds. The urinal.

    • Zen Grouch

      I think you’re talking autonomous drones, not remote controlled model
      aircraft that operate under 400 feet and less than 3 miles from an
      airport.

      If you aren’t I’d be curious as to exactly which FAA
      regulation carries a $10k fine for snapping photos with a remote
      controlled model aircraft.

      • Terry Thomas Photos

        Zen, all you need to do is perform a basic Google search:
        https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=mw#hl=en&q=FAA+photos+UAV

        • Zen Grouch

          Thing is, I don’t believe you.

          So when I ask for something I believe doesn’t exist, I ask for something specific, or “EXACT” rather than some bread crumbs to follow on Google.

          You flat out stated that under certain circumstances, laws would have been broken and fines could be exacted.

          THAT’s the kind of specific I seek when asking about what laws may or may not have been broken.

          • Terry Thomas Photos

            Zen, careful now. I never said “laws” were broken. I said “rules”. There is a difference.

            Since you don’t seem able to be able to generate a Google search, try this one:
            https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=mw#hl=en&q=FAA+UAV+%2410%2C000

            Terry Thomas
            former Lorain Morning Journal photojournalist
            Atlanta, Georgia

          • Zen Grouch

            I stand corrected, you did claim that under certain circumstances the Chronicle would be fined for breaking FAA rules and not “laws” as I erroneously stated.

            Umm… which rules were those again?

            I did take a look at what your *masterful* Google search turned up, but didn’t find anything I would consider a reliable source, after looking at the first two, that didn’t answer my question at all.

            The FAA is quite exact when it comes to defining their rules and regulations. Providing the one that calls for a $10k fine for taking snapshots from a remote controlled model aircraft should be easy enough for you to provide a direct link to.

            For a journalist of the caliber to work for the Lorain Morning Journal, surely you can supply supporting documentation to back up the earlier statement where you pointed out that Mr. Bishop may have subjected the CT to a $10k fine, unless he was hanging by his feet or perhaps some kind of harness from a jerryrigged mast, or some kind of FCC licensed aircraft.

  • Zen Grouch

    If you don’t know the difference in autonomous drones and remote controlled model aircraft, you really should look into the subjects, rather than dig your hole any deeper.

    Seriously, how difficult can it be for a professional who has the Morning Journal in his curriculum vitae to look up a simple FAA Regulation, and clear this whole misunderstanging up?