Aggitated Neighbor

[NRJ]

We arent arguing, I agree with you, 100% as I stated in my post with repect to preserving and protecting our freedoms we enjoy. One I suspect we share is this hobby. In my juristiction, and I suspect yours is simillar, amongst other guidlines we should not fly above populous areas. It is not further defined although some examples are provided. If we can avoid unnecessarily getting people offside, some of whom may well join the fight to lobby for restrictions to be imposed on us, we may be better off in the long run.

Happy flying.....

I agree with what you say here, what I took exception to in your earlier post was when you said; "Talk to them by all means and seek comfort, if you cant bring them around dont fly. Simple." You said, don't fly. I don't understand that. We have a right to fly at least at this point in time. So, I think we are both in agreement, but maybe you forgot what you first said.

 

[coopdog]

I agree with what you say here, what I took exception to in your earlier post was when you said; "Talk to them by all means and seek comfort, if you cant bring them around dont fly. Simple." You said, don't fly. I don't understand that. We have a right to fly at least at this point in time. So, I think we are both in agreement, but maybe you forgot what you first said.

You do not have an unequivocal right to fly over other people property.

 

[NRJ]

You do not have an unequivocal right to fly over other people property.

To you I simply say show me the law on that one.

 

[henick]

That's what I'm saying. I don't think the people that complain realize the US government has had satellites in orbit with enough resolution to read a name tag on a shirt for a very long time now.

Who cares about being an ant photobombing a home video that may never be seen or used.

 

[NRJ]

That's what I'm saying. I don't think the people that complain realize the US government has had satellites in orbit with enough resolution to read a name tag on a shirt for a very long time now.

Who cares about being an ant photobombing a home video that may never be seen or used.

I believe you are right. Possibly the government is the one they are or should be afraid of, but, since they feel they can't do anything about the government eavesdropping on them, they pick on their neighbors and anyone with a camera. And people get so picky. As said earlier, there are a lot of nut jobs out there. Also, a lot of uneducated people who throw out their emotions rather than thinking things through. We should all use reason, logic and take time in what we say to our fellow man and hobbyists. And have a great day flying.

 

[coopdog]

To you I simply say show me the law on that one.

Show me you can.

So I can just fly my drone 10 feet off my neighbor's ground and film whatever I want?

Drones, i.e. flying cameras, are not airplanes in the traditional sense and we don't use them the same way. Everyone knows they are cameras. Most reasonable people would get creeped out if someone was just walking up and down the street taking pictures of peoples houses with a big DSLR. Legal? probably. Creepy? yes.

The implied easements that exist for aircraft and satellites are not suited to govern the use of "drones". Socially and legally, we haven yet to define their appropriate use. Further, the airspace is not owned by the public. It is controlled by the FAA, but it is not owned by it. Property owners have rights.

Basically the whole body of property rights theory that we enjoy in the US provides rights to the ground below and the air above. I can't run I pipe under my neighbor's ground without an easement. I can't string a wire in the air across their property without an easement. Further, we have the right to the "quiet enjoyment" of our property. Quiet in this sense has more to do with harassment than noise. When you fly a camera over a house, especially when the owner asked you not to, you are asking for trouble.

 

[NRJ]

Show me you can.

So I can just fly my drone 10 feet off my neighbor's ground and film whatever I want?

Drones, i.e. flying cameras, are not airplanes in the traditional sense and we don't use them the same way. Everyone knows they are cameras. Most reasonable people would get creeped out if someone was just walking up and down the street taking pictures of peoples houses with a big DSLR. Legal? probably. Creepy? yes.

The implied easements that exist for aircraft and satellites are not suited to govern the use of "drones". Socially and legally, we haven yet to define their appropriate use. Further, the airspace is not owned by the public. It is controlled by the FAA, but it is not owned by it. Property owners have rights.

Basically the whole body of property rights theory that we enjoy in the US provides rights to the ground below and the air above. I can't run I pipe under my neighbor's ground without an easement. I can't string a wire in the air across their property without an easement. Further, we have the right to the "quiet enjoyment" of our property. Quiet in this sense has more to do with harassment than noise. When you fly a camera over a house, especially when the owner asked you not to, you are asking for trouble.

The things you have mentioned here are all regulated and have laws concerning them. You have taken this topic to the extreme and have forgotten your use of reason, logic, common sense, and just being a good person. Fly 10 feet off my neighbors ground? Really? I can't show the law on that one because as I implied, you can't either. You just want to argue. Good day to you and I hope you have a great flight.

 

[CCDD]

 

[NRJ]

View attachment 53032

Lol, is that the Litchi leash?

 

[NRJ]

That article you posted, (even though saying it was updated 3 weeks ago), still has a very & highly inaccurate paragraph. Whereas, it was stated that in the state of Colorado it is LEGAL to shoot down a drone if it is flying over private property. "Souvenir Licenses" were being sold for $25. In Deer Trail, CO. These "Souvenir Licenses" are NOT VALID to those who purchased them to actually shoot down a drone! People need to realize what they are actually purchasing!

These "Souvenir Licenses" are no different than my purchasing a "Certificate" stating that I had completed training & I am now a "Certified" Jedi Knight!

Like I said, I am just the messenger. I thought it was interesting. I did not agree with everything. I agree with you about the souvenir licenses.

 

[With The Birds]

I agree with what you say here, what I took exception to in your earlier post was when you said; "Talk to them by all means and seek comfort, if you cant bring them around dont fly. Simple." You said, don't fly. I don't understand that. We have a right to fly at least at this point in time. So, I think we are both in agreement, but maybe you forgot what you first said.

No, I stand by the don't fly if if it really annoys them.

 

[NRJ]

To each his own. I'm just glad you owned it. I hope you never piss anybody off with your drone. Happy flying.

 

[Lonewolf]

Like I said, I am just the messenger. I thought it was interesting. I did not agree with everything. I agree with you about the souvenir licenses.

Then you should think about it next time.

Perhaps it would be wise to be sure the posting/article is accurate rather than to propagate an inaccurate article that can be immediately assumed accurate to trolls who follow these forums who would like nothing more than to illegally shoot down a UAV because they saw it posted here. [emoji31]

 

[NRJ]

Then you should think about it next time.

Perhaps it would be wise to be sure the posting/article is accurate rather than to propagate an inaccurate article that can be immediately assumed accurate to trolls who follow these forums who would like nothing more than to illegally shoot down a UAV because they saw it posted here. [emoji31]

LOL!

 

[NRJ]

For all to read. What the LA Times says about the hunting "souvenir" licenses are all about. Here's the link. By the way, the town voted down the measure to sell the drone hunting licenses. The mayor... well read for yourself. It's a free country. You can read and make up your own mind and stay informed.

Colorado town shoots down drone-hunting ordinance

 

[yorlik]

You do not have an unequivocal right to fly over other people property.

Ah, you are wrong. We DO have an unequivocal right to fly over other people's property.

 

[coopdog]

Unequivocal? Not with a flying camera at low altitudes you don't.

Drone flyers may or may not have rights. It remains to be seen.

Property owners definitely have rights.

 

[yorlik]

Unequivocal? Not with a flying camera at low altitudes you don't.

Same ol same ol argument. There is no consensus yet. There will be no definitive answer to how high for the foreseeable future.

10 feet you say?

Meanwhile some believe the FAA when they say "According to the Federal Aviation Administration, every inch above the tip of your grass blades is the government’s jurisdiction. “The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of U.S. airspace from the ground up,” said an agency spokesman, echoing rules laid out on its website."

10 feet? WELL above THAT.

Others say.... the arguments will go on for a long time. Meanwhile to say we flat cannot fly over a neighbors house due to a law is wrong. Moral? Ethical? etc.? But not wrong as you try to suggest.

 

[Jaime Ray Vaughn]

Sheesh, all the bickering! I wonder what the mother replied to the text received? If this happened to me, I would do nothing except try to be very careful and not fly over this neighbors property. If the neighbor contacts you directly, address it in a neighborly manner.

 

[CCDD]

This topic has been beaten to death, stop already. Who cares whether it's legal or not, just be mature about it and try not to "piss" someone off just because you think you have the right too. Just remember what goes around comes around and looking for trouble is not going to help you or the rest of us going forward. Drone laws are rapidly changing and if people attempt to flirt with legality, we'll all end up losing in the end.