ANother guy who's going to ruin it for all of us

edstumph said:
residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so.
edstumph said:
Actually you do own the air space above your house, check the regs
edstumph said:
this might explain it for you in easy to read english. http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=17&pageid=71
From your easy to read english ... Many landowners may not be aware of the fact that they have a right to use and possess the airspace the "floats" above the actual property they own. This right is not exclusive, and as such, airspace may be utilized by others for different purposes than a landowner would.
That seems to be contradicting your initial comment that residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so
If you want it in slightly less easy to read english, look up United States v. Causby and commentary on what it means. The short version is that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.
Your initial comment is not backed up by the law and is simply not true.
 
This does not say if this is still in affect, but I would presume so. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground.

Also note The upward boundaries of private property may be changing. The federal government is considering lowering the floor of navigable airspace below 500 feet to accommodate surveillance drones, which sometimes travel at lower altitudes.

also note that in May 2014 there was an article posted that anything 83 feet and below was owned by the property owner. Anything between 83 feet and 500 feet was reserved for the FAA.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... u_own.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/05/ ... ns-the-air
 
It's the media outlets that are doing the most damage. EVERYONE I know who has a bad attitude towards UAVs has never flown or seen one. EVERYONE I know who has a bad attitude toward UAVs heard all this bad rap from..... anyone?? anyone?? The news.

When people see them up close, look through the FPV, you know without a doubt, using a UAV to spy on people is out of the question. In order to get a usable image or video of someone you have to get close enough for them to see & hear it. The camera is meant for capturing wide angle vistas, not zoomed in cleavage shots.

Of course there will be jagoffs who will use cameras on UAVs to do bad things. Remember when pinhole cameras first came out and the losers who put them in bathrooms, bedrooms and any other place they could think of to spy on girls or shoot up their dresses? I do. Did small cameras get banned from use? No, people got a grip and realized a handful of idiots would try stupid crap and probably get caught, but the technology did not suffer for it.

The real point someone already made is this. If I'm going to spy on someone in an urban setting (or anywhere), I'm getting a telescope or a camera with a badass lens. People have been doing that for decades and the media morons never highlight that point when reporting on the 'threat' of UAVs because it wouldn't fit their agenda to create drama that does not exist.

What we need is some creatives to counter point all the bad press old media keeps spewing. And calm down about UAVs being banned - it's not happening. Just follow the rules - fly responsibly and you'll be ok.
 
edstumph said:
No offense but laws need to be made and one of them should be no flying in any residential area period. Everyone needs their privacy and that is their right. Also residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so. I may get a lot of flame for this, but really don't care because this is how I see it along with most of the world

You definitely lit the match to that powder keg Ed. You made a broad statement that there should just be zero flying in residential areas. That's so overkill to fix a problem that doesn't even exist. The camera you carry in your pocket every day - the one attached to your phone... That can do a wayyyy better job invading your neighbors privacy. Should we vote that people should not be allowed to carry cellphones in residential areas? What about DSLRs?? I own 3 and have some pretty hefty lenses that can get crystal clear images of the asscrack of the hot girl from like 3 towns away. Cameras banned from use in places where perceived privacy is invaded? No.

Hopefully the FAA gets it right and doesn't listen to the EdStumphs of the world. I live in an area where tour helicopters fly by every 20-30 mins. NOT over empty fields - but over populated tourist areas, highways, hotels. That's thousands of pounds of deadly flaming debris coming to the ground if that chopper has a catastrophic fail. Multiple people are almost guaranteed to die. IT HAS HAPPENED and will happen in the future. As a society - we have accepted that risk and live with it, hoping it never happens, but realizing it might and even tho we know this... manned aircraft still fly in one of the most complicated airspaces in the world.

If the effing old media would quit hyping the rare but inflammatory stories about the dipshits who are doing dumb things with UAVs and everyone keeps a cool head, the FAA might set some effective guidelines & regulations that allow the responsible people to fly our UAVs and keep people in the air and on the ground safe. I think that's all any of us wants. Quit worrying I'm going to use my quad to peep in your ****. If you flew one, you'd know it's the least effective way to cap people.
 
"spacious" 1/2 acre (20,000 square feet) roughly 200 X 100 feet. Surrounded by trees.
Lot of wind
"I've flown much higher than 100 feet" (how much higher?)
Trouble with GPS lock
"I've flown the Phantom without GPS Lock before while flying indoors."
"50 feet off the ground, doing "speed runs" to the tree line and back" (remember, 200 X 100 ft lot - with a house on it!)
"Got in trouble with the wind." "doubled down, accelerating the unit over the house and out towards the road in front." (out of LOS)
"Panicked and killed the rotors" (where is it going to land?)
What a moron. HE should be banned, not the drone!
 
From Wikipedia:
The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that a landowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[4] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."

That sums up the legal aspect. If you have a neighbor being annoyed by your UAV, they have the legal right to press charges for unlawful trespass and you can be found guilty.

I live in New Jersey, in a pretty packed development (1/3 acre lots). I have had one neighbor complain to me and ask me not to fly over his house. After that, I have maintained an altitude of at least 150ft when flying over any houses, which makes the Phantom pretty quiet, and have flown 100's of times with no further complaints.

If I had a UAV buzzing over my backyard and hovering over my pool at 75 feet, I'd be pissed off. So, I try and be a good neighbor. We all should.

Another post in this thread talked about how AMA fields suck. They do. We should have our own "association" that provides an online course with "certification", a group insurance policy, and a set of guidelines.

The current FAA guidance on UAS's demands the following:
warns to call airports within 5 miles of flight
Stay below 500 feet AGL, but at least 500 feet away from any person, building or vessel.
Don't fly out of LOS.
Fly according to the a nation-wide aeromodeling communities guidelines (AMA- which DOES NOT represent OUR interests)
and a lot of other crap. See this: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/mod ... operators/

An organization that represents the interests of multi-rotor hobbiest is desperately needed. It is a wonder that the corporations that make money on the hobby don't support a nationwide UAS/multirotor association. If we don't have a voice, or police ourselves, our hobby will be regulated right out of existence. A UAS assoicationt could have an online certification course, provide a group insurance policy, and provide guidelines, such as the following:

  • No flying in residential areas under 150 feet.
    The airspace between 150 and 450 AGL is recommended.
    UAV should maintain a separation of at least 50 feet from any person, animal or vehicle not briefed on the flight.
    Flights within 5 miles of an airport require the pilot to brief the airport of the flight
    Insurance should be carried by operators
    A certification course should be attained by the operator
    The UAV must have identifying information of the owner.
    Flights beyond LOS must be equipped with FPV capabilities, and the pilot must maintain visual FPV at all times

Call it the ASSUP! The Association of Small Scale UAS Pilots... (Better names welcomed).
 
edstumph said:
Also residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so.

Got a cite to verify that statement concerning legal statute? I'm honestly curious about this concerning what exactly my rights would be flying a quad on my own land. And what does that mean about anyone else (including the airlines) flying directly overhead in MY airspace. Quite honestly, unless a person is engaging in commerce across state lines, the federal government has zip for constitutional authority in such matters. Which includes the FAA.
 
Dr. Joe Says:

An organization that represents the interests of multi-rotor hobbyist is desperately needed. It is a wonder that the corporations that make money on the hobby don't support a nationwide UAS/multi-rotor association. If we don't have a voice, or police ourselves, our hobby will be regulated right out of existence. A UAS association could have an online certification course, provide a group insurance policy, and provide guidelines, such as the following:

No flying in residential areas under 150 feet.
The airspace between 150 and 450 AGL is recommended.
UAV should maintain a separation of at least 50 feet from any person, animal or vehicle not briefed on the flight.
Flights within 5 miles of an airport require the pilot to brief the airport of the flight
Insurance should be carried by operators
A certification course should be attained by the operator
The UAV must have identifying information of the owner.
Flights beyond LOS must be equipped with FPV capabilities, and the pilot must maintain visual FPV at all times

Call it the ASSUP! The Association of Small Scale UAS Pilots... (Better names welcomed).


I think Dr. Joe is on to something.... But there are some caveats. I feel if the government gets too involved, and mandates say testing and certification perhaps even annually or periodically), we could be faced with "recurring bureaucratic paperwork and costly fees".
 
Rich Z said:
I think Dr. Joe is on to something.... But there are some caveats. I feel if the government gets too involved, and mandates say testing and certification perhaps even annually or periodically), we could be faced with "recurring bureaucratic paperwork and costly fees".

I agree. That is why an organization promoting what WE want is so needed. The unfortunate truth is that government IS getting involved, whether it be the FAA, or state and local governments. The organization could also have a PAC (political action committee) that promotes safe, sane regulation to Washington and keeps airspace legislation away from local governments. Contributions from members and such companies as DJI, Walkera, Parrot, Futuba and a myriad of others could go a long way to hiring a lobbyist to get our point across.
 
How about this?

SSUPOAnnouncement.jpg


Would you joing SSUPO?

Would you pay a $25 yearly membership for access to an online certification course and access to a group liability policy?
Would you contribute to a PAC to lobby government?

Would you do so if SSUPO stood on the following:
  • Safe FPV flying should be allowed with proper equipment, not just LOS flying
    150 foot agl minimum altitude for residential areas
    25 feet of separation from people not briefed on the flight
    Notification of flight to airports within 3 miles (current FAA guideline is 5 miles)

I blew $29 on a website ( http://ssupo.org )and gmail account for it... maybe its something we, as a group, could pull off. Please let me know your thoughts.
 
edstumph said:
While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground.
In 1946 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the air had become a “public highway,” but a landowner still had dominion over “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.”

I don't think this has ever been relitigated.
 
DrJoe said:
How about this?

Would you joing SSUPO?
I don't know, is it fun to joing?

I suggest that you start a new thread for this.
 
DrJoe wrote:

Would you joing SSUPO?

Would you pay a $25 yearly membership for access to an online certification course and access to a group liability policy?
Would you contribute to a PAC to lobby government?

Would you do so if SSUPO stood on the following:
Safe FPV flying should be allowed with proper equipment, not just LOS flying
150 foot agl minimum altitude for residential areas
25 feet of separation from people not briefed on the flight
Notification of flight to airports within 3 miles (current FAA guideline is 5 miles)

I'm in !!!

I don't know much about setting up an organization, but I imagine it should have some sort of governing body, and be steered by the membership thereof. If you get enough favorable responses, or perhaps (with some tweaking) others may want to come on board, it would be favorable to solicit the manufacturers for support etc.

Personally, I think this is a great starting point.. A nice first step to test waters. Thanks Doc.
 
How about:

No flying for the purpose of obtaining images or data of private activities.
No flying below 150ft over private property without permission.
No flying within 25ft horizontally of people not aware or briefed on flight activities.
No flying above crowds unless they are briefed on flight activities.
No flying within 3 miles of an airport without permission from the controller.
 
ianwood said:
How about:

No flying for the purpose of obtaining images or data of private activities.
No flying below 150ft over private property without permission.
No flying within 25ft horizontally of people not aware or briefed on flight activities.
No flying above crowds unless they are briefed on flight activities.
No flying within 3 miles of an airport without permission from the controller.


So basically your saying use common sense?
Now you've. Gone off the cliff buddy that's asking way too much lol
 
pjw73nh said:
DrJoe wrote:

Would you joing SSUPO?

Would you pay a $25 yearly membership for access to an online certification course and access to a group liability policy?
Would you contribute to a PAC to lobby government?

Would you do so if SSUPO stood on the following:
Safe FPV flying should be allowed with proper equipment, not just LOS flying
150 foot agl minimum altitude for residential areas
25 feet of separation from people not briefed on the flight
Notification of flight to airports within 3 miles (current FAA guideline is 5 miles)

I'm in !!!

I don't know much about setting up an organization, but I imagine it should have some sort of governing body, and be steered by the membership thereof. If you get enough favorable responses, or perhaps (with some tweaking) others may want to come on board, it would be favorable to solicit the manufacturers for support etc.

Personally, I think this is a great starting point.. A nice first step to test waters. Thanks Doc.

This is why we have the AMA. It seems redundant to form another new group to serve the same purpose IMO.
Why start over? Focus this energy to increasing enrollment in an already established group that is currently lobbying for our rights and privileges. Drone pilots, ever increasing in number, would be a powerful asset to the AMA, and the AMA could be a powerful asset to all drone pilots.
 
GoodnNuff said:
This is why we have the AMA. It seems redundant to form another new group to serve the same purpose IMO.
Why start over? Focus this energy to increasing enrollment in an already established group that is currently lobbying for our rights and privileges. Drone pilots, ever increasing in number, would be a powerful asset to the AMA, and the AMA could be a powerful asset to all drone pilots.

I'd agree, but there is one glaring problem. The AMA strictly prohibits flying FPV without the craft remaining in LOS. This means you violate their safety guidelines, and are ineligible for insurance coverage IF you fly out of LOS. With proper equipment, preparation and monitoring, flights out of LOS are possible to conduct safely.

There is also the problem of "too big". The AMA encompasses all flying remote controled vehicles.. To their credit, the AMA is trying to adapt with their new "park flyer" membership, but it does not seem geared to the new breed of flight control stabilized, gps guided multi-rotors with FPV cameras. I wonder if someone said the same thing about the AHBA (the american horse & buggy association) when AAA got started, LOL!

We are a new breed of R/C operators, and we need a new type of organization to represent us.
 
I'd agree, but there is one glaring problem. The AMA strictly prohibits flying FPV without the craft remaining in LOS. This means you violate their safety guidelines, and are ineligible for insurance coverage IF you fly out of LOS. With proper equipment, preparation and monitoring, flights out of LOS are possible to conduct safely.

No you can still get insurance coverage with the AMA even if you fly in violation of their guidelines (rules) or in violation of federal law (*flying FPV without LOS), you just won't be able to make an insurance claim if your FPV flight without LOS causes damage or injury to another.

* 4. RANGE – ALTITUDE – WEIGHT – SPEED:
a) One of the requirements in Federal Law (Public Law 112-95 Sec 336 (c) (2) February
14, 2012) for model aircraft to be excluded from FAA regulations is that model aircraft
must be flown within VLOS of the operator.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

It is the FAA you need to battle regarding LOS, not the AMA...

And I have to disagree, I don't think blind FPV is without risks. I do it once in a while, but I can't judge distance dut to limited perception and my peripheral vision is extremely limited. In an open area it is fairly safe, but in an urban setting, not safe with current systems IMO.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,355
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.