Another Inspire bites the dust....

[Happyflyer]

Everyone is using "Drones" to make vids i seen the end of a advertisement for a car they had a bunch of "drones" attacking people :lol: .
Don't take this to heart
My question is how many shots did it take to hit that bird ?

Mentioned over at OT, viewtopic.php?f=52&t=35798
But no one cares.

 

[750r]

Everyone is using "Drones" to make vids i seen the end of a advertisement for a car they had a bunch of "drones" attacking people :lol: .
Don't take this to heart
My question is how many shots did it take to hit that bird ?

But no one cares.

That's what we all need to do with all these vids that are coming out I actually got a chuckle out of it I did not see the whole thing just where he was being chased :lol: :roll:

 

[SteveMann]

If you ask 100 people on the street about who owns the airspace --- 99 of them will say "I own all airspace over my property up to infinity".

And they would be wrong. SCOTUS decisions dating all the way back to 1946 have said that you only own the airspace above your property that you can reasonably use.

 

[Happyflyer]

And they would be wrong. SCOTUS decisions dating all the way back to 1946 have said that you only own the airspace above your property that you can reasonably use.

So Steve, when I climb up to the top of my 80 foot ham tower, that is air space I can use? :lol:

 

[capodrone81]

They are pretty awesome weapons but why ruin a 3k quad? Why not use a less expensive model?

+2 :?:

 

[dtitus6297]

Why would u do such a thing? There's a few grand down the tube....*******

 

[Milly]

Things might be a bit different in the UK, but I did not get what that was about at all.

It was a advertisement for a rifle but why they decided to shoot an Inspire is beyond me. :roll:

Thank you dirklod, your not allowed to have guns in the UK so we don't see adverts for them on the TV, that's why it seemed strange to me.

 

[Larry L]

Everyone is using "Drones" to make vids i seen the end of a advertisement for a car they had a bunch of "drones"
Since they used a quad to film hitting the Inspire & steel targets, isn't this commercial use if they are trying to sell the product? I am sure it is in a grey area. Another thing, not sure of the rules but weren't they a little low to be flying a plane? Thought the minimum is still higher than they were flying. I doubt they got permission.

 

[dirkclod]

I have seen a lot of shows where they fly low to drop off supply's in remote places. Seen a lot of hunting shows where they were trying to knock down the wild hog population out of helicopters in Texas so maybe they just look the other way on some of this. Maybe you can do this over your property out there I dono.

 

[Larry L]

For what it's worth. The video was shot using two inspires. The first was shot down in the video, that was filmed using the second one. The second was shot down after filming was complete. I made the comment to the store where the inspires were purchased that I would of donated my phantom for a inspire , I was told no that they have already did it with the phantoms I wish I had $5600.00 to blow away.

 

[Hughie]

If you ask 100 people on the street about who owns the airspace --- 99 of them will say "I own all airspace over my property up to infinity".

And they would be wrong. SCOTUS decisions dating all the way back to 1946 have said that you only own the airspace above your property that you can reasonably use.

And in the UK, the landowner has rights over the "lower stratum" :

"S. 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982 states that ‘the lower stratum is unlikely to extend beyond an altitude of much more than 500 or 1,000 feet above roof level, this being roughly the minimum permissible distance for normal overflying by any aircraft’ (Rules of the Air Regulations 2007, Sch 1, s. 3(5)). "

Which might get a bit awkward, because I can easily fly within the rules of the Air Navigation Order and still effectively be in someone's private air space.

 

[Meta4]

And in the UK, the landowner has rights over the "lower stratum"

Has rights over doesn't mean that the landowner has ownership or the right to control everything up to 500 feet.
Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479 makes it clear that the rights of a land owner over his/her land extend only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land.

This all makes for fertile ground for lawyers to plough.

 

[Spiritskeeper]

Roughly 80 feet depending on your jurisdiction.

 

[Hughie]

And in the UK, the landowner has rights over the "lower stratum"

Has rights over doesn't mean that the landowner has ownership or the right to control everything up to 500 feet.
Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479 makes it clear that the rights of a land owner over his/her land extend only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land.

This all makes for fertile ground for lawyers to plough.

Absolutely right. It is a bit of a grey area as to what is ordinary use and enjoyment. If a landowner can object to a crane boom over their property 250' in the air, I am sure they could do the same about regular multicopter air traffic at the same height. If they can hear the noise as well that would make it worse.

EDIT:
Although on balance, this counters the above;
Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 says:

No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with and there has been no breach of section 81 below.

One interpretation of which, is that it is permissible, in a non congested area in the UK to fly at 51m above someone's property.