Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

AP article new drone panel & privacy DJI refused to sign

Discussion in 'News' started by shorttimer, May 21, 2016.

  1. shorttimer

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
  2. Sinisalo

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    324
    I agree that most of it is common sense, can we ban all airplanes from flying over our private property? No! So why would we ban "drones" from flying over our private property? They need to put some additional language in there to specify that you shouldn't fly over private property for the purpose of invading someone else's privacy. If you fly over private property and you damage someone's property then you should be on the hook to pay damages but there shouldn't be a flat out ban. If someone wants to fly their quad over my yard at 200' to get to where they are going, so be it. If they want to fly over at 50' so be it but I would expect that if they accidentally capture me naked in my backyard that they wouldn't post the video on YouTube. If they hover over my yard at 50' for ten minutes that is a different story.
     
    NRJ and Sim597 like this.
  3. Tink

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    5
    Most drones are a photography platform - not so with airplanes. They are not comparable.

    I'd like to see 200' minimum over private property, and no hovering.

    Be aware of your bias toward drones. I'm a pilot and new drone user. I was not a UAV fan a few weeks ago. It's still really easy to have empathy for those against them. They can feel very invasive.

    Fortunately, I live at the edge of a small town with a lot of countryside close. When flying from my neighborhood, I fly a minimum of 200' over, and then lower once clear. In the neighborhood, I rarely get over roof top heights.

     
  4. Fat Daddy

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Nevada
    Welcome to the hobby Tink. Something to keep in mind is the meaning of "Drone" or UAV when it comes to legislation and rule making. While we may think of it as being our Phantom style machines, it is much broader when the FAA is involved. When they say "drone", they are including RC airplanes, multi-rotors, RC helicopters, and I'm sure there are others but I can't think of examples.

    My issue was the FAA getting invoked in the first place. If we are to answer to them like other, larger aircraft, we should see some similar protections. If you want to regulate flying over private dwellings, give me a min height and I'm good.

    The way they wrote the regs, and I'm 100% compliant, I can't even use my 250 quad, that has no camera and rarely goes above 20', in a public park without sticking an FAA # on it. Hell, I can't even hover at 5' in my front yard until I put that # on.

    We have to have some rules and regs that protect all parties. And some education.
     
  5. Tink

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    5
    Agreed. The problem is multi-faceted - incursion possibilities due to capabilities, combined with high resolution cameras causing concern for privacy.

    I suspect the majority of high power drones are camera equipped.

    I wouldn't have any problem separating the FAA involvement to only include UAVs capable of image transmission or recording.

    To include RC planes, etc., is a shame. For the most part, pilots and RC plane hobbyists have gotten along very well.

    My first post wasn't really to argue the sanity of involving the FAA; it was more to remind operators that there is a natural bias to have unenfringed rights, so try to see it from the guy's perspective who has daughters laying out by the backyard pool (me). As well a protecting pilots (also me).
     
  6. RussOnTheRoad

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    30
    My understanding is that property ownership, at least in the USA, includes the right to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of that property, so model aircraft buzzing overhead may violate that lawful right.

    Property ownership also extends above and below the surface of the ground. In terms of air space, up to the limits set by the FAA a property owner owns the air space above his /her property. Entering into a person's private air space is trespassing. Always has been.
    Nothing new about this.

    Besides the above, a drone falling on somebody's head could injure them. One falling onto a roadway could trigger an accident. You can't fly in National Parks or in my area the Regional Parks. They don't want drones buzzing around when people are trying to enjoy the peace and quiet of nature which is what parks are about. There are good reasons besides privacy for not flying over people, private property, roadways, etc. I find it frustrating and limiting but it is what it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
     
  7. Mark The Droner

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    3,941
    Likes Received:
    1,149
    Location:
    Brookeville, MD, USA
    Just give us a 900 ft AGL maximum and a reasonable minimum over "private property" - say 200 ft. Move the Cessnas to 1000 feet AGL minimum.
     
  8. Tink

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    5
    Aircraft are already required to be 1k feet over "congested" areas. It's 500' over "uncongested" areas.

    I can't think of a practical reason recreational drones need more than 400'. I enjoy flying my Phantom up to occasionally 400', but rarely need to get that high. I enjoy flying my Cirrus as low as 500', but rarely fly that low.

    The amount over private property is a much more difficult compromise to find. A transitional altitude of 200' would seem reasonable, although I'd rather see 300'. If you hover over, however, you're subject to being busted.

    Legislation like this would require informed reasonableness, however. That means it is very unlikely to happen.....
     
  9. snerd

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    1,585
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    News organizations are exempt from the guidelines on free-press grounds.

    Imagine that! I claim the same First Amendment right too.

    "................ News outlets including The Associated Press were represented in the discussions leading up to the guidelines and won an exemption. The standards say news organizations should be able to use drones the same way they use comparable technology — such as planes and helicopters — to record data in public spaces as long as they follow their own ethics policies and federal and state laws...................

    That's what they've wanted all along. They have instilled fear and ignorance into the population against drones for over a year now. They hate to have competition of any kind.
     
  10. Mark The Droner

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    3,941
    Likes Received:
    1,149
    Location:
    Brookeville, MD, USA
    The Cessnas over my house are flying 500 feet. I'd like them to move higher.

    Right now we can fly 0 to 400 feet. If they want to take away the first 200-300 feet. I suggest they can give us some more flying room above 400 feet. Right now it's not crowded but it won't stay that way forever.
     
  11. Fat Daddy

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Nevada
    The assumption that private property ownership gives you a right to the airspace and underground resources is not correct.

    In my home state, NV, we have legislation that makes it legal for you to fly over any private property over 250'. Under can be trespassing if it disturbs a lawful occupant of the home but it requires a complaint. Not just the flight.

    And taking video or photography of a private person in a state of undress without his/her knowledge is voyeurism. That is illegal at any height.
     
  12. Tink

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    5
    I would say Brookville itself is probably considered uncongested, although maybe not, and if so, only by a short distance.

    But it's in the DC SFRA, so nobody will be there without a discreet code and on a flight plan. The highest obstacle in the sector is 1.2k - about 800' above Brookville, so it should certainly be highly unusual for someone to be flying 500' above you, unless it's an emergency flight. However, the Class B shelf of Baltimore is just to the East and begins at 2.5k, so I could see some VFR on flight plans staying under that shelf. While not 500', or even 1k', they would be lower than average.

    I can see your frustration in trying to fly under and around the airspace you're in. Add drones to an already busy and highly regulated airspace, and it would, indeed, get congested.

    Even if you go to the North to get out from under the SFRA, you've got lots of airports.
     
  13. Mark The Droner

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    3,941
    Likes Received:
    1,149
    Location:
    Brookeville, MD, USA
    Re obstacles, you must be referring to the cell tower about a mile north (elevation alone is 100 feet higher a mile north).

    You know Brookeville? We have a lot of farmland nearby so I doubt it would be considered "congested."

    Actually the DC SFRA doesn't bother me so much nowadays. Fact is, there ain't that many small planes up there - probably due to the SFRA. I'm not exactly sure what is required for a pilot to fly his small plane in the DC SFRA. But it does look like they're pleasure-flying for the most part.

    I see maybe one plane a day. Three would be a high number. Still - I assume they have the right to come down to 500' above my house if they wish. But maybe not - because of the elevation change a mile north.
     
  14. RussOnTheRoad

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    30

    It seems you contradict yourself. First you say that "The assumption that private property ownership gives you a right to the airspace and underground resources is not correct.". Then you say "In my home state, NV, we have legislation that makes it legal for you to fly over any private property over 250'. Under can be trespassing..." Yes, there are limits on air space rights that come with property ownership, but property ownership does come with ownership of airspace rights above the property owned.

    Prosecution for trespass may require the filing of a complaint but the trespass exists whether or not a complaint is filed. If there was no trespass there would be no basis for a complaint. I'm not a lawyer, so there may be some fine points I do not understand, but this I can say for sure: if you don't fly over somebody's property you will have no liability for trespass. If you do fly over somebody's property you may.
     
  15. Fat Daddy

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Nevada

    You are correct in that I was imprecise in my response. The assumption that a property owner owns the air space above his property up to the limits set by the FAA is incorrect.

    Additionally, it hasn't always been trespassing. The legislation came about because there wasn't anything that could be done about a UAV hovering 50' in the air unless you could prove voyuerism.

    This should not be regulated at a federal, or even at a state level aside from the most general, "don't make it a weapon" type stuff. The middle of the NV desert is very different from the middle of Manhattan.
     
  16. RussOnTheRoad

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    30
    I can't really get too involved in things about the law because I'm not a lawyer and certainly not an expert in things about air space. For the sake of discussion I will ask to what legislation you refer? I have poked around a bit online and depending upon here you look you get different takes on the subject. No big surprise there. Right?

    You wrote "The assumption that a property owner owns the air space above his property up to the limits set by the FAA is incorrect" I ask you, what is correct, then?

    One article I found of interest is at
    Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?
    and to quote from it, "Before the advent of air travel, landowners owned an infinitely tall column of air rising above their plot. (The Latin doctrine was Cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum, or “whose is the soil, his it is up to the sky.”) " This would tend to indicate that yes, ownership of air space above property one owns has always been the case, as was my assertion above. I can't quote law on either side of the argument but it would make sense that laws regarding airspace above real property existed long before the advent of the UAV.

    A quote form Wikipedia at
    Air rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    reads "Unlimited air rights existed when people began owning real estate. It was not something that anyone really concerned themselves with before the 20th century. The first legal limits placed on air rights came about because of the airplane. [Emphasis added.] Eventually, owners' property rights in the airspace were limited to what they could reasonably use. It would be impractical for the development of air travel for individual landowners to own all the space above them, therefore legislators established a public easement in the airspace above 500 ft in order to prevent claims of trespassing.". Again, I'm curious about the legislation you mentioned and how it might jibe, or not, with the quoted articles.

    You wrote "This should not be regulated at a federal, or even at a state level aside from the most general, "don't make it a weapon" type stuff. The middle of the NV desert is very different from the middle of Manhattan." Do you mean to say that you think UAV pilots should be allowed to fly over private property below that 500' ceiling without the property owner's permission if it happens to be sparsely or completely unpopulated?

    As a fellow drone pilot, (and one that owns no real property) I understand it would be nice to fly wherever we like assuming it was relatively safe and not invasive of privacy, but there is still that thing about the right of quiet enjoyment of one's own property. What if some guy who owns 500 acres of empty desert is out for a walk on that land when a drone comes zipping over his head? Or what if 50 drone pilots decide to have a race over his land every weekend? Despite the fact that I'd like to be able to lawfully fly wherever and whenever I think it should be OK it's inevitable there will be others that disagree with me, and that's why we have laws--guidelines we must all follow. I don't think any of us would like to have drones buzzing about our heads where we live, or over desert property we own and not be able to do anything about it.
     
  17. henick

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2016
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    61
    Funny hearing so many different half *** interpretations of a handful of semi-related old case laws. When that prescident was set, drones didn't exist. The judge rightfully decided since they didn't exist, a reasonable amount of airspace the individual could enjoy at the time. Technology has evolved. So will the laws. That's kinda how law works fundamentally. It will change when someone with enough money and ideal legal conditions meet head to head in a courtroom. It just hasn't happened YET.

    There is no longer any reasonable way to expect that one can have privacy outdoors now without a roof. Drones exist now, before they didn't.

    Hold on to your hat for anybody that can't comprehend that!! Forget about the 83' and blahblah.. yadda. Means nothing.
     
  18. RussOnTheRoad

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    30
    Hahah... Now that's funny... A judge deciding that drones didn't exist... What is the case law to which you refer? Can you cite any references or are you just making that up?
     
  19. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    90% of this is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist.

    Are people going to violate existing privacy laws with drones? Yes. Are they going to be used to stalk people? Yes. Are they going to pose a safety risk? Yes. But 1) we already have existing laws that apply to these situations and if they want to specifically include drones now, that is fine and 2) there is no indication that drones are going to be any more a problem than any other tech that has been around for 20 years.

    To me clear... we need to back up a little. A few fear mongers are _predicting_ that this is going to be some huge problem as there will be millions of drones flying around. This simply won't be the case. Yet people are already wanting to make laws like its already happened. They say we need to be pro-active. Well, it seems pretty easy to throw together one of these stupid laws in a few days and get it passed just as fast.... so why the rush?

    This is yet another example of where _education_ should be used to get the vast minority of people to do the right thing rather then attempting to regulate the other 99.99999999% of drone use.
     
    Fat Daddy likes this.
  20. henick

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2016
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    61
    States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

    In 1946 drones were not foremost on the mind of a presiding judge. Safe to say he wasn't consumed by that thought during deliberation.