First run in with neighbor.....and the law

Just a few facts in here clear the air...
I have a PPL and is active/current, I fly Cessna 172 from time to time. Under FAA rules and regulations and also under FBI regulations, it is ILLEGAL for any body to interfere with my flying abilities while I act as PIC (pilot in command). You can not interfere with a pilot flying a Cessna or a Boeing.
Drones are considered by the FAA as "aircraft" and the person operating the drone is considered a pilot under the law. If you hurt or kill somebody with your drone, when in court the law will address you as the "pilot" and not as the hobby drone operator >>> keep this in mind.
I fly a drone - DJI - as part of my work and I operate under the company's exemption 333. Also each time I fly I am required to have a spotter with me to STOP ANYBODY from interfering with me. Yes, a few times cops were called, the spotter told the cop I operate with FAA permission (333) and for work purpose. The cop had to wait till I landed and AFTER that we discussed "why". Most cops are misinformed or ignorant but when shown the FAA rules they back down rightaway.
Those of you with attitude "will get my gun and shoot down that drone" please contact FAA and ask them how legal is that.
Flying over somebody's house in not illegal, we do it all the time while taking off from Falcon Field airport on runway 27 (Google it and see the houses and runway location), but hovering over without any reason may/will get people to call the cops.
Regarding the thread author (nice local guy also on our private forum), I would have acted differently, after taking the name and the badge number of the PO, I would have gone to the local PD headquarter and ask to have a meeting with the Captain, explaining the situation (also mentioning the PO for his exemplary behavior) and proving that no law was broken. In this way if the neighbor calls the cops again, he will be told that is within you right to fly the drone. Also would ask if a meeting with the neighbor while in the presence of the PO will be OK to calm the situation and relax him.
 
This is what I share when confronted & the whiner is willing to watch then or later. The video is long but well worth the time. It has also come in handy when a local TV station was going to do a piece where a lady said a drone was taking pictures of her kids. TV station killed the piece.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

So....I watched the whole video and I'm definitely going to keep it handy and share it the next time I hear similar comments!

It's a great public service video that adds a good dose of reality to contrast the negative media spin. I would have liked it if he has also pointed out that drones typically needed to have their battery changed every 20 minutes whereas the DSLR could run for many hours - especially if time lapse stills were all that was required - and put in place and then left unattended to be collected later....

I couldn't help wondering how many times this video was reported to the authorities because the operator broke the rules by flying at night - and its stuff like this that makes it evident that the existing rules *should* allow for a lot more flexibility. If the person who created this video lived next door to an airport - he wouldn't have been able to make this video - although, clearly there would have been no danger in doing so. Likewise with the night flight. These flights were all low-altitude, low-risk, safe flights.

The current rules were written to be easy to enforce - but are far too broad. I certainly hope that when it comes to enforcement actions - they keep that in mind - and throw the book at pilots that put other people in real danger - while exercising leniency for this kind of rule-breaking. Technically - this guy broke the rules by flying at night - but obviously there was a good reason for doing so and nobody was at risk. I guess what bugs me the most is that I know there are people out there that will think this guy absolutely SHOULD be charged and fined for flying at night - because it's a rule and because he broke it.

Oh well - rant over. Thanks for sharing...this will definitely be useful!
 
The no flying at night is kind of weird to me. It is way easier to see a quad at night then it is in broad daylight.
Why is this law in Australia?
 
I've called the cops on loud neighbors a few times in my life. I thought we were being serious, not playing make believe.

Most places have noise laws that spell out when reasonable noise is tolerated and not. In mine, I think it's 7am on weekdays and 8am on weekends. I don't recall the end time, but let's say it's 10pm for the sake of argument.

If the noise in question occurs within that timeframe and is comparable to, or lower than the sound of your next door neighbour cutting his grass - I don't see how they would be able to prosecute based on that. Are there really jurisdictions that would entertain this type of complaint? Could you have your neighbor warned or charged by the police for cutting their grass at a time that you did not like?
 
This is great, but a property owner has no rights on the air above the tallest structure on there property. So legally I can hover over your backyard 5 feet above the top of your house. This is a federal law and has nothing to do with cops.
I don't think this is correct.

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.” In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. 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. Paragliders and hang gliders can easily soar above that height, so your ability to exclude a snooping gliding enthusiast appears to be limited. (It should be noted that the vast majority of complaints about trespassing hang gliders result from their landing on, not flying over, private property.)

Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?
 
It is absolutely 100% correct. Your example is based on a projected or produced silo that was in question. The land owner has air rights to the tallest structure on the property. So 5 feet above your house, if that the tallest structure, is NAS.
 
It is absolutely 100% correct. Your example is based on a projected or produced silo that was in question. The land owner has air rights to the tallest structure on the property. So 5 feet above your house, if that the tallest structure, is NAS.
Ok, well it's your word over that article. I have no reason to believe one over the other so I will remain neutral as I don't know.

I will say it's weird of that article to discuss the US Supreme Court but show a pic of Australia.
 
As a 27 year law enforcement veteran this is my opinion. The most annoying calls we receive are (1) domestic disturbances (2) neighborhood disputes. Yes we are obligated by law to investigate a compliant no matter how we may personally feel about the call for service which includes “His dog **** in my yard”. Yes we have a right and obligation to come to your house if a complaint is filed no matter what time of the day or night.

If YOU were the complainant you would expect the same service as a “taxpayer”. I can promise you he only wants to find a peaceful resolution to the problem so he can go back to chasing meth heads robbing the local Quick Mart. The charge of “disorderly conduct” is definitely a "catch all" charge usually made when someone simply won’t shut their pie hole and move on with their life. The charge is more often disorderly intoxication (Beer muscles).

In your situation the only possible charge would be breach of peace based on the noise and NOT a privacy issue, it would be treated the same as a loud music complaint. Currently the police have no way to determine a “breach of privacy” unless you are flying it in their bathroom. In order to make a case of breach of peace he/she would need more documentation like other calls from other neighbors. If the same tool neighbor continues to complain in order to shut him up they could submit paperwork to the local state attorney (DA) and request a warrant be issued and let a judge decide if there was a breach of peace. This is more paperwork than the officer wants or needs, he simply hopes you will pick a better flight path and time of day because the METH HEADS need his attention and believe me he doesn’t want to be at your house scaring you kids. The WORST thing you can do is get an attitude and tell him/her to take two feel good pills and talk to your attorney in the morning. That would encourage ME to do the extra paperwork. Good luck and good flying.

How could a drone be too noisy when peoples motorcycles or loud cars disrupt a whole neighborhood and peoples dogs that bark 24/7 and the owners don't do anything about it? i lived in neighborhoods with lots of those noises and it bothers the crap out of me. I would rather hear a drone then that motorcycle that goes to someone's house a few doors down. it's as loud as it gets.
 
This is what I share when confronted & the whiner is willing to watch then or later. The video is long but well worth the time. It has also come in handy when a local TV station was going to do a piece where a lady said a drone was taking pictures of her kids. TV station killed the piece.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Great Video!

The above video runs almost 20 minutes and I found that the author also produced a shorter version of it that runs under 8 minutes. It might be better for sharing....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

YouTube ID: zdR4S3aM8Iw
 
  • Like
Reactions: 66Fury
It is absolutely 100% correct. Your example is based on a projected or produced silo that was in question. The land owner has air rights to the tallest structure on the property. So 5 feet above your house, if that the tallest structure, is NAS.
I believe it is more than 5' but it is a grey area anyways so without lots of money & lawyers we'll never know. I commonly see the number 30' over your highest useable height. Either way, flying even 30' over someones house would be the wrong thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
I believe it is more than 5' but it is a grey area anyways so without lots of money & lawyers we'll never know. I commonly see the number 30' over your highest useable height. Either way, flying even 30' over someones house would be the wrong thing to do.
It's not 5 feet. It's right above. That's how it would play out in court. Call the FAA. They will tell you NAS starts right above the floor, as in, right above your grass or sidewalk. It's classified as class G air space. There's no 5 foot this or 30 feet that, I used 5 feet as an example.
 
It's not 5 feet. It's right above. That's how it would play out in court. Call the FAA. They will tell you NAS starts right above the floor, as in, right above your grass or sidewalk. It's classified as class G air space. There's no 5 foot this or 30 feet that, I used 5 feet as an example.
According to the article I posted, the Supreme Court ruled on this and purposefully left it ambiguous and it's somewhere between 100-500 feet depending on variables for property.
 
All right guys. Everyone here should watch this whole video. It will clear a few things up, but if your strictly focused on property owner air rights, it's laid out in the first 1-1/2 mins.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The no flying at night is kind of weird to me. It is way easier to see a quad at night then it is in broad daylight.
Why is this law in Australia?

What about seeing obstacles and obstructions at night? Night Flight is a whole other ballgame.
 
The no flying at night is kind of weird to me. It is way easier to see a quad at night then it is in broad daylight.
Why is this law in Australia?

The new commercial rules talk about night flying. But I thought the hobbyist version talks about VLOS--not specifically night flying. At night with lights VLOS is not a problem out to great distance.
 
What about seeing obstacles and obstructions at night? Night Flight is a whole other ballgame.

True. I fly a lot at night but it's usually over water. Good point. I haven't thought about this since when I used to night fly 3-d helis:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
True. I fly a lot at night but it's usually over water. Good point. I haven't thought about this since when I used to night fly 3-d helis:)
Ah one of my FAVORITE "fun fly" events... with the advent of light weight, lost cost LED systems night flight will never be the same.
 
I have strong feelings about this too. This is simply a scare tactic. They have no rights to take your personal property or regulate NAS. .
I do think it was a scare tactic but.. I do feel police officer may have the rightto take your property under certain circumstances. I would argue they do not have the rightto take your property on the allegation of one person.

I'm not saying lets be rude and disrespectful. I'm saying lets educate. Instead of listening to what the cops have to say (they obviously don't have a clue), we need to be doing the talking with documents in hand so they can read and be educated just like us. I carry seven pages of laminated docs just in case......

Well most police officers do have a clue. I'm all for educating and informing officers but you really do need to be careful how you do it. Remember, there are ordinances that they enforce that may allow them to take your property and or arrest you.

Remember cops are trained to intemidate. They do it naturally and depending on your attitude and mood of the day, you might just accept what they are telling you.....

No police officers are not taught to intimidate. Where are you getting this from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
I do think it was a scare tactic but.. I do feel police officer may have the rightto take your property under certain circumstances. I would argue they do not have the rightto take your property on the allegation of one person.



Well most police officers do have a clue. I'm all for educating and informing officers but you really do need to be careful how you do it. Remember, there are ordinances that they enforce that may allow them to take your property and or arrest you.



No police officers are not taught to intimidate. Where are you getting this from.

The poster that you are responding to may be conflating "intimidation" and "control". While I'm sure police are not taught to intimidate, they are definitely trained to control a situation. Sometimes, we do have to intimidate to control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
The poster that you are responding to may be conflating "intimidation" and "control". While I'm sure police are not taught to intimidate, they are definitely trained to control a situation. Sometimes, we do have to intimidate to control.
Exactly. There trained to control a situation. Intimidation is one of the tools.

Study intimidating and the body language associated with. Then watch a cop interact with a suspected criminal.

Anyone care to read the link I posted from another thread? About the man who had his inspire confiscated by the LAPD?? It went to court and the guy was found not guilty on every single charge. You think the LAPD is going to make this mistake again? Simple answer is NO. Do you think other state and city funded organizations might look at this case to study? Let's hope.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31