Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'Phantom 2 Vision Discussion' started by Nvr2fst, Jan 19, 2014.
What state? And what park? (if you don't mind sharing)
Was just about to post along similar lines, check out the OP's other threads... <sigh>
My troll radar must be failing me......
Dammit do I need to do a post search on everyone now.......sheesh
Aaoo the proper response is to call him a pig and flip him the bird. It will work, trust me.
The proper response is "Yes sir. Let me land safely, please."
And then politely check in with your local police station to find out what the rules actually are...
Without a lawyer's response based on the specifics of local laws, the following may be of use. The bottom line (absent specifics germane to your situation) seems to be if you are flying over private property, you are trespassing and need to tread lightly.
+1 That should be a primary concern.
If I'm out flying and anyone walks up to me and try's talking to me, I'll bluntly ignore them! I've done it a few times! If a police officer was to approach me while I was flying I'd ignore him/her too, and hope my spotter was close enough to sort out what's happening. The spotter can explain that once my quad is off the ground, I ONLY communicate with my spotter . . . If there is a valid local regulation (that I didn't find out about before flying there) or reason, then my spotter can inform me, and I'll land the craft . . .
But it's worth knowing the local rules and regs! In general, so long as your only flying as a hobby and under 400ft, you are sticking to the current advice given by the relevant authority in the matter (being the FAA). If I was out on my own in the USA, and an officer told me to stop flying, I'd put it in a hover and enquire exactly what grounds he/she has to tell me to stop, as well as point out I'm following the current advice (and keep the cameras rolling the entire time, even if the footage is deleted, it CAN be recovered).
If you conduct yourself in a cocky/smart-alec manner, they will probably be more insistent, however, if you can show that you have control precautions and procedures and your not just someone out to annoy the general public, they should be more understanding
It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. The hassle and time you'll spend if you are arrest/detained/ticketed isn't worth it. Unless you are getting footage of bigfoot or some other type of footage that you can sell for a hundred million dollars, its simply not worth it. Case in point, I had a buddy who challenged the cops on a gun law. He was right and the cop was wrong. It didn't matter. He was arrested, photo taken, charges were later dropped but his mugshot is forever online. All these mugshot websites charge you to take them down and some never respond to emails. All this because he wanted to prove he was right. The reality is that we live in a country where cops scare and terrorize instead of serve and protect.
I do believe that if they ask you to do something and you do not obey, they can arrest you. Disobeying a law enforcement officer or something like that.
lol, the cops would probably crash on your body seconds before you'd watch your phantom crash to the ground :mrgreen:
Since landowners generally do not own the airspace above their land,
I would doubt that flying over property would actually be tresspassing.
However, there could be regulations, local, FAA, and otherwise, that
prohibit model aircraft or RC flying, by proximity to objects, or people,
or by altitude, etc.
I am not attorney, but the following passage from the AMA document was prepared by one. I imagine it takes a conservative view, but it does say that flying over another's property is trespassing. And it was written by an attorney who was paid to render legal advice. What any of us might think the law says is irrelevant, especially if we wind up in court.
"The law prohibiting trespass to land extends beyond uninvited entry onto
another's land on foot or in a vehicle. Trespass also occurs when there is an
uninvited entry into the airspace above the property of another or by burrowing
beneath the property of another. This follows the old common law rule that land
ownership allows the owner the right to use and enjoy the extent of his real
property "up to the heavens and down to perdition." Therefore, the flying of a
model aircraft into the airspace owned by another without the landowner's prior
permission is a violation of the landowner's right to the quiet use and enjoyment
of his property and does constitute a trespass."
But what about airplanes you might ask. Read on ...
"The privilege of necessary flight is comparable to that given for navigable streams
running through the private property of another. Therefore, full scale airplanes,
rockets, and the like may pass over private property with immunity from an action
And the bottom line from the attorney ...
"Therefore, you should continue to urge the AMA
members to avoid any flight over property where no permission has been granted. "
Interestingly, when your craft crashes onto another's property that is trespass, but the property owner does not have the legal right to confiscate or due (further) harm to your craft.
The above are just excerpts. I'd suggest anyone who wants to know the likely legalities read the whole thing. The law is very often not what we think it is. Whether or not we agree with it is immaterial.
Thanks for the info on airspace tresspass.
So, apparently "real" aircraft have a special dispensation to fly over private property?
But, aren't these full scale unmanned drone aircraft?
Or, are they just models of full scale drones?
So if my next door neighbors 10 year old boy accidentally threw his ball over the rear fence and it landed in my back yard, the boy is guilty of trespassing (actually the parents are rightfully guilty as they should have control over their children under the age of 18) and I have the right of calling the police and pressing charges?
Is this what this country has come to?
Trespass laws,which are local, are in conflict with the US Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA claims full jurisdiction above the ground, as a number of municipalities have discovered when they tried to regulate the passage of (full scale) aircraft in various ways (curfews, minimum altitudes, etc.) and were sued by the Feds. Nobody who tries to invoke airspace rights against an airplane flying thousands of feet overhead is going to get any traction.
At the end of the day, it's tough to write laws that do the right thing (particularly when they are controlled by different jurisdictions). The point, of course, is to be reasonable. If your drone is hovering outside my window, I'd be pretty honked off and the law would appear to support me.
On the other hand, if I buzz your house with my airplane, I'm pretty sure that you'll have trouble charging me with criminal trespass. However, if you spot my tail number, the FAA may come after me for being less than 500 feet away from a person, structure, or vessel. And they always throw in FAR 91.13, Careless and Reckless Operation, a.k.a "being an a**hole".
The trick is to try not to piss people off, methinks.