Whose sky is it anyway? U.S. drone case tests rights to air space

[Cobs]

History has already proved that i think but not all flying objects are recording and making people uneasy, all im saying is if your going to fly around built up areas expect flak from the people below at times, i do feel sorry for you in your case as you had the footage to prove your innocence and no-one was interested.

 

[GMack]

I was just reading about some HOA (Home Owners Association) groups that are now considering bans on drones due to privacy and safety concerns of their members. If enough vote to ban them, might be even more NFZ on the maps as some HOA neighborhoods are quite large and/or gated. Some will not allow the Google Earth map car in them due to private road signs. Wouldn't take more than a couple of "vocal ones" at some meeting (Where many never attend them - ahem!) to enact such a ban.

If this keeps up, the FAA will need to toss out the sectional maps as now used for regular planes, and generate entirely new maps for "Drone approved flyways" for drones under some 400' ceiling or within the 400' vicinity to a structure. My whole city is almost a NFZ with ordinances and no one seems to have sure answer either.

This is one big mess - and not entirely black and white.

 

[Cactus Wren]

I was just reading about some HOA (Home Owners Association) groups that are now considering bans on drones due to privacy and safety concerns of their members. If enough vote to ban them, might be even more NFZ on the maps as some HOA neighborhoods are quite large and/or gated.

This is one big mess - and not entirely black and white.

While HOA's have a certain legal authority with respect to property and roads, they have no legal authority when it comes to airspace - only the FAA and state/local authorities can regulate that.

 

[Drestin Black]

Flying around built up areas is an accident waiting to happen in more ways that one, your better off out in the fields

I guess then you'll want airplanes and helicopters to be similarly banned from flying over highways, houses and people. They do far far far more damage when they fall.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Cobs]

Im not looking to ban any aircraft from the skies, i would love to fly over built up areas but the more of these fall out of the sky and damage things/hit people the worse our rep gets, anyone can buy one of these and take to the skies and the horror stories just keep mounting up sadly.

 

[BigAl07]

I guess then you'll want airplanes and helicopters to be similarly banned from flying over highways, houses and people. They do far far far more damage when they fall.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

Come on DiB....
You're totally comparing apples to oranges here. Fortunately, very few manned airplanes and/or helicopters fall out of the sky these days unlike our toy grade aircraft. That's because the operators are trained extensively in emergency procedures, they have certified components, they have multiple levels of redundancy built in, and they have very strict maintenance and inspection protocol. Also one important reason why "built up" areas are relatively safe from manned aircraft is because FAA REGULATIONS are in place to keep them at a fairly safe distance (500' - 1,000' depending on other criteria for the most part) in case of an emergency. Often times when a manned aircraft has a system failure the aircraft is able to "limp" to land/crash in an area that isn't heavily congested. That's not always the case but it's the norm more than not.

Our "toy grade aircraft" have no redundancy so when we experience a primary system failure we head off on a search and recovery mission... aka it falls like a rock to terra firma with ZERO control of speed or direction.

So please quit trying to compare our toy grade flying machines to manned aircraft because it's not similar in any way.

 

[johnp44]

It's about time! See the entire story at the source listed...

When a small town American roofer took legal action against a neighbor for shooting down his drone, the local dispute sparked a case that could help shape the newest frontier of property rights law – who owns the air.

Drone owner David Boggs filed a claim for declaratory judgment and damages in the Federal Court after his neighbor William Merideth from Hillview in the southern state of Kentucky blasted his $1,800 drone with a shotgun in July last year.

Boggs argued to the District Court in Kentucky that the action was not justified as the drone was not trespassing nor invading anyone's privacy, while Merideth - who dubs himself the "drone slayer" - said it was over his garden and his daughter.

After a year of counter argument, a decision on which court jurisdiction should hear the complaint is expected within weeks and this could set new precedents for U.S. law.

SOURCE: Whose sky is it anyway? U.S. drone case tests rights to air space

My question is simple, since the FAA has determined that UAS (quads aka drones) are considered to be aircraft, when will they enforce action against those who interfere with the operation of such as the law clearly states? Seems to me like they have a double standard regarding this interpretation. Maybe Mr. Boggs needs to file a lawsuit against the FAA for failing to act on his behalf. That seems to me to be more than just a civil matter. In my mind it is a criminal act. My question to the FAA is simple, is it an aircraft or not? The FAA can't have it both ways!

 

[johnp44]

Come on DiB....
You're totally comparing apples to oranges here. Fortunately, very few manned airplanes and/or helicopters fall out of the sky these days unlike our toy grade aircraft. That's because the operators are trained extensively in emergency procedures, they have certified components, they have multiple levels of redundancy built in, and they have very strict maintenance and inspection protocol. Also one important reason why "built up" areas are relatively safe from manned aircraft is because FAA REGULATIONS are in place to keep them at a fairly safe distance (500' - 1,000' depending on other criteria for the most part) in case of an emergency. Often times when a manned aircraft has a system failure the aircraft is able to "limp" to land/crash in an area that isn't heavily congested. That's not always the case but it's the norm more than not.

Our "toy grade aircraft" have no redundancy so when we experience a primary system failure we head off on a search and recovery mission... aka it falls like a rock to terra firma with ZERO control of speed or direction.

So please quit trying to compare our toy grade flying machines to manned aircraft because it's not similar in any way.

What you need to understand is this, It is the FAA that is on record as defining our so called toys, as being aircraft.
But so far they fail to prosecute those who interfere with the operation of them as is described by the law. They seem to only be interested in regulating them, collecting revenue and wasting more tax payer dollars.

 

[Cobs]

Also ... Say "Drone Slayer" shot it down and it fell on someone ... would the FAA/CAA/whoever support the Operator?

 

[BigAl07]

What you need to understand is this, It is the FAA that is on record as defining our so called toys, as being aircraft.

John please realize I FULLY understand this matter to a very fine degree. I eat, sleep, and breathe this industry and spend hours every day researching and studying what's happening in this industry.

Be very careful about what you ask for... you want to reap the same luxuries as manned aircraft but I'm pretty sure you don't want the same requirements (insurance, inspections, training, etc) that manned aircraft have to meet. It's a slippery slope to say the least. It reminds me of the saing "have you cake and eat it too".... that's not how it works in REAL life.

 

[GMack]

Drones might be more accepted if they did not have cameras - maybe.

A normal RC helicopter or plane likely doesn't raise the ire like someone seeing a drone with a camera flying over their house. With a camera comes privacy issues, and even Google got into that mess with their street mapping car's camera that now pixelates faces and license plate numbers.

If drone cameras get to the point of seeing hairs on peoples heads at 200' then we'll likely have to pixelate faces as well. That or run around asking people videotaped to sign model releases to post our video or get sued. Could hold true for a property release as well that some still photographers who work on a movie set need to get.

The prices of our flying toys/aircraft is another matter too. Prices drop and irresponsible people will buy them as there is little to lose. Can't say the same for a million dollar plane, nor would even owning one of those put us into the position of peering through windows and getting into the privacy matter. I'd like to know the number of drones sold and registered with the FAA for $5 verses those not registered which are likely more (Insert irresponsible owners here?).

Aerials of some company with a trademark visible will no doubt enter into the drone's legal arena soon too where some drone operator taped or photographed something that requires licensing or a property release.

Wonder how many years it will take to get all this to become black and white, accepted, or will the entire idea of flying cameras get shot out of the sky?

 

[RJ_Make]

A few months ago I flew my P3 around the block where I live. A neighbor 2 blocks away came screaming up the block and tried to grab the controller from me. I called the cops as did he and the cops went to his place first to get his side of events. He told them I flew the drone down into his back yard about 7 feet off the ground and looked into the bedroom window of his daughters. Said his 2 daughters had just came out of the bath.
1. On this flight the drone NEVER went below 125' (+ or -) except when taking off and landing at my house.
2. His back yard is relative small (only maybe 25 feet (+ or -) from the back fence to the house and the entire back yard is heavily surrounded with tall trees.
3. I am a very novice inexperienced pilot and could have NEVER flown down anywhere near his back yard. I DON'T GET NEAR TREES rather I fly high above them ALWAYS and my entire neighborhood is very very heavily loaded with trees.
4. So the officer comes to my house and tells me his (the neighbor's) side of the story and how my drone was in his back yard 7' off the ground. He goes on to say "maybe you couldn't understand the person's concern because you don't have children". Well, I'm guessing that ANYONE could understand that NOBODY wants ANY drone outside their daughters' bedroom but I'm starting that the officer has made up his mind and that this guy is a friggin' nut and that the guy is outright lying.
5. HERE IS THE PROBLEM THOUGH: I have the drone sitting on my kitchen counter and my laptop computer with the flight video loaded. I tell the sheriff that he can take a look of the ENTIRE flight (about 14-15 minutes ....... but get this: The sheriff refuses to look at the video or even any portion of it! He says "oh, those videos can be edited!" Yes, I try to explain flight logs and time frame and EVERYTHING that makes it almost impossible to alter the video and the flight log and that even if one could do that it's highly unlikely that they could do so in such a short time period. But the cop was not having to anything to do with looking at actual evidence because he was so smart and knew all about video editing.
So the cop left, no charges were filed and no follow-up events occurred but I'm only posting this to show how things can come down and how many perceive these drones. I'm 68 years old and as everyone knows, anybody over 65 with a drone is very likely to be a perv and not going to pull the wool over a knowledgeable police officers eyes. The whole event has resulted in my no longer flying in my neighborhood. It's a shame that I can only enjoy flying it in a wide open field far from civilization but like some of the mafia says "whadda ya gonna do?"

Next time, if the LEO is not willing to evaluate your 'proof' of innocents, request proof of said infraction.

Seems like everybody has a phone with a camera on it, I know I would have taken pictures of the drone spying on my children.

 

[Dan MacNeil]

Next time, if the LEO is not willing to evaluate your 'proof' of innocents, request proof of said infraction.

Seems like everybody has a phone with a camera on it, I know I would have taken pictures of the drone spying on my children.

ABSOFRIGGINLUTELY! I should add though that the main reason I posted the story was not so much to tell the story, rather to relate how people (sheriff's dept. included) can see these things and what you might feel would be convincing evidence might not even occur to others. The entire time that the sheriff was at our home relating the other guys account of events my wife sat there agape. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration but when the sheriff actually said "you folks don't have kids so you may not understand his (the idiot neighbor) being upset.". I mean really, would you have to have kids to understand why one could be upset at a drone video-taping them through their bedroom window????

 

[GMack]

Bad luck Dan, and why I fly out of town and not over houses, buildings, etc. Squeaky wheel thing, and it just takes one to make your day.

I got into a mess commercial shooting long ago when the agency model got lost, went to the wrong business, and I got a two-cop visit for the other business calling it in and suggesting we were shooting porn (I wish!). What fun that was - NOT!

Another pro told me, "If you haven't had the cops called on you for owning a camera and shooting something outside your house, you haven't been a pro long enough." He got cited and fined once for shooting a building from a traffic island (tripod, at dusk) and turned the $500 fine over to the architect who paid it.

 

[Drestin Black]

Come on DiB....
You're totally comparing apples to oranges here. Fortunately, very few manned airplanes and/or helicopters fall out of the sky these days unlike our toy grade aircraft. That's because the operators are trained extensively in emergency procedures, they have certified components, they have multiple levels of redundancy built in, and they have very strict maintenance and inspection protocol. Also one important reason why "built up" areas are relatively safe from manned aircraft is because FAA REGULATIONS are in place to keep them at a fairly safe distance (500' - 1,000' depending on other criteria for the most part) in case of an emergency. Often times when a manned aircraft has a system failure the aircraft is able to "limp" to land/crash in an area that isn't heavily congested. That's not always the case but it's the norm more than not.

Our "toy grade aircraft" have no redundancy so when we experience a primary system failure we head off on a search and recovery mission... aka it falls like a rock to terra firma with ZERO control of speed or direction.

So please quit trying to compare our toy grade flying machines to manned aircraft because it's not similar in any way.

I do raise the actual items are even more so like comparing apples to cows.
But, we now have the same agency,mother FAA,masking us to follow the same rule or dames types of rules. If we violate one, the same investigators and agencies and powers will come down on is and can inflict serious fines and levy felony charges and maybe even jail times so, despite that our apples are toys, we are being held to cow level punishment,

Now, am I happily inventing more regulation, no, who'd want that. But, we,re off track here. I'm asking that DJI simple return to use the control we have over our craft as any other pilot has over his. We are the responsible party, ho can we be responsible when we hold a working controller in our hands showing a working craft as it heads (not necessary "limping" at all) to disaster and we are powerless to prevent it.

There are some degrees of redundancy in our craft, they are better than toys (ask some PC pilots if they fly jet turbine "toys") and they ar fairly well built. They are not raining out of the sky and I'm not even aware of anyone being seriously hurt by a fallen drone. Off course it's bound to happen, just as a plane crash was and is going to happen. You do your best to mitigate, but my is letting the most capability pilot do his best. Auto return home with obstacle avoidance is awesome! But how many of us have had it kick it, panic a little, then be so joyful as it returns enough to resume control. AND THEN WE RESUME CONTROL. it's not often we just dumbly stand there and let it co,r all the way home as it's perfectly safe and ready to fly.

So, back on topic. DJI, please remove any forced auto landing that cannot be controlled or canceled; let pilots be pilots, because the FAA assumes we are and I don't want to face court with my defense being; I couldn't do anything, the Chinese robo-pilot was in charge.

 

[johnp44]

John please realize I FULLY understand this matter to a very fine degree. I eat, sleep, and breathe this industry and spend hours every day researching and studying what's happening in this industry.

Be very careful about what you ask for... you want to reap the same luxuries as manned aircraft but I'm pretty sure you don't want the same requirements (insurance, inspections, training, etc) that manned aircraft have to meet. It's a slippery slope to say the least. It reminds me of the saing "have you cake and eat it too".... that's not how it works in REAL life.

Hi, I'm not trying to be a troll, but I have insurance, quite a lot of it. I am licensed and have countless hours of training (although not as much regarding UAS). As for inspections, I would welcome that. Maybe it would only involve minor endorsement to one of my current FAA licenses. Seems to me that just might be what is best for those of us that want to see the elimination of morons being able to create problems that affect the rest of us. The current system doesn't accomplish much of anything other than waste more of our taxpayer dollars.

I have been involved with R/C aircraft, heli's, cars and boats for decades. Until the last few years I don't think anyone even noticed, much less cared. All the hype from the media have now created an environment where essentially drone operators are thought of as a bunch of lawless voyeurs. I stand by my opinion that the FAA should either enforce the law as they have written it or redefine our toys as toys. Next we need to educate the public as to what the limits are of their expectation of privacy is (the legal definition). Flying over someones house vs hovering at their window is a no brainer.

Hopefully I won't ever encounter a drone slayer, but if I do, I assure you I wouldn't rest until he was put in prison or fined enough that he would rather have gone to prison.

Cheers

 

[Squak1437]

This is a very slippery sloppy slope. I've spoke to the FAA about this very scenario. As an operator you must be very carful and have several eyes (and cameras) on your aircraft when flying in close proximity of other persons private property. If this operator did overfly his neighbors yard without permission, it might as well be a clay pigeon free to be shot.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[BigAl07]

....If this operator did overfly his neighbors yard without permission, it might as well be a clay pigeon free to be shot.

That is NOT the case and no it's not a free-to-shoot situation. Unless the aircraft is dangerously low there is absolutely zero reason to fire a firearm carelessly into the air. I'm very much a "Gun Nut" (don't go there) but to say it's ok to shoot someone's R/C aircraft from the air for simply flying over your property is just wrong on so many levels.

With that being said would I want someone hovering outside of my bedroom window watching me? Probably not. If I saw someone up on a ladder looking in the window from a tree etc would I walk out and shoot them? Absolutely NOT!

 

[StumbleBee]

That is NOT the case and no it's not a free-to-shoot situation. Unless the aircraft is dangerously low there is absolutely zero reason to fire a firearm carelessly into the air. I'm very much a "Gun Nut" (don't go there) but to say it's ok to shoot someone's R/C aircraft from the air for simply flying over your property is just wrong on so many levels.

With that being said would I want someone hovering outside of my bedroom window watching me? Probably not. If I saw someone up on a ladder looking in the window from a tree etc would I walk out and shoot them? Absolutely NOT!

From one "gun nut" to another; What a refreshing breath of air your response is. Good to read a rational, adult, and legally supportable response to some of the immature and irresponsible statements some people make.

 

[BigAl07]

From one "gun nut" to another; What a refreshing breath of air your response is. Good to read a rational, adult, and legally supportable response to some of the immature and irresponsible statements some people make.

Thank you sir. I get lucky and get it right once in a while LOL!