With the recent reporting of a woman in Virginia who shot down a drone, I am wondering when the drone operators involved will make a report to the appropriate federal authorities. It would be a litmus test regarding the F.A.A.'s authority. Supposedly the F.A.A. gives drones the same status as aircraft when it regulates how and where they can fly. Where is the protection side of it? It would be awesome to see these people who think they have the right to shoot down a drone get arrested, and fined for their actions.
Why Don't UAV Operators Report Shooters To FAA?
- Thread starter JTC
- Start date
I cant think of any reason why they did not wait for the sheriff except someone has a warrant for arrest . I'd have wiped the smile right off her face.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 720
- Reaction score
- 259
- Age
- 61
if there was no threat of law for shooting down a drone and you had one hovering low enough over your rural property that you considered it trespassing, would you shoot it down?
I don't know the entire reasoning for the FAA to classify drones alongside people carrying craft, but two reasons I know are possible injury and property damage.
I would like to see a reclassification to something lower than people carrying craft, and that they can be taken down in certain circumstances without the threat of prosecution.
I can't see me ever doing it, but I don't want the right/privilege/freedom taken away from people under certain circumstances, whatever those may be.
Even so, I don't want it open season on drones, but I don't want it to be a Federal offense for every case a drone is removed from the sky.
Also, individual state criminal mischief and reckless damage laws already cover intentional and reckless damage of property.
I don't know the entire reasoning for the FAA to classify drones alongside people carrying craft, but two reasons I know are possible injury and property damage.
I would like to see a reclassification to something lower than people carrying craft, and that they can be taken down in certain circumstances without the threat of prosecution.
I can't see me ever doing it, but I don't want the right/privilege/freedom taken away from people under certain circumstances, whatever those may be.
Even so, I don't want it open season on drones, but I don't want it to be a Federal offense for every case a drone is removed from the sky.
Also, individual state criminal mischief and reckless damage laws already cover intentional and reckless damage of property.
Interesting question FTTU. As part of the hobby I'm biased and never saw a multi rotor airborne until I owned one.
That being said, I can see a point where it would become creepy and bothersome to have one of these hovering 50' off my deck and I would want to be able to take some action.
I also know that using a firearm near dwellings is very against the law where I live. And, as I've mentioned before, just because something bothers me, doesn't give me the right to destroy it. There would be a lot fewer dirt bikes around if that weren't the case.
I have to admit, on repeat intrusions, I might be inclined to hang some fishing line or float some balloons.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
That being said, I can see a point where it would become creepy and bothersome to have one of these hovering 50' off my deck and I would want to be able to take some action.
I also know that using a firearm near dwellings is very against the law where I live. And, as I've mentioned before, just because something bothers me, doesn't give me the right to destroy it. There would be a lot fewer dirt bikes around if that weren't the case.
I have to admit, on repeat intrusions, I might be inclined to hang some fishing line or float some balloons.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 720
- Reaction score
- 259
- Age
- 61
I'm all for law and order being a good citizen and a retired cop, so I'm not for bringing down drones since it is illegal at this time. However, if the law changes a long with lowering their classification AND the trespassing or harassing drone can be taken down with reasonable safety, I would like to see people not have the weight of the Federal government dropping on them like a ton bricks.
If it ever is allowed to take a drone down or the climate goes against drone operators where prosecution against drone killers is not likely, safety and reasonableness is an utmost concern.
Firearms in rural areas would be reasonable with similar safety as bird hunters, but in neighborhoods or other poplutated areas, large rubber bands, tennis ball canons and similar methods appear more reasonable.
Again, I'm not anywhere near for open season on drones. Property rights and reasonable laws based on reality are my desire.
Speaking of that situation....
"Youngman said that she recycled the drone but managed to still be irritated by the debris left behind. "I’ve had two punctures in my lawn tractor," she said."
So _SHE_ created the debris and she's upset about having to pick it up?
She states that she saw the people operating the drone. Why not simply go to them and ask them not to fly? I guess we break out the guns before we have civil conversations now.
"Youngman said she believed in 2nd Amendment rights and also was irritated that people would try to disturb Duvall."
Does she also believe in the 1st Amendment rights or does the 2nd Amendment nullify that one.
If you read the rest of the article you can see she clearly has a chip on her shoulder.
Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you define drones as aircraft so you can regulate them then you can't say they are not aircraft for the same reason.
I think it's an easy answer... the FAA wants to regulate drones but they don't care much about them if there is not a safety issue. While I think 100% that the FAA should be required to go after the people shooting drones, it's also mostly a civil matter. In the VA case the people flying the drone did not wait around for police or file a complaint. Without a person for the FAA to represent they are less likely to pursue the matter.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 720
- Reaction score
- 259
- Age
- 61
That's the thing, they don't have to define drones as "aircraft." They can classify them differently. "Unmanned aircraft" would be easy and accurate.
I don't see anything changing anytime soon, and if it did, I'd say it would go against the shooters instead of property owners.
The decision came from the Pirker case in which Pirker argued that the UAV was a model aircraft and not an "aircraft" as to what the FAA regulated. This was over turned by the NASTB. So it could not be defined as something other than an aircraft that the FAA regulates.
I can... they knew they were doing something wrong...
"The men complied. “They got in their fancy ostentatious car—I don’t know if it was a Range Rover or a Hummer—and left,” she said. The Times said many locals believe the drone pilots may have been paparazzi or other celebrity spotters flying near Duvall's property."
They said this women could see Robert Duvall's property from her own. I don't think it's a coincidence that they were there. Good for the 65yr old haha. I'm guessing their ostentatious rental car in the mountains had a one day rental cost that was the same as the drone
They decided to move on.I live in a rural area. I fly above shotgun reach. I believe the height at which a shotgun can bring down my phantom is a pretty reasonable amount of space to give someone above their property when I'm traveling. I don't hover over anyone else's property below 300', usually right at 400
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here in Florida, a drone is not allowed to video or film anyone where they have a reasonable expectation to privacy. I.E. inside your house, or behind a privacy fence. If it happens that a drone does break this law, it is a civil matter and not a criminal one. For the most of us, we would only be transiting across someones property and not lingering to video or film there. My guess is that in the case in Virginia, they were trying to film Duvall's house, and that is why they left in without confronting the shooter. If it were me, and I felt that a drone was hovering over my property, I would find the owner and call the local police.
And as Tcope said above, the F.A.A. wants to regulate us and have given these expensive toys the same classification as an aircraft, then it does become their duty to prosecute anyone who interferes, damages, or destroys one. I am waiting to see when a drone operator who had his drone shot down, reports it to the appropriate Federal authorities, and see what they do.
And as Tcope said above, the F.A.A. wants to regulate us and have given these expensive toys the same classification as an aircraft, then it does become their duty to prosecute anyone who interferes, damages, or destroys one. I am waiting to see when a drone operator who had his drone shot down, reports it to the appropriate Federal authorities, and see what they do.
Similar threads
