For Those Of Us In The US With Drones

[Frosty]

Would they concern you more or less than the person walking past your house and looking into your front window? Maybe even standing there (hovering) and looking?

Me personally? I'd say more. Why? Well first of all it's somewhat socially unacceptable -- and therefore uncommon -- for people to stand and look in your front window. Also, one tends to have curtains there. And too, I could see that person.

A drone hovering over my patio? 1) I don't have "sky curtains." 2) They are anonymous and can be controlled from a long distance away. 3) A drone IS a camera. 4) They whine.

Does that make it illegal? Not necessarily (I don't know what the laws are.) Maybe other people would be fine or even happy with drones hovering over their backyard. But someone asked why it would be "worse" than an airplane or helicopter going over and I gave some reasons in my opinion.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I read some time back a piece by a commercial drone operator regarding the at the time proposed rules. The author's take on it was it is a regulatory effort to prepare for delivery by drone services of Amazon and others. The lower air space has the potential to get very crowded.

Here's a snip from an NPR interview with Troy Rule, associate law professor at Arizona State University supporting the author's thoughts. Bolding is mine.

"This definitely is a good step in the right direction toward allowing for widespread commercial use of drones. I think the big concern here for those - particularly, I would say cities and states and property rights holders, the concern is that this is one step that's going to ultimately lead to the FAA trying to regulate where and when drones can fly. And that's something that that's been very controversial. The FAA is getting pressure from Amazon and some of these other large companies to essentially preempt all state and local law and for the FAA to dictate where drones can fly, when they can fly, and basically to eliminate private property rights in the low-altitude airspace above our backyards. And states and local governments have been pushing back for about a decade now, saying, no, no, no. We need to have local involvement, local input.
And so it will be interesting to see whether the FAA tries to continue to sort of manage all of those issues, those local issues, from Washington, or whether it begins to actually allow local governments to step in and handle those things that are inherently local, that have to do with drone regulation."

 

[menzies]

It is certainly very complicated with lots of moving parts.

My biggest concerns are twofold;

That regulations are reactionary and implemented piece meal over a long period resulting in total confusion for the recreational operator.

That a few bad eggs continue to violate airspace, and airports, overfly property at an intrusive level, and generally generate enough bad press that we all get tarred with the same brush.

Right now I use mine at my own property, off the boat at anchorage, and at the request of others (like some projects for our POA). I just don't want the hassle of flying in public and people coming up and challenging me when I am flying within regulations and AMA guidelines.

Another frustrating point. I live close to Naval Station Mayport which has an airfield. I contacted the quarterdeck about permission to fly and they passed me on to base security. I left multiple messages with no reply. Earlier this year I tried again, this time finding the email address of the person responsible for clearing flights. Sent an email telling him where I usually flew etc. Absolutely nothing back. I suspect that they don't yet have protocols that help them answer questions on drones, or just don't see it as an issue - yet.

 

[ssobol]

I read some time back a piece by a commercial drone operator regarding the at the time proposed rules. The author's take on it was it is a regulatory effort to prepare for delivery by drone services of Amazon and others. The lower air space has the potential to get very crowded.
....

The problem is that the notion of low altitude airspace has not been adequately tested in court. There was a case a long time ago dealing with a farmer and his cows. Apparently the cows were disturbed by low flying aircraft. The court in that case determined that the aircraft must stay above 83 feet over the cows. This has been interpreted by some to mean that the owner's property rights extend up to 83' AGL and anything above that is "national airspace". Others took to mean that the court said that the airplanes in the area must stay above 83 feet and nothing more.

Currently the FAA says that anything flying at all that is capable of sustained flight is operating in the national airspace when it is flying and solely under their jurisdiction and not any local authority. In their view any thing with a minimum gross weight of .5# is an aircraft and must be registered. To them your Mavic drone is the same as a 747 as far as being an aircraft. Anyone messing with an aircraft in flight is subject to federal laws. Theoretically, if you disable or divert a drone you could be charged under laws like air piracy or hijack laws, tampering with an aircraft, or interfering with a flight crew. The hijacking charge could lead to a lifetime prison sentence or even in some places, the death penalty (e.g. state of Georgia). Granted, this is unlikely to happen IRL, but the laws are there.

Currently, local authorities can only prohibit you from taking off and landing in certain areas, like city parks. They can't stop you from flying over the park (not their airspace) if you take off from somewhere else.

There was a case where some guy was flying his drone over a public beach. A woman on the beach took exception to this and followed the drone back to it's landing point. She accosted the operator and called him a "pervert" and other things for apparently recording (she could not actually have known this for sure at the time) even though she was on public property. The operator called the cops (the woman said "good") and because his drone was still on (though landed) he managed to record the whole incident. When the cops arrived and the operator showed them the video, the woman was arrested for assault.

Finally, there will always be people who ignore the rules or think that the laws don't apply to them. Those people will do what they want regardless of what the law says.

 

[rsn48]

It's a very simple equation idiots = regulations. At the Vancouver airport, idiots have flown drones and they have successfully flown them in other stupid areas. Folks should be angry at idiots taking their rights away, not the government. I could say something about idiots and guns, but then I'd hear from the moderators.

 

[ssobol]

... At the Vancouver airport, idiots have flown drones and they have successfully flown them in other stupid areas. Folks should be angry at idiots taking their rights away, not the government. ...

But some people cheer the "idiots" for exercising their "freedoms".

As in "Ain't no Gubment goin' to tell me what to do!"

 

[catalinajack]

Okay, then if you choose to exercise your freedom to go naked in your front picture window must all who pass by on the sidewalk be denied their freedom use their eyes and take so look?

Well I damn sure own the right to privacy on my property.

 

[psneeld]

As a helicopter pilot who spent much of his career at drone altitudes.. ..ANY regulation that rrequires drones bigger than songbirds to have electronic ID would be great.

 

[CaptTom]

Why is it that every single time the government has the option of more or less monitoring/spying/surveillance, they always go with more?

I don't think they trust us at all. Although, I have to admit, the feeling is mutual.

Agreed. But monitoring/spying/surveillance can be done by anyone with a drone today. it doesn't have to be the government. Not discounting the government's ability to screw things up, I do sort of like the idea of at least having a chance of knowing who's spying on me.

And lastly, there is that ever-present bugaboo, invasion of privacy. I would posit that ID rule will have its greatest impact on the teenage-minded operators peeking over fences.

Which, in reality, is the one issue most likely to impact me personally.

As to your example of the peeping tom, if someone walks past your house outside of the property perimeter or stands across the street, and looks in your window are they doing anything illegal since there are outside of your property? Now if a drone flies over at 150-200 feet, clearly above the air that a homeowner "owns" is the operator doing anything illegal?

Good analogies. I would be sort of creeped out by someone standing across the street with binoculars, or a camera, pointed at my windows. But I can always pull the shades down. And I could take a picture of that person myself. I could even walk over and ask them why.

A drone hovering over my back yard, operated by some unseen and unknown person, is in a different category, IMHO.

 

[menzies]

A drone hovering over my back yard, operated by some unseen and unknown person, is in a different category, IMHO.

Not legally, which is the point I was making.

 

[sbu22]

Some interesting comments on that video...

Nice entertaing vid,..but HOW ABOUT BEING HONEST....
The wing Dayton used is from a tiny Mooney M20 piston aircraft (super fragile,..and ancient)NOT a commercial airliner that your readers would typically fly on.
A PROPER TEST ON A COMMERCIAL JET'S WING AND ENGINE NEEDS CARRYING OUT AT 230m.p.h.(which is the max legal permitted FAA,CAA,etc,flying speed below 10,000 feet,for commercial airliners,(hobby drones all fly well below that altitude,120 metres max by law.)

Drone pilots should not be flying in restricted areas but the University of Dayton video is actually really embarrassing for the University. They should be committed to good science and not fear mongering for publicity. They should be reviewing realistic speeds and determining risks and probabilities of mid air collisions from multiple causes for a realistic comparison. I would categorize this video as anti-science.

This is fearmongering for the ignorant who don't realize that there are millions and millions of birds that fly in airport zones and flight paths all the time and there are very few bird-strikes that bring down airliners. Now contrast that with hobbyists who are not allowed to fly near airports and that there are no "drone strikes" that have ever brought down an airliner. If hobbyist drones are such a danger, why doesn't the military use small drones to take out enemy planes? By the way, I am a commercial multi-engine instrument rated pilot who used to fly commercially.

Couldn't more agree. Many years ago I tagged a mallard with the leading edge of a Piper 140 wing - left a substantial dent and a mess. 3-4 # bird at 100 kts. Understand the v squared and all, but that looks pretty staged for effect. Plus, that poor little Mooney wing probably never saw north of 175 in its life.

 

[FF]

I wonder what legal the results would be if a hovering drone over ones property was fed a clip of 12 Ga 00 Buck shot?

 

[menzies]

I wonder what legal the results would be if a hovering drone over ones property was fed a clip of 12 Ga 00 Buck shot?

That has been answered!

Drones are registered aircraft under FAA regulations. So if they chose to it could be extremely serious charges.

To date every incident I am aware of has been charged along the lines of destruction of property and/or discharging a weapon within city limits.

One thing to remember is; the drone is recording and it often records the very evidence of its own demise. The video is stored on the drones card AND also on the remote!

 

[ssobol]

... The video is stored on the drones card AND also on the remote!

Usually the video from the drone is not recorded on the remote unless the user specifically sets it up to do so. Can require a second app to record the screen of the remote.

 

[menzies]

Usually the video from the drone is not recorded on the remote unless the user specifically sets it up to do so. Can require a second app to record the screen of the remote.

DJI Go does this via it's remote to the device you are using - tablet or mobile phone.