Pull! Drone down! Drone down!

Another person who thinks they own air above their land.

People shouldnt be using these things to invade peoples privacy, but shooting them out of the air for flying over your land isnt too cool either.
 
ChemGuy said:
Another person who thinks they own air above their land.

People shouldnt be using these things to invade peoples privacy, but shooting them out of the air for flying over your land isnt too cool either.
Click to expand...

Federal courts upheld a guy protecting the airspace over his land to 80-something feet already... So... The law isn't really settled yet on it. Many agencies and bureaucracies are battling over it.

FAA wants to trump the others, but judges may disagree. It'll take decades for the lawyers to babble about it and figure it out.

There's one guarantee... Someone rich will bring it to court when the paparazzi get better at flying drones over Hollywood swimming pools behind mansions.
 
Yup, go hover over someone's backyard/swimming pool in a helicopter at 100' up and see if you don't get a call from local law enforcement at a minimum. I don't see why doing it with a drone is any different. If someone rents a bucket truck and sits there with a camera watching your daughter sunbathe, while not "technically" on your property, I bet you take action against them. Drone use should be treated no differently. Possibly one of those grey areas like the definition of porn: "you know it when you see it".
 
i think that is has gotten more murky in since the FAA requires drones to be registered and pilots certificated. since it is now classified as an aircraft does it not have to follow this:
§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

I do not see any clause exempting a drone from the reg so it should been at 500 ft right?

:) bob
 
unsafervguy said:
i think that is has gotten more murky in since the FAA requires drones to be registered and pilots certificated. since it is now classified as an aircraft does it not have to follow this:
§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

I do not see any clause exempting a drone from the reg so it should been at 500 ft right?

:) bob
Click to expand...

FAA requires "drones" to be registered but not pilots to be certificated unless operating as an RPA within Part 107.

Generally, the maximum altitude is 400 ft so the altitudes listed above don't apply.

What would apply is operating the aircraft over people or even operating the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner. Report the incident to the local authorities and the FAA and let them decide.
 
Got to love a video showing felony destruction of property.
 
Not to mention "felony" is debatable. By what standard do you regard it a felony?
 
unsafervguy said:
i think that is has gotten more murky in since the FAA requires drones to be registered and pilots certificated. since it is now classified as an aircraft does it not have to follow this:
§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

I do not see any clause exempting a drone from the reg so it should been at 500 ft right?

:) bob
Click to expand...

I'd think a quad copter would be more akin to a helicopter, this the 500 would not apply.

Guess it just boils down to what's in your FAA manual.


Ether way, I'd go have a word before I started shooting at stuff or calling the government, just the descent, adult, thing to do IMO
 
James331 said:
Ether way, I'd go have a word before I started shooting at stuff or calling the government, just the descent, adult, thing to do IMO
Click to expand...

Might as well take the shotgun with you, since you were cleaning it anyway... Ha.
 
Shotgun sounds right, with a clear background, light load. Blast away, sure. . .
 
Make sure you recover and destroy the FPV camera and GPS. Then move the wreckage a mile or so down the road.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Yup, go hover over someone's backyard/swimming pool in a helicopter at 100' up and see if you don't get a call from local law enforcement at a minimum. I don't see why doing it with a drone is any different. If someone rents a bucket truck and sits there with a camera watching your daughter sunbathe, while not "technically" on your property, I bet you take action against them. Drone use should be treated no differently. Possibly one of those grey areas like the definition of porn: "you know it when you see it".
Click to expand...
What action would you take against the guy in the bucket truck? Shoot him? I figure it'd be sufficient to suggest my daughter go inside. Same goes for a drone.
 
Lindberg said:
What action would you take against the guy in the bucket truck? Shoot him? I figure it'd be sufficient to suggest my daughter go inside. Same goes for a drone.
Click to expand...

Take photos of him and put them all around town, not many people have any love for a peeping tom pedo
 
Lindberg said:
What action would you take against the guy in the bucket truck? Shoot him? I figure it'd be sufficient to suggest my daughter go inside. Same goes for a drone.
Click to expand...

A laser pointer in the camera lens for starters.

Oh damn... I'm sorry. Didn't see you up there. Was just playing with this thing. What are you doing up there anyway?

I can think of a whole lot of ways to make a dude in a bucket truck very uncomfortable.

Garden hoses, lasers, BBQ smoke if the wind is right, get out the lawn darts and have unfortunate mishaps on the back swing that send them sailing past the bucket.

You're not very creative, are you?

For more fun, grab a couple of vehicles and block it in. Then see if he has the balls to call the cops and explain why his truck is stuck and he can't go home.

Now you have a truck obviously parked for the purpose and an audience for an official peeping tom complaint. That's what the photos are for. Evidence.
 
denverpilot said:
A laser pointer in the camera lens for starters.

Oh damn... I'm sorry. Didn't see you up there. Was just playing with this thing. What are you doing up there anyway?

I can think of a whole lot of ways to make a dude in a bucket truck very uncomfortable.

Garden hoses, lasers, BBQ smoke if the wind is right, get out the lawn darts and have unfortunate mishaps on the back swing that send them sailing past the bucket.

You're not very creative, are you?

For more fun, grab a couple of vehicles and block it in. Then see if he has the balls to call the cops and explain why his truck is stuck and he can't go home.

Now you have a truck obviously parked for the purpose and an audience for an official peeping tom complaint. That's what the photos are for. Evidence.
Click to expand...
I would just walk over to the truck and use the ground controls to bring him down to a world class beating. Then we can see if he has the stones to call the cops.
 
unsafervguy said:
i think that is has gotten more murky in since the FAA requires drones to be registered and pilots certificated. since it is now classified as an aircraft does it not have to follow this:
§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Click to expand...

James331 said:
I'd think a quad copter would be more akin to a helicopter, this the 500 would not apply.
Click to expand...

Part 91 does not apply to the type of SUAS we are talking about here. They are governed by Part 107. Part 91.1 specifically states it doesn't apply:

91.1 (f) Except as provided in §§107.13, 107.27, 107.47, 107.57, and 107.59 of this chapter, this part does not apply to any aircraft governed by part 107 of this chapter.
 
Indeed, however if one were to use 91 to make a case somehow, those quads wouldn't be fixed wing anyways
 
Lindberg said:
What action would you take against the guy in the bucket truck? Shoot him? I figure it'd be sufficient to suggest my daughter go inside. Same goes for a drone.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm not sure shooting him is quite the answer, but I can guarantee it wouldn't end at telling my daughter to accept it and go inside. As others mentioned, peeping tom complaints supported with video evidence, or perhaps a call to the local news station to do some on-site reporting would be in order. If nothing else, I'd be meeting the guy face-to-face at the bottom of the truck to help reinforce my displeasure with the invasion of my privacy.
 
there was one flying around my neighborhood this weekend. I didn't see the operator anywhere in the vicinity but my first reaction when I went back into the house was to check the blinds and curtains of my children's bedrooms. There are some real creeps out there and with all the bad publicity recently in the news concerning the use of these for unsavory activities I had to double check.
I have no problem with retrieving my shotgun if one was hovering over my children and will gladly take my chances with the law.

The wife and I routinely check the sexual offenders registry and if you haven't done so for your area I highly suggest you do. It is quite alarming the number of them out there and how close to you they may live! We are fortunate to live in a neighborhood that needs a background check in order to live here but that only weeds out our immediate neighbors. the neighborhoods north of us however do not and there are a few in there with records for some heinous stuff.

EDIT: my shotgun was lost in a tragic boating accident a couple years back (for the record);)
 
Legalities aside take the damn things out to an RC flying field or at least an open area. If you go hovering over people's back yards or private property you're just looking for trouble. Traditional RC aircraft have always been the hobby of enthusiasts. The biggest problem with drones is the somewhat disproportionate number of complete idiots that buy them.
 
Silvaire said:
Traditional RC aircraft have always been the hobby of enthusiasts. The biggest problem with drones is the somewhat disproportionate number of complete idiots that buy them.
Click to expand...

So very true. Calling yourself a drone pilot is like calling yourself a computer scientist because you know how to read your email.
 
Lachlan said:
So very true. Calling yourself a drone pilot is like calling yourself a computer scientist because you know how to read your email.
Click to expand...

Now now. The FAA has created a special group of certified drone pilots now. They get epaulets, and some nice polyester pants too, soon. Or so I hear. Maybe a nice Blackberry for their on-call duty. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top