Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2018, 03:43 PM   #161
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 8,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Legal, then I have limited options...illegal....free reign.

As you know, that isnít really true. It is illegal to jay-walk, it isnít legal to hit a jaywalking pedestrian with your car. It is illegal to not yield to a stand on vessel, but it isnít legal as the stand-on vessel to collide with the give-way vessel. It is illegal to speed, it is also illegal to run a speeding motorist off the road. It may be illegal to spit on a sidewalk in your town. It is also illegal to shoot said spitter because their illegal actions offended you.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 04:06 PM   #162
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by menzies View Post
Actually anything under 500 feet over private property without prior approval is likely a high risk of being illegal, especially if the property owner can prove that you are interrupting his use of the property.
The FAA thinks that if it is designed for flight and not touching or connected to the ground it is in federal airspace and they have say as to what you can and cannot do there. A "drone" that is hovering one inch off the ground is in the national airspace system, not your backyard. The only case, so far, where this was challenged (many, many years ago), the court recognized that a property owner's rights only went up to 83' AGL.

The 500' thing comes from the regulation that requires a pilot to keep his aircraft 500' away from things like people, vehicles, and buildings (except when landing or taking off). This can be vertically or laterally. It is legal to operate your aircraft at less than 500' AGL in "non-built up areas". You can often see planes at less than 500' over water.

Of course, what the law says and what actually happens in real life aren't always the same.
__________________

ssobol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 04:33 PM   #163
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: AICW
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
As you know, that isn’t really true. It is illegal to jay-walk, it isn’t legal to hit a jaywalking pedestrian with your car. It is illegal to not yield to a stand on vessel, but it isn’t legal as the stand-on vessel to collide with the give-way vessel. It is illegal to speed, it is also illegal to run a speeding motorist off the road. It may be illegal to spit on a sidewalk in your town. It is also illegal to shoot said spitter because their illegal actions offended you.
Once again, taking it to extremes....becoming quite tbe norm on TF. Dont get me wrong, I could be a drone operator soon and both of my sons are....

I have lots of actions possible before taking overt action on the drone....

but if the drone is involved in illegal activity, I doubt a lot of sympathy if the drone is being operatrd illegally is expected short of killing the operator....
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 05:31 PM   #164
Senior Member
 
City: SW Alberta
Country: Canada
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 145
I have a suspicion this whole 'boys and their toys' thing will run it's course fairly quickly. In a couple of years there'll be scads of used, parked and unwanted 'drones' for sale. The novelty will have worn off.
leeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 05:44 PM   #165
Guru
 
firstbase's Avatar
 
City: Jupiter, Florida
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Black Eyed Susan
Vessel Model: Grand Banks 42' Classic
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,474
I agree PS. In your face, dangerous operation? All bets are off. I assume that even in those cases the legality of shooting one down would depend on the particular jurisdiction. One of those incident reports I saw noted that the drone was close enough for the guy to throw a t-shirt and down it. That's got to be pretty close.. but he ended up getting arrested and reimburse the owner.
firstbase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 06:19 PM   #166
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 8,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Once again, taking it to extremes....becoming quite tbe norm on TF
Meant as tongue in cheek only. Sorry.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 06:40 PM   #167
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: AICW
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
Meant as tongue in cheek only. Sorry.
Me too then....
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 06:53 PM   #168
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssobol View Post
The FAA thinks that if it is designed for flight and not touching or connected to the ground it is in federal airspace and they have say as to what you can and cannot do there. A "drone" that is hovering one inch off the ground is in the national airspace system, not your backyard. The only case, so far, where this was challenged (many, many years ago), the court recognized that a property owner's rights only went up to 83' AGL.

The 500' thing comes from the regulation that requires a pilot to keep his aircraft 500' away from things like people, vehicles, and buildings (except when landing or taking off). This can be vertically or laterally. It is legal to operate your aircraft at less than 500' AGL in "non-built up areas". You can often see planes at less than 500' over water.

Of course, what the law says and what actually happens in real life aren't always the same.
I'm reading this differently, but I'm also not an attorney. The FAA regulates your behavior in the air, including 0-500'. And Congress has established airspace above 500' as public right of way. But teh space below 500' is the exclusive domain of the land owner. From the Wiki article "...but the Supreme Court rulings and space treaties are clear. A landowner's domain extends up to at least 365 feet above the ground. see Causby v US (1946)" That Supreme Court decision established that flight operation in that lower window is considered a "taking", just like seizing your property for a new highway.

And it doesn't matter how old the decision is. It still stands.

Now there is a clear distinction between operating over private land vs over land where you already have a right of access. For example, the ocean and most inland water bodies are public access, so that extends to the low flight zone over it. The same would be true for other public lands, or lands with public right of way. So you could fly over public roads, but not over the adjacent property that its private.

It really distills down pretty simply. If you have right of access to the land, you have similar right of access to the low flight space over that land. If you do not have right of access to land, then you also don't have right of access to the low air space over it. To fly over private land, you need to go over 500' (365' in rural areas).

Also, don't confuse lands that are open to you, with lands where you have a right of access. The two things are very different. Lands open to you are still full controlled by the landowner, and they can revoke permission at any time, and can similarly decide if they want to extend access to the airspace that they control. So don't assume that if you have access to the land, you also have access to the airspace. A right of access means that you have a right to access or cross the land, and nobody can deny you access. That's very different from being voluntarily invited to use land.

Using the example of a drone circling your boat in an anchorage, that's no different than someone circling your boat in a kayak. The waters are public and anyone can go anywhere they want, within limits of regulations. But someone circling your house is another thing all together, assuming you own the surrounding land where the drone is operating.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 07:47 PM   #169
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
Yes, I actually think this is very clearly the case, though it appears nobody has tested it in the context of drones. Wikipedia has a good article on airspace rights. In a nut shell:

- The land owner owns below the surface to the center of the earth, and above to the heavens.

- Above 500' in populated areas, and above 365' in rural areas, the public has a right of way, though regulated by the FAA. This is like a sidewalk across your property. You may own it, but there is a public right of passage across it.

- Below those levels, the land owner has full rights and there is no public right of way. This was established by the Supreme Court in 1946 in the context or air travel. It has also been well established that so-called overhangs into that lower air space are also a violation of the land owner's rights. This was established in cities where things are packed close together, and where there can be significant value in building up since you can't build out. So for example, a balcony that hangs out over the property line would be a violation, as is a tree that hangs over the line, and the owner has a right to remove them.

So unless something new has happened that grants a right of way between zero and 365/500', I think this is black and white, very well established case law.

And keep in mind that FAA operating rules below 500' does NOT grant a right of way. It just says how you need to operate there.
Twisted,

That court decision was involving an aircraft, not a drone. And the FAA still stand for what the FARs (federal Air Regulations) say. 500 feet over less populated and 1000 over populated, unless landing.

For drones, they are already limited below 500 feet, so how low can they go? There is NO law, over public OR private property. So, a drone can be legally flown as low as 10 feet over someone's property legally as far as the FAA is concern.

As of today, there are no law regarding property rights airspace over one's private property.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 07:49 PM   #170
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Thus the disagreement by some, including me..

Some proposing their operation is legal at say 10 feet and hovering above my boat with a camera pointing into a window....is that legal? Same as a telescope? If not then discussion over in my mind.

Legal, then I have limited options...illegal....free reign.
Paneled,

See my post above. Yes, it's legal.. Until proven otherwise with a nuisance/noise public endangerment situation.

Smart, nope.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 07:57 PM   #171
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,485
As far as the airspace, I've posted what the law is above regarding the FAA. So a drone can be legally flown low over your property and you can't do much about it.

I really hope the drone community doesn't abuse this, or there will be issues. Still hope for NO government control, as they do nothing and only screw things up and cost money. Just look at the incompetence of the FAA (I've posted it earlier).

Now, the dangerous pencil thing as Firstbase posted! That's scary and think we should get the FAA, secret service, USGC and the federal and local government involved to stop this terrible trend.



Where's Rufus when you need him.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:25 PM   #172
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
Twisted,

That court decision was involving an aircraft, not a drone. And the FAA still stand for what the FARs (federal Air Regulations) say. 500 feet over less populated and 1000 over populated, unless landing. ...
However, the FAA considers "drones" to be aircraft in the legal sense. You have to register just as if you operated an aircraft and send the same $5. The penalties for interfering with the operation of an aircraft apparently apply, so shooting at a drone is the same as shooting at a manned aircraft.
ssobol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:42 PM   #173
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
Twisted,

That court decision was involving an aircraft, not a drone. And the FAA still stand for what the FARs (federal Air Regulations) say. 500 feet over less populated and 1000 over populated, unless landing.

For drones, they are already limited below 500 feet, so how low can they go? There is NO law, over public OR private property. So, a drone can be legally flown as low as 10 feet over someone's property legally as far as the FAA is concern.

As of today, there are no law regarding property rights airspace over one's private property.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The supreme court affirmed that the space between 0-500' (actually 500 or 365 depending) belongs to the landowner, and is not subject to entrance or use by others. Until there is a new law that seizes that right from landowners and assigns that air space as a public right of way, as there are laws doing so for the airspace from 500' up, it's not yours to use. After all, what do you think the basis is for municipalities, parks etc. who prohibit drone flying? It's because they own that slice of airspace.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:57 PM   #174
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The supreme court affirmed that the space between 0-500' (actually 500 or 365 depending) belongs to the landowner, and is not subject to entrance or use by others. Until there is a new law that seizes that right from landowners and assigns that air space as a public right of way, as there are laws doing so for the airspace from 500' up, it's not yours to use. After all, what do you think the basis is for municipalities, parks etc. who prohibit drone flying? It's because they own that slice of airspace.
Twisted,

Yes, we will disagree. That airspace is still in limbo and has been forever. The FAA is in charge, but the municipalities, parks and private land owners can NOT prevent a drone from flying there. The drone can only be prevented from LANDING there.

Now, the FAA can, but issuing any special airspace rules, TFRs, etc.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:59 PM   #175
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssobol View Post
However, the FAA considers "drones" to be aircraft in the legal sense. You have to register just as if you operated an aircraft and send the same $5. The penalties for interfering with the operation of an aircraft apparently apply, so shooting at a drone is the same as shooting at a manned aircraft.
ssobol,

True, but different rules for drones, not the same as aircraft. Drones are Part 107 or Part 336, aircraft are Part 91, 135, 121 and a few others, different. And not the same if you shoot one down. Shooting down or even interfering with an aircraft operation is a federal offense. Shooting down a drone is a crime against property and operating a firearm illegally, depending.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 10:02 PM   #176
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
Twisted,

That court decision was involving an aircraft, not a drone. And the FAA still stand for what the FARs (federal Air Regulations) say. 500 feet over less populated and 1000 over populated, unless landing.
The "unless landing" part was also addressed in the Supreme Court decision. Airpoirts/the FAA must lease or otherwise license the sub-500' airspace from the landowner(s) over private land to use it for approach paths, etc. People can't just freely fly through it.

I think part of the confusion is that you are looking for a law that prohibits something, and you won'd find it. That's because in common law going back to roman times, land ownership (and all associated rights) extends to the center of the earth and up to the heavens. It's a fundamental legal doctrine with some Latin name. So it's a right that landowners have unless it's taken away. It's the basis for mineral rights, as well as airspace rights, including encroachment into owned airspace.

When air flight got going, Congress seized the right of passage through airspace 500' and up, making it allowable for anyone to fly over private property as long as they are 500' or higher. But ownership rights below 500' remain 100% with the landowner, and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court in '46 or '49 or whenever.

Now this doesn't mean that you are not allowed in that airspace over any particular property. But it does mean that it's at the discretion of the land owner, and they can say no. And it definitely means that you do not have a right of entry.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 10:08 PM   #177
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
Twisted,

Yes, we will disagree. That airspace is still in limbo and has been forever. The FAA is in charge, but the municipalities, parks and private land owners can NOT prevent a drone from flying there. The drone can only be prevented from LANDING there.

Now, the FAA can, but issuing any special airspace rules, TFRs, etc.
Then how do you explain the requirement that the FAA/airports license rights to the sub-500' airspace from private owners when it's needed for landing etc.? This is expressly what the court said they needed to do, and the FAA was subsequently authorized to do just that. It directly contradicts your assertion that anyone can fly there.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 10:10 PM   #178
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
Then how do you explain the requirement that the FAA/airports license rights to the sub-500' airspace from private owners when it's needed for landing etc.? This is expressly what the court said they needed to do, and the FAA was subsequently authorized to do just that. It directly contradicts your assertion that anyone can fly there.
Twisted,

No explanation necessary. The FAA (not airports) has a law that provides for operation below 500 ft when landing. Non disputable. Drone are under a different section.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 10:34 PM   #179
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
Twisted,

No explanation necessary. The FAA (not airports) has a law that provides for operation below 500 ft when landing. Non disputable. Drone are under a different section.
I think you are fundamentally confusing operating regulations with having a right of way. The FAA tells you what altitudes to fly at under what circumstances, and that you are only allowed below 500' for landing and take off. Those are operational regulations about flying an aircraft.

As for right of way, that was taken away from landowners and granted to flights for 500' and above back in the 20's as I recall. But it was NOT granted for below 500', so those rights remained with the landowner.

To land and take off, you need rights of access to the sub-500' airspace and the ground surface. If you own the land, you also own the airspace access rights, so you are all set. This probably covers most airports. But if you don't own the land, you don't own the airspace rights either and can be blocked from access. This was the situation with the court case where the land in the approach path was privately owned and the landowner didn't want planes flying lower over his property. The court agreed with the landowner and said planes don't have a right to fly through his sub-500' airspace since it belonged to him and that neither the FAA, air force, Army, nor anyone else had a right of entry.

And it is immaterial whether it was a plane vs a drone vs a balloon vs a clown shot from a cannon. That air space belongs to the land owner and he/she can prohibit entry if they want.

Just because the FAA tells you when and how to operate below 500' doesn't mean you have an inherent right to be there, everywhere on the planet.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 11:24 PM   #180
Senior Member
 
City: Lutz
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 460
Hate drones

I feel drones are basically used to intrude on others privacy and those attracted to drones are peeping toms at various levels. Have the same urges that those who put hidden cameras in dressing and bathrooms and such...............I also feel that using drones to bomb suspected terrorists in .say.......... Yemen.. is a cowardly way to fight.
__________________

geoleo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012
×