Aerial Drones

[BugI02]

I wonder how well it would work to launch a pouchful of BBs instead of just one larger projectile. Kind of a like a slingshot shotgun.

Something more like a bolo, three weights connected to a common center and in rapid rotation, for rotor fouling effect

 

[BugI02]

Nothing illegal about that.

Yeah, but the FCC has to catch you /enable local authorities to catch you and then press charges. Good luck with that

 

[Leadeye]

Wife asked me about that I just told her if it's too close call the cops to report peepers. They'll take care of it or at least discourage the operator.

 

[71silverbullet]

I thought this solved it??? Works for guns, right??

 

[wabashman]

Really isn't hard to 'catch' a shooter. Anyone with a real drone, ie DJI 3,4,mavic screen records as well as records to the drones SD card. So if the drone gets shot down, losses battery power, caught in the wind, etc it's easier to find.

Not to mention any DJI drone records all GPS positions to the remote and or tablet depending on how its setup. So now not only do you have the screen captured recording of the drone being shot down, you also have the GPS position of where it last flew. There have been several cases where a drone was shot down. It didn't fair well for the shooter.

Then you run into the air space issues you've all touched on already. Property owners air rights end where the grass stops growing for the most part. Drone fliers are not supposed to go above 400 feet due to air traffic reasons. Albeit many do go higher on occasion.

I may have missed it, but i didn't see anything said by the OP as to why he thought the drone operator was spying/invading his privacy? I fail to see why a drone flying in a straight line over his property would be deemed as such. If the done was hovering for extended periods of time, circling the property or around a pool, then ya, I'd think it was an issue. But when i do long range flights it's a simple straight line run up and back at 35+ mph. Hard to call that invading privacy when you're 200-350 feet up. However, i do live I the country, but on a normal 8+ mile flight ill end up passing over 5 or so houses. I wouldn't dream of attempting such flight I a city. Mainly due to interference from buildings.

 

[wrigleycub]

Not sure about any laws or ordinances concerning this topic. However, my son was certified last year as a drone pilot and I attended the course with him since he is 11. What he was taught- no flight zones= jails, prisons, within 2 miles of an airport, large localized areas of people such as sporting events. All real drones are regulated by the FAA and the FAA knows when each and every one is logged on and in flight. All of said drones must be registered by an adult over the age of 18. It was stressed in the course that if your drone is shot down or knocked out of flight to immediately contact the law, although someone would probably know the minute it was disabled. It was stated that shooting a drone down is punishable in federal court.
The former ceiling was 500’, a few months ago an updated was launched, I’m assuming with FAA pressure that will not allow POV drones a ceiling over 387.
anyway, from the perspective of a drone user that been officially trained.

 

[bwframe]

Really isn't hard to 'catch' a shooter. Anyone with a real drone, ie DJI 3,4,mavic screen records as well as records to the drones SD card. So if the drone gets shot down, losses battery power, caught in the wind, etc it's easier to find.

Not to mention any DJI drone records all GPS positions to the remote and or tablet depending on how its setup. So now not only do you have the screen captured recording of the drone being shot down, you also have the GPS position of where it last flew. There have been several cases where a drone was shot down. It didn't fair well for the shooter.

Then you run into the air space issues you've all touched on already. Property owners air rights end where the grass stops growing for the most part. Drone fliers are not supposed to go above 400 feet due to air traffic reasons. Albeit many do go higher on occasion.

I may have missed it, but i didn't see anything said by the OP as to why he thought the drone operator was spying/invading his privacy? I fail to see why a drone flying in a straight line over his property would be deemed as such. If the done was hovering for extended periods of time, circling the property or around a pool, then ya, I'd think it was an issue. But when i do long range flights it's a simple straight line run up and back at 35+ mph. Hard to call that invading privacy when you're 200-350 feet up. However, i do live I the country, but on a normal 8+ mile flight ill end up passing over 5 or so houses. I wouldn't dream of attempting such flight I a city. Mainly due to interference from buildings.

As a drone operator, do you have authority to trespass on private property to retrieve your downed drone?

 

[wabashman]

As a drone operator, do you have authority to trespass on private property to retrieve your downed drone?

I've had my drone go down twice on someone else's property. First time was on my ex-in laws field about 3/4 mile away. Got caught with stronger winds than when i took off and set it down before the battery went completely dead. I didnt bother asking/informing them. I knew it wouldnt have been an issue so just walked out and grabbed it.

Second time had an external battery fail and had to put it down in persons back yard before passing over a rather large woods. I 'knew' who lived there but wasnt enough to just walk into their yard. I opted to knock and ask if i could go get it or if they wanted to Themself. I did offer them to take some video/pics of their farm as an inconvenience payment.

But as to if you you have authority, no, not to my knowledge. Its no different than throwing a football into the neighbors yard. It's generally treated more along the lines of is it going to cause any issues to walk out and get it. IE, is it in the back forty, front yard, the roof, or did it get lost in a uninhabited woods. General rule or 'code' is if youte retrieving it, carry the remote with you. At least this way you have evidence of your reasoning of being there and not just casing the property.

 

[bwframe]

I've had my drone go down twice on someone else's property. First time was on my ex-in laws field about 3/4 mile away. Got caught with stronger winds than when i took off and set it down before the battery went completely dead. I didnt bother asking/informing them. I knew it wouldnt have been an issue so just walked out and grabbed it.

Second time had an external battery fail and had to put it down in persons back yard before passing over a rather large woods. I 'knew' who lived there but wasnt enough to just walk into their yard. I opted to knock and ask if i could go get it or if they wanted to Themself. I did offer them to take some video/pics of their farm as an inconvenience payment.

But as to if you you have authority, no, not to my knowledge. Its no different than throwing a football into the neighbors yard. It's generally treated more along the lines of is it going to cause any issues to walk out and get it. IE, is it in the back forty, front yard, the roof, or did it get lost in a uninhabited woods. General rule or 'code' is if youte retrieving it, carry the remote with you. At least this way you have evidence of your reasoning of being there and not just casing the property.

I guess what I'm getting at is if the land owner/lease holder tells you you don't have permission to be on the property, how do you retrieve your drone?

 

[Doug B]

I know there's a new law in Indiana that criminalizes anyone using the aerial drones for harassment and voyeurism. Reporting it to LEO is the best option. But what are your choices if it keeps coming back? I'm thinking of sling shotting it if it's over your property. I'm asking for a neighbor.

Taking aim and unleashing at an airborne aircraft...no matter the aircraft or the weapon....will get you into trouble with the FAA pretty quickly. Best bet is to call the local police first. Follow the craft to the operator, and ask for thier FAA registration card. Let the law handle it.

 

[voidsherpa]

but first and foremost get your neighborhood association to ban or regulate unwanted overflight of private property and operating a drone within the confines.

HOA > FAA

 

[voidsherpa]

My question to OP is how exactly is your friend getting harassed by a drone?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Then you run into the air space issues you've all touched on already. Property owners air rights end where the grass stops growing for the most part. Drone fliers are not supposed to go above 400 feet due to air traffic reasons. Albeit many do go higher on occasion.

Do you have a cite for that? SCOTUS says different, property rights go up at least as a minimum 83', and perhaps as high as 500' (navigable airspace). There has been at least one conviction (which was upheld on appeal) for trespassing in IN where the person trespassed in the airspace above the property, his foot never touched the ground beyond the sign/fence.
Here is the SCOTUS ruling.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...as_sdt=6,29&case=17209011020287234065&scilh=0

 

[JettaKnight]

Where does 83 feet come from I wonder. I don't believe the article is correct that above 500 feet is public and below is not. Our airspace is all public.

The Supreme Court. And it looks like the number is 365 feet. This case seems to point back to Congress as establishing 365 feet and the Court was looking at what happens when you fly under that level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The Supreme Court. And it looks like the number is 365 feet. This case seems to point back to Congress as establishing 365 feet and the Court was looking at what happens when you fly under that level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

Not sure where the author of that wiki came up with 365', I can't find that mentioned in the decision. They do mention 300' though. But the court didn't specify that was where the right to the airspace border was. They stated that by flying at 83' they infringed on the property owners right. They set a "minimum floor" but didn't specify if that was it or if it extended beyond that.

 

[JettaKnight]

Not sure where the author of that wiki came up with 365', I can't find that mentioned in the decision. They do mention 300' though. But the court didn't specify that was where the right to the airspace border was. They stated that by flying at 83' they infringed on the property owners right. They set a "minimum floor" but didn't specify if that was it or if it extended beyond that.

You're right, that article is ****.

But... https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18417830911449345480
Reads that 365 feet is 300 feet above the tallest structure on Causby's farm. So in this one case 365 is the magic number.
83 feet is the height of aircraft on a glide to land when they were directly over the farm.



However, from the decision:

The fact that the path of glide taken by the planes was that approved by the Civil Aeronautics Authority does not change the result. The navigable airspace which Congress has placed in the public domain is "airspace above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority." 49 U.S.C. § 180. If that agency prescribed 83 feet as the minimum safe altitude, then we would have presented the question of the validity of the regulation. But nothing of the sort has been done. The path of glide governs the method of operating — of landing or taking off. The altitude required for that operation is not the minimum safe altitude of flight which is the downward reach of the navigable airspace. The minimum prescribed by the Authority is 500 feet during the day and 1,000 feet at night for air carriers (Civil Air Regulations, Pt. 61, §§ 61.7400, 61. 7401, Code Fed. Reg. ***. Supp., Tit. 14, ch. 1), and from 300 feet to 1,000 feet for 264*264 other aircraft, depending on the type of plane and the character of the terrain.

No wonder everyone is confused.


Still, all of this has to do with manned, relatively heavy, airplanes; not lightweight remote controlled quad-copters.

 

[BravoMike]

I think you guys are misinterpreting that Supreme Court ruling. I is a reversal of the previous courts decision and the DISSENTING judge's opinion is that his 5th amendment right was violated.

Here is how the law stand now for civil aviation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

In essence, as long as there is no person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, you can go as low as you want as long as you can still make an emergency landing without causing hazard to persons or property.

This is for aircraft thought. I'm not as familiar with drone rules, but I don't think there is any restriction to overfly private property. On occasion, I do fly RC airplanes which have gotten lumped into the drone laws, and I make sure to keep the RC airplane over public land or land I have permission to fly on out of respect, not law.

 

[JettaKnight]

Respect? That's a crazy notion...

 

[actaeon277]

I think you guys are misinterpreting that Supreme Court ruling. I is a reversal of the previous courts decision and the DISSENTING judge's opinion is that his 5th amendment right was violated.

Here is how the law stand now for civil aviation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

In essence, as long as there is no person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, you can go as low as you want as long as you can still make an emergency landing without causing hazard to persons or property.

This is for aircraft thought. I'm not as familiar with drone rules, but I don't think there is any restriction to overfly private property. On occasion, I do fly RC airplanes which have gotten lumped into the drone laws, and I make sure to keep the RC airplane over public land or land I have permission to fly on out of respect, not law.

And we wouldn't have this conversation if everyone did that.
I'm thinking (and I could be wrong) that RC airplanes only had a select following. They probably followed the "rules" a little better about private property.
But drones have opened up to many people who can't be bothered with "respect".
No, I'm not saying all drone operators are like that. But the percentage of douche to respectful changed.

 

[BravoMike]

And we wouldn't have this conversation if everyone did that.
I'm thinking (and I could be wrong) that RC airplanes only had a select following. They probably followed the "rules" a little better about private property.
But drones have opened up to many people who can't be bothered with "respect".
No, I'm not saying all drone operators are like that. But the percentage of douche to respectful changed.

From my experience, I would say this is a true statement. Unfortunately, because now RC pilots have more restrictions and clubs have been closed down or moved because of their distance to an airport.