6 ms·

Sorry but currently this drone was considered an aircraft and you don't have the right to shoot down aircraft over your property. You can build structures that

by bargl 11y ago

Sorry but currently this drone was considered an aircraft and you don't have the right to shoot down aircraft over your property. You can build structures that block them but not shoot at them. Edit: OK This is getting downvoted, so I'll clarify. I'm not saying I like the fact that this is how the law in the USA is, but that's how it is. It is legally considered an aircraft. He shot down an aircraft. Does it need to change? Yes. Is it changed now? No. Edit 2: links for people interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle > is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operator...

lamy 11y ago
In this situation the drone can't be considered more than an RC Toy with a camera.
flog 11y ago
That's true, but it's also unlike other aircraft whereby it's hovering at 20ft and has a camera on it.
manyxcxi 11y ago
Unless the drone was over 500 ft and met all the regs for an aircraft and was being operated by someone with all the appropriate licenses, this was most certainly NOT an aircraft. Under 500 ft and you're inside someone's air rights which is generally just the same as standing on their front porch.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kenrikm 11y ago
  That's just not the case. [1] The law is not that you have rights 500ft above your property the correct hight is 83ft due to some chickens getting scared. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/30/317074394/drone-wars-who-owns-the-air http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/30/317074394/drone...
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I lost my reference - but you don't own any of the air above the highest structure of your property. The 83ft, if I remember correctly, was the height of the tallest structure of that farmer's farm. So that isn't a value set in stone either. There's also limitations to how tall you can build structures, even on your own property, so erecting a giant tower to claim more airspace isn't a solution! Bonus Trivia: Few homeowners own the ground beneath their home unless they have something called "Mineral Rights".
    - mzs 11y ago
      Interesting I looked into it a bit and it was more about being compensated on grounds of the taking clause and for an easement, thanks.
  - mzs 11y ago
    Thanks, I want to add that the article mixes a lot of stuff. For example the limitation on the pig drone has almost everything to do with using the drone for commercial purposes and nothing really to do about the 83-500' issue itself.
- bargl 11y ago
  Just so we are clear I'm talking about drones not RC Aircraft (which is the title of the post right now, and I'm assuming the aircraft in question). http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2014/12/02/are-drones-always-considered-aircraft http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2014/12/02/are-drones-alw... You don't have to be above 400ft to be an aircraft. You have to be above 400ft for the FAA to give a shit about regulating what you do. If you shot down an airplane landing on your field you'd be in trouble. I don't agree with it but that's how it is.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Unless the drone was over 500 ft and met all the regs for an aircraft and was being operated by someone with all the appropriate licenses, this was most certainly NOT an aircraft. No, it is an aircraft in any case. It may be an improperly-operated aircraft, which would open the operator up to sanction, but I'm pretty sure that you aren't allowed to shoot down improperly-operated aircraft over your property, including in the altitude range in which the airspace is within the scope of your legal property rights.
mholt 11y ago
How is it that a property owner has the right to shoot a person invading their property, but can't shoot a robot with a camera on it (or a gun)?
- ghaff 11y ago
  Well, they don't really. If someone wanders onto your property and starts shooting video, you're going to be in big trouble if you just blast away at them without warning.
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    The law will differ from state to state, but in Texas, I believe that the use of deadly force is not justified in preventing trespass unless you believe that you are in danger of injury or death.
    - alyandon 11y ago
      http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.41 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.41 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42 The tl;dr of that - it is a bad idea to trespass in Texas as the threshold for a property owner being able to justify a shoot first and ask questions later policy is pretty low. In all my years living here, I can't recall a single incident in the news where a property owner who used deadly force against a trepasser was actually indicted by a grand jury. I'm obviously not trying to imply that it couldn't possibly happen though.
  - mholt 11y ago
    I meant for my comment to be more facetious about the laws governing us, but yes, you're right and I agree: there has to be a dire threat. At least you can warn a human, though. If drones are going to be protected like an endangered species, then lawmakers better be able to justify treating the robots like living things.
AshFurrow 11y ago
The article specifically discusses the urgent need for new law surrounding this new class of technology – that the existing laws for aircraft are insufficient.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
You might want to read up a little bit about drones and how the FAA handles them: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=76381 http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=76381 "Myth #3: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet Fact—The FAA is responsible for air safety from the ground up. Under 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2), the FAA has broad authority to prescribe regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and to prevent collisions between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. Consistent with its authority, the FAA presently has regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." I would say in this case, it's reasonable to assume a hovering drone with a camera, pointed at your house is reckless enough to warrant suspicion from the homeowner, and allow him to act accordingly.
- bargl 11y ago
  > I would say in this case, it's reasonable to assume a hovering drone with a camera, pointed at your house is reckless enough to warrant suspicion from the homeowner, and allow him to act accordingly. The operator of the drone was definitely operating outside of the regulations in place, but that doesn't make it any less an aircraft. He should have been within line of sight of his craft. If he wasn't then the operator was breaking regulations. https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ >Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft So the operator could get fined, but does that give the home owner the right to shoot down an aircraft? We'll see as this issue plays out in court.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > but that doesn't make it any less an aircraft If you want to get absurd then give me a piece of paper and a minute and I can make you an "aircraft" that has a value of $0.05 or less. Just because it's flying through the air it's not necessarily an "aircraft". Here's another "aircraft" according to your definition: http://www.instructables.com/id/Rubberband-Helicopters-step-by-step/ http://www.instructables.com/id/Rubberband-Helicopters-step-... The point is that there are certain classes of aircraft with varying degrees of certification for airworthiness and if it doesn't fall into any of those classes I'm not sure that I agree that it's an "aircraft" at least in the legal sense. If you really want to argue that anything which is in the air and not touching the ground is an aircraft then I am an aircraft. Every time I jump off the ground. So are all these crazy mountain bikers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsiEUx6Zwrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsiEUx6Zwrg I mean, sure they're on a ballistic trajectory but they're still up in the air in an unsupported fashion. Motocross riders now need pilot's licenses. I'm all for a good reductionist argument, probably moreso than the average "reasonable" person. But the mental and linguistic gymnastics you're doing to make an RC toy an aircraft are reaching, and not just a little bit.
falcolas 11y ago
You also don't have the right to shoot as a person acting in a lawful manner. The user was not operating the UAV in a lawful manner (as outlined in the documents you linked). This impacts the legality of shooting at the aircraft. To what degree this impacts will be up to the courts and the attorneys. Of course, the shooter was an idiot for shooting at something in the sky, where the bullets would remain stable and lethal for potentially miles. He should absolutely be punished for that, but not necessarily for destroying the UAV operating illegally aside his house.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
You are re-iterating a position which is currently under a lot of debate. There are two components here: 1) Model Aircraft (your first FAA link) are not "Aircraft" in the sense of operating under the rules and regulations of private aircraft or commercial aircraft. 2) Within the definitions of personal property, the owner has rights about what they can and cannot do to other property that intrudes on that space. So in the 2nd case, if a "toy" (aka Model Aircraft) was on their property intentionally (which is to say the owner put it there), there is a bunch of case law that says that can impound it or do what ever they want with it. From errant baseballs breaking windows to toy airplanes (or rockets) which land on their land. Further the owner is liable for any damage it does. So in that regard the landowner was well within their rights to "shoot"[1] a toy airplane out of the sky above their house if they felt threatened. The means employed, a shotgun, only has an effective range of about 250' so by definition the flying vehicle was within the 400' exclusion zone. It doesn't matter if it was a $1500 quad-copter drone or a $1.50 balsa wood wind up airplane. But then there is the whole question of police usage and surveillance. So for a police unit to be lawfully surveilling you under the 400' limit they need a warrant (currently). Its possible it extends farther than that given opinions like this one [1]. And as the article points out, if you can't tell its the police you can't really be expected to know you aren't within your rights in disabling it. [1] "Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3-13." - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html

by bargl 11y ago

lamy 11y ago

In this situation the drone can't be considered more than an RC Toy with a camera.

flog 11y ago

That's true, but it's also unlike other aircraft whereby it's hovering at 20ft and has a camera on it.

manyxcxi 11y ago

Unless the drone was over 500 ft and met all the regs for an aircraft and was being operated by someone with all the appropriate licenses, this was most certainly NOT an aircraft. Under 500 ft and you're inside someone's air rights which is generally just the same as standing on their front porch.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kenrikm 11y ago
That's just not the case. [1] The law is not that you have rights 500ft above your property the correct hight is 83ft due to some chickens getting scared. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/30/317074394/drone-wars-who-owns-the-air http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/30/317074394/drone...
- Nadya 11y ago
  I lost my reference - but you don't own any of the air above the highest structure of your property. The 83ft, if I remember correctly, was the height of the tallest structure of that farmer's farm. So that isn't a value set in stone either. There's also limitations to how tall you can build structures, even on your own property, so erecting a giant tower to claim more airspace isn't a solution! Bonus Trivia: Few homeowners own the ground beneath their home unless they have something called "Mineral Rights".
  - mzs 11y ago
    Interesting I looked into it a bit and it was more about being compensated on grounds of the taking clause and for an easement, thanks.
- mzs 11y ago
  Thanks, I want to add that the article mixes a lot of stuff. For example the limitation on the pig drone has almost everything to do with using the drone for commercial purposes and nothing really to do about the 83-500' issue itself.
bargl 11y ago
Just so we are clear I'm talking about drones not RC Aircraft (which is the title of the post right now, and I'm assuming the aircraft in question). http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2014/12/02/are-drones-always-considered-aircraft http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2014/12/02/are-drones-alw... You don't have to be above 400ft to be an aircraft. You have to be above 400ft for the FAA to give a shit about regulating what you do. If you shot down an airplane landing on your field you'd be in trouble. I don't agree with it but that's how it is.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Unless the drone was over 500 ft and met all the regs for an aircraft and was being operated by someone with all the appropriate licenses, this was most certainly NOT an aircraft. No, it is an aircraft in any case. It may be an improperly-operated aircraft, which would open the operator up to sanction, but I'm pretty sure that you aren't allowed to shoot down improperly-operated aircraft over your property, including in the altitude range in which the airspace is within the scope of your legal property rights.

mholt 11y ago

How is it that a property owner has the right to shoot a person invading their property, but can't shoot a robot with a camera on it (or a gun)?

ghaff 11y ago
Well, they don't really. If someone wanders onto your property and starts shooting video, you're going to be in big trouble if you just blast away at them without warning.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  The law will differ from state to state, but in Texas, I believe that the use of deadly force is not justified in preventing trespass unless you believe that you are in danger of injury or death.
  - alyandon 11y ago
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.41 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.41 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42 The tl;dr of that - it is a bad idea to trespass in Texas as the threshold for a property owner being able to justify a shoot first and ask questions later policy is pretty low. In all my years living here, I can't recall a single incident in the news where a property owner who used deadly force against a trepasser was actually indicted by a grand jury. I'm obviously not trying to imply that it couldn't possibly happen though.
- mholt 11y ago
  I meant for my comment to be more facetious about the laws governing us, but yes, you're right and I agree: there has to be a dire threat. At least you can warn a human, though. If drones are going to be protected like an endangered species, then lawmakers better be able to justify treating the robots like living things.

AshFurrow 11y ago

The article specifically discusses the urgent need for new law surrounding this new class of technology – that the existing laws for aircraft are insufficient.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

You might want to read up a little bit about drones and how the FAA handles them: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=76381 http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=76381 "Myth #3: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet Fact—The FAA is responsible for air safety from the ground up. Under 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2), the FAA has broad authority to prescribe regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and to prevent collisions between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. Consistent with its authority, the FAA presently has regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." I would say in this case, it's reasonable to assume a hovering drone with a camera, pointed at your house is reckless enough to warrant suspicion from the homeowner, and allow him to act accordingly.

bargl 11y ago
> I would say in this case, it's reasonable to assume a hovering drone with a camera, pointed at your house is reckless enough to warrant suspicion from the homeowner, and allow him to act accordingly. The operator of the drone was definitely operating outside of the regulations in place, but that doesn't make it any less an aircraft. He should have been within line of sight of his craft. If he wasn't then the operator was breaking regulations. https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ >Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft So the operator could get fined, but does that give the home owner the right to shoot down an aircraft? We'll see as this issue plays out in court.
- msandford 11y ago
  > but that doesn't make it any less an aircraft If you want to get absurd then give me a piece of paper and a minute and I can make you an "aircraft" that has a value of $0.05 or less. Just because it's flying through the air it's not necessarily an "aircraft". Here's another "aircraft" according to your definition: http://www.instructables.com/id/Rubberband-Helicopters-step-by-step/ http://www.instructables.com/id/Rubberband-Helicopters-step-... The point is that there are certain classes of aircraft with varying degrees of certification for airworthiness and if it doesn't fall into any of those classes I'm not sure that I agree that it's an "aircraft" at least in the legal sense. If you really want to argue that anything which is in the air and not touching the ground is an aircraft then I am an aircraft. Every time I jump off the ground. So are all these crazy mountain bikers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsiEUx6Zwrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsiEUx6Zwrg I mean, sure they're on a ballistic trajectory but they're still up in the air in an unsupported fashion. Motocross riders now need pilot's licenses. I'm all for a good reductionist argument, probably moreso than the average "reasonable" person. But the mental and linguistic gymnastics you're doing to make an RC toy an aircraft are reaching, and not just a little bit.

falcolas 11y ago

You also don't have the right to shoot as a person acting in a lawful manner. The user was not operating the UAV in a lawful manner (as outlined in the documents you linked). This impacts the legality of shooting at the aircraft. To what degree this impacts will be up to the courts and the attorneys. Of course, the shooter was an idiot for shooting at something in the sky, where the bullets would remain stable and lethal for potentially miles. He should absolutely be punished for that, but not necessarily for destroying the UAV operating illegally aside his house.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

You are re-iterating a position which is currently under a lot of debate. There are two components here: 1) Model Aircraft (your first FAA link) are not "Aircraft" in the sense of operating under the rules and regulations of private aircraft or commercial aircraft. 2) Within the definitions of personal property, the owner has rights about what they can and cannot do to other property that intrudes on that space. So in the 2nd case, if a "toy" (aka Model Aircraft) was on their property intentionally (which is to say the owner put it there), there is a bunch of case law that says that can impound it or do what ever they want with it. From errant baseballs breaking windows to toy airplanes (or rockets) which land on their land. Further the owner is liable for any damage it does. So in that regard the landowner was well within their rights to "shoot"[1] a toy airplane out of the sky above their house if they felt threatened. The means employed, a shotgun, only has an effective range of about 250' so by definition the flying vehicle was within the 400' exclusion zone. It doesn't matter if it was a $1500 quad-copter drone or a $1.50 balsa wood wind up airplane. But then there is the whole question of police usage and surveillance. So for a police unit to be lawfully surveilling you under the 400' limit they need a warrant (currently). Its possible it extends farther than that given opinions like this one [1]. And as the article points out, if you can't tell its the police you can't really be expected to know you aren't within your rights in disabling it. [1] "Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3-13." - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html