4 ms·

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 certain

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.

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.