3 ms·

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

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.
  - bargl 11y ago
    > It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil,[1] or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft Drones, also have the requirement to be autonomously controlled (UAV), none of your examples meet both requirements. Most don't meet the first, otherwise shooting skeet would be illegal, because they generate more lift then most your other examples.
    - msandford 11y ago
      > It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil,[1] or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines. OK so in that case the paper airplane is an aircraft provided that you fold it to have an airfoil. Done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dof_Ks-f9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dof_Ks-f9U Also, if it needs to have a power source, the rubber band helicopter or the rubber band airplane is super legit. That's a power source. My point isn't that I really think that these are aircraft. It's that trying to apply the rules for "mechanical devices which carry people in them" to things which don't carry people is pretty silly.

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.
- bargl 11y ago
  > It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil,[1] or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft Drones, also have the requirement to be autonomously controlled (UAV), none of your examples meet both requirements. Most don't meet the first, otherwise shooting skeet would be illegal, because they generate more lift then most your other examples.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil,[1] or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines. OK so in that case the paper airplane is an aircraft provided that you fold it to have an airfoil. Done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dof_Ks-f9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dof_Ks-f9U Also, if it needs to have a power source, the rubber band helicopter or the rubber band airplane is super legit. That's a power source. My point isn't that I really think that these are aircraft. It's that trying to apply the rules for "mechanical devices which carry people in them" to things which don't carry people is pretty silly.