6 ms·

What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? Several years back, the PLOS folks visited my local hackerspac

What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? Several years back, the PLOS folks visited my local hackerspace and talked about using balloons to double check chemical emissions of oil refineries near Houston. They had to use balloons, because there were legal problems with using drones. The concerns of overflown companies are quite understandable as well. For things like scientific instruments, what about some sort of inspection of flown equipment and licensing?

reaperducer 8y ago
What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? I'm not an expert, but if an company wants to use drones to monitor its industrial site, that's fine. It's private property. Just like construction companies use drones to monitor construction. But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property, even if it's for something as seemingly good as monitoring chemical emissions. What happens when there's a malfunction and your machine plummets into a stack, or hits a person? Again, I'm not an expert on this. I suspect nobody really is since it's all a new realm, and what few laws there are haven't been tested very much.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property But if the government has the right and duty to regulate emissions into the atmosphere, they should be able to measure the air over a refinery. This is why I mentioned some kind of accreditation. Maybe the company could hire an independent 3rd party, whose work and devices can be inspected by all parties?
- asynchronous13 8y ago
  Actually, you do have the right to fly over someone else's property. It's well established law that Delta airlines does not need to ask permission from every land owner that they overfly. A long time ago, property rights were 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos' -- from hell below to heaven above. (now referred to as the 'ad coelum doctrine') But that law was changed a long time ago. Just because you own the land, doesn't mean you own all of the airspace above it. It has been tested in court that a property owner owns some height above the surface of their land. 300ft over the tallest structure is definitely in the public domain. However, the minimum altitude that one is allowed to fly over private land without permission has not been established in court. A drone at 10ft could definitely be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 400ft definitely could not be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 150ft? That still needs to be tested in court. Then general rule is that a property owner is entitled to the enjoyment of their property.
  - avar 8y ago
    Why would it need to be tested in court? It falls under the well-established doctrine that the FAA / EASA etc. is allowed to regulate air traffic. You'll be able to fly your drone at whatever altitude they tell you you're allowed to fly at. If they didn't get to decide by fiat you could just make up your own rules and seek to sort them out in court. E.g. "no I don't feel like following the FAA rules on airline safety, I'll just make my own airliner & airline and make my own rules".
    - asynchronous13 8y ago
      > Why would it need to be tested in court? Because the law is not clear as it is currently written. On one hand, the minimum safe altitude to operate an aircraft is 500ft. So it's pretty clear that anything above 500ft is considered a public thoroughfare. The FAA claims to own and regulate all US airspace down to ground level. The FAA also says that drones must be operated below 400ft (clearly an effort to keep drones and manned aircraft safely separated). If we embrace this version of the law, then drones can operate from 0ft to 400ft with impunity over private land without any legal repercussions. On the other hand, it is established law that a property owner is entitled to the full enjoyment of their property. In a famous case, United States vs Causby, military bombers were flying at an altitude of 83ft over Causby's house and chicken farm. The courts sided with Causby and established a precedent that a landowner does own some portion of the airspace over their land. However, it did not establish a specific altitude. A bomber at 83ft was deemed to infringe on private property rights, but should a small drone at 83ft be judged in the same way? It's not clearly defined in law right now, that's why it needs to be tested in court. Or alternatively, the legislature needs to adjust the laws to make it clear.
      - avar 8y ago
        That's really interesting. As the Wikipedia article notes[1] quoting the decision while the court didn't hold property rights at as specific altitude, in their language they referred to the height of buildings, trees etc.: > "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it." But it's not clear to me that this would apply to drones for a couple of reasons: 1. The question of whether something is considered an easement or not doesn't apply for the drone question. I.e. in the 1946 case bombers were flying by at 83 ft so "buildings could not be erected". Whereas today if if drones were flying past your house at 83 ft and you built a 100 ft building they'd just need to fly over or around it. 2. In the 1946 case the overflights themselves caused enough of a disruption to farming from noise etc. that the farmer went out of business, so the takings clause was invoked. It's unlikely that'll ever become an issue with drones, general noise regulation will handle those sorts of cases. Also, surely there's lots of post-1946 cases on this matter due to the build-outs of airports and growing class B airspace, or has that been handled entirely by buying out property and zoning regulations? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holdin...

reaperducer 8y ago

What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? I'm not an expert, but if an company wants to use drones to monitor its industrial site, that's fine. It's private property. Just like construction companies use drones to monitor construction. But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property, even if it's for something as seemingly good as monitoring chemical emissions. What happens when there's a malfunction and your machine plummets into a stack, or hits a person? Again, I'm not an expert on this. I suspect nobody really is since it's all a new realm, and what few laws there are haven't been tested very much.

stcredzero 8y ago
But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property But if the government has the right and duty to regulate emissions into the atmosphere, they should be able to measure the air over a refinery. This is why I mentioned some kind of accreditation. Maybe the company could hire an independent 3rd party, whose work and devices can be inspected by all parties?
asynchronous13 8y ago
Actually, you do have the right to fly over someone else's property. It's well established law that Delta airlines does not need to ask permission from every land owner that they overfly. A long time ago, property rights were 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos' -- from hell below to heaven above. (now referred to as the 'ad coelum doctrine') But that law was changed a long time ago. Just because you own the land, doesn't mean you own all of the airspace above it. It has been tested in court that a property owner owns some height above the surface of their land. 300ft over the tallest structure is definitely in the public domain. However, the minimum altitude that one is allowed to fly over private land without permission has not been established in court. A drone at 10ft could definitely be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 400ft definitely could not be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 150ft? That still needs to be tested in court. Then general rule is that a property owner is entitled to the enjoyment of their property.
- avar 8y ago
  Why would it need to be tested in court? It falls under the well-established doctrine that the FAA / EASA etc. is allowed to regulate air traffic. You'll be able to fly your drone at whatever altitude they tell you you're allowed to fly at. If they didn't get to decide by fiat you could just make up your own rules and seek to sort them out in court. E.g. "no I don't feel like following the FAA rules on airline safety, I'll just make my own airliner & airline and make my own rules".
  - asynchronous13 8y ago
    > Why would it need to be tested in court? Because the law is not clear as it is currently written. On one hand, the minimum safe altitude to operate an aircraft is 500ft. So it's pretty clear that anything above 500ft is considered a public thoroughfare. The FAA claims to own and regulate all US airspace down to ground level. The FAA also says that drones must be operated below 400ft (clearly an effort to keep drones and manned aircraft safely separated). If we embrace this version of the law, then drones can operate from 0ft to 400ft with impunity over private land without any legal repercussions. On the other hand, it is established law that a property owner is entitled to the full enjoyment of their property. In a famous case, United States vs Causby, military bombers were flying at an altitude of 83ft over Causby's house and chicken farm. The courts sided with Causby and established a precedent that a landowner does own some portion of the airspace over their land. However, it did not establish a specific altitude. A bomber at 83ft was deemed to infringe on private property rights, but should a small drone at 83ft be judged in the same way? It's not clearly defined in law right now, that's why it needs to be tested in court. Or alternatively, the legislature needs to adjust the laws to make it clear.
    - avar 8y ago
      That's really interesting. As the Wikipedia article notes[1] quoting the decision while the court didn't hold property rights at as specific altitude, in their language they referred to the height of buildings, trees etc.: > "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it." But it's not clear to me that this would apply to drones for a couple of reasons: 1. The question of whether something is considered an easement or not doesn't apply for the drone question. I.e. in the 1946 case bombers were flying by at 83 ft so "buildings could not be erected". Whereas today if if drones were flying past your house at 83 ft and you built a 100 ft building they'd just need to fly over or around it. 2. In the 1946 case the overflights themselves caused enough of a disruption to farming from noise etc. that the farmer went out of business, so the takings clause was invoked. It's unlikely that'll ever become an issue with drones, general noise regulation will handle those sorts of cases. Also, surely there's lots of post-1946 cases on this matter due to the build-outs of airports and growing class B airspace, or has that been handled entirely by buying out property and zoning regulations? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holdin...