4 ms·
The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park exte
by hunter2_ 3y ago
The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then it's "in" the park, but if it's not making contact with the ground then it's "above" the park.
- sethammons 3y agoWhen you jump, do you leave the park? If you jump really high? Or are flung via trebuchet?
- hunter2_ 3y agoThat's absurd generally, but for purposes of this rule specifically, I think it works out totally fine, yes. Because if you replace the human jumping with a vehicle jumping (being that the rule is regarding vehicles, not humans) then the answer to the question of whether a violation has occurred is "yes" -- repeated violations does not matter when answering. For flying vehicles, only taking off or landing in the park is a violation.
- fragmede 3y agoHow about hovering? at what height does it become not the park? 10 centimeters above the park is one thing and space is at 100 kilometers, but there's a lot of room in between those for disagreement. At what point is a helicopter hovering above the park in violation?
- zeroimpl 3y agoThis is why you need a lawyer familiar with the local regulations, which clarify these things. Thus this test is invalid because there should be an “there is not enough information to answer” answer.
- hunter2_ 3y agoI think getting lawyers involved is more for if you want to know what the law is. For this, we just want to know what is. It's very common for legal definitions to differ from normal definitions.