16 ms·
Can I stop drone delivery companies flying over my property?
- jbattle 1y agoI dread the idea. The leaf blowers running nonstop 10 months a year are noisy enough. Maybe I can convince all my neighbors to fly barrage balloons in all the back yards.
- GuestFAUniverse 1y agoDon't overthink it: get a permission for one or many flag poles ;-)
- paulddraper 1y agoHas a very easy answer in the US: No. You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace. You can build a tall structure (subject to local laws). But anything above that is outside your control. --- This article, however, is about Ireland.
- throwawee 1y ago>You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace. Makes sense. If castle doctrine applied to the skies, people could take potshots at low flying aircraft above their house. I guess that's one way to prevent becoming a flyover state...
- pixxel 1y ago[dead]
- RankingMember 1y agoIn Ireland?
- 3cats-in-a-coat 1y agoSo who pays your medical bills when one of those falls on your head. FAA or the delivery company?
- connicpu 1y agoThis is basically why regulations exist requiring operators of machinery/vehicles to carry insurance, so there's someone who can pay up if people get hurt.
- tjohns 1y agoYou actually don't need insurance to fly a plane (in the US). That said, I don't know of any aircraft operator who doesn't have some form of insurance. If nothing else because the banks demand it.
- paulddraper 1y agoWho pays your medical bills when one of those cars jump the curb and hits you? The state transport authority or the automobile driver?
- 3cats-in-a-coat 1y agoIf some authority unilaterally decides my roof is a highway, I'd say both.
- Symbiote 1y agoThe domain is .IE, the FAA has little relevance.
- tjohns 1y ago> Has a very easy answer in the US: No. While you're not wrong in practice, it's actually a surprisingly complicated area of law. The FAA doesn't "own" the airspace, it's a public right-of-way and every citizen has the right to transit it. See 49 USC §40103: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace". The FAA gets to set policy on how to ensure safety, just like the Coast Guard sets rules for the safe navigation of public waterways (but neither "owns" the air/water): "the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace." Now, where it gets complicated is the definition of "navigable airspace". A common definition is either 360 feet or 500 feet above the tallest structure on a parcel of land, but the case law isn't consistent on this - especially when you consider that some aircraft (like helicopters) can legally navigate lower than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States
- paulddraper 1y agoWhile citizens have a right to transit through navigable airspace, the FAA controls more than that. The FAA controls ALL airspace (but delegating control over some areas such as military airspace). For example, a drone weighing over 250 grams must be registered with the FAA, no matter what height it is flown. Even if it's your own backyard at eye level. This is a little weird, but factual.
- username223 1y agoTrue, the article is talking about Ireland, and I don't know what the current laws are there. But for the States, normal aircraft are supposed to stay 500 ft away: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRe4c59b5f5506932/section-91.119 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F... That's not true for helicopters and UAVs within sight of their controllers, but I feel sorry for the people who bought a house not near and airport, and now have to deal with a buzzing swarm overhead.
- adolph 1y ago> You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace. This kinda begs the question of what is meant by "airspace." If the term means a geometric volume that is generally occupied by materials in a gaseous state, then does the FAA own the airspace within one's home? Does the FAA control how cars drive down the airspace of a road? No, that is absurd. The common use of aircraft smaller than humans and capable of performing navigation faster than humans is expanding a previously relatively stable boundary of what Federal law and rules call "navigable airspace." Thus, I think it is incorrect to say "The FAA owns your airspace." since the FAA explicitly does not control airspace below a certain altitude over most people's houses.
- paulddraper 1y agoThe FAA requires registration of any drone >250g, no matter where altitude you fly it at. So there’s that.
- sizzzzlerz 1y agoNot quite. The height of a structure, antenna, tower, etc., can be limited by the FAA based upon the distance of the structure from a nearby airport. Beyond a certain distance, the height is no longer an FAA issue.
- paulddraper 1y agoThe FAA has no direct authority over structures. It will evaluate such structures for their effect on air traffic, and local authorities will almost universally follow their findings when approving construction.
- SoftTalker 1y agoIn my neighborhood (rural) a drone hovering over someone's property would be likely used as target practice. If delivery drones become commonplace, there are going to have to be regulations about which air corridors they can use (altitude and routes) or it will be chaos.
- latchkey 1y ago[flagged]
- tjohns 1y agoFor what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously. Drones also have cameras.
- pilingual 1y agoWhat if you have a pellet with wings you are doing experiments with above your house and the drone fails to maneuver around it? (This may or may not be a Simpsons reference.)
- Hamuko 1y agoAre rocks still kosher?
- rolph 1y agoif a drone is close enough to be hit with a rock, its operating ilegally.
- neepi 1y agoClearly the solution is to obtain anti delivery drone drones and bag all the free stuff that falls out of the sky into your property.
- dyauspitr 1y agoWith all the money behind it that’s probably going to a criminally punished similar to hijacking a goods truck n the highway.
- neuroelectron 1y agoYes but not yet
- bilbo0s 1y agoWhat will be legal is to simply sue the owner of the drone for breaking your window when your neighbor shot it down. Let the owner and the neighbor sort it out if the owner can prove the neighbor shot it down. But until that proof is forthcoming, the owner is liable. Same as any plane crash. Oh, and Heaven help the owner if any humans or pets in the house are injured. After a while, that will get so expensive that either they will stop using drones to deliver, or drone design will improve to the point that they become almost impossible to bring down. Either way, hey, gets rid of the problem of drones dropping on your property.
- gosub100 1y agothat's a good fantasy. but here's how I think it would play-out in reality: * your new window was $1800, so even with treble damages, it's still under $10k, which means it is a small claims issue. * sue AMZN (or some subcontractor/"third party") in small claims, they don't show up. you get a default judgement * good luck collecting. the moment you do, they start denying it on technical grounds. Oh you were a prime member in 2018, remember when you agreed to settle all disputes in mediation? well, we remember. * Go to mediation, they find that your neighbor is culpable for the accident, rules 100% against you. Or better yet, they refuse to engage with you because your neighbor won't agree to be bound by the arbitration.
- rolph 1y agodrones have minimum distance and altitude regulations as well as restrictions from operating above people. also, stock up on fishing line
- arresin 1y agoI like the fishing line idea a lot but wouldn’t that get birds as well
- IAmBroom 1y ago> drones have minimum distance and altitude regulations as well as restrictions from operating above people. 1. What does "minimum distance... regulations" even mean? 2. Drones do not have minimum altitude regulations, except in cases where ALL air traffic is limited. 3. Drones have a few restrictions from operating above people, but hardly enough to prevent interactions. See FAA's Operations Over People rule.
- Fairburn 1y agoI hear that a focused low power EMP zot can do wonders .. /s
- threecheese 1y agoI semi-interested in drones, and my social media algorithm repeatedly shows me both EMP devices and drone jamming countermeasures. Aliexpress style vendors, factory assembly videos. I would guess that both of these are illegal in the US.
- genewitch 1y agoHey, I'm legally allowed to put 1500 watts into a yagi array with near 30dbd of gain. It isn't my fault that a drone flew in the beam while I was sending cw at 500cpm.
- Greta4Gaza 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fifticon 1y agowell, if you are russian, it appears not.
- Yeul 1y agoHow is drone delivery economically feasible? The carry weight is negligible, the range is paltry and they still require operators- whom I'm sure earn more than your average white van man.
- mingus88 1y agoNot sure how profitable they are today but I think it’s obvious that the long term play is to eliminate the contract workers entirely
- Aloisius 1y agoA Wing delivery drones can lift 5 lbs and travel upwards of 12 miles at up to 70 mph. If a single operator can pilot 20 drones simultaneously, delivering say 50+ packages/hour, then it starts to make sense.
- masswerk 1y agoWell, as this is about Ireland, EU regulations state that a drone operator may control just a single drone at a time. (So, no simultaneous control.) *) UAS.STS-01.040 Responsibilities of the remote pilot: "(d) shall operate only one unmanned aircraft at a time" https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online-publications/easy-access-rules-unmanned-aircraft-systems?page=8 https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-r...
- beAbU 1y agoHow the hell can a single operator pilot 20 at the same time. These aren't uavs, let alone uavs with the ability to navigate congested airspace!
- bobthepanda 1y agothere are niches in places where the roads are bad/congested/otherwise and the cargo is particularly high value. I remember reading about a delivery use case for blood bags in the African countryside.
- 1y ago
- Balgair 1y agoAside: It's going to be a great time when the crows, raccoons, and other semi-intelligent wildlife discover that these drones have food in them at seemingly random reward schedules. Sure, you can give the drones little tasers to keep the animals away, depending on your locality. But knowing what I know about bears and crows, almost nothing is going to stop them. Especially when some influencer jerk tries tempting a bunch of them with a box just oozing honey or some other high value food.
- adolph 1y agoI can definitely see a future time when small autonomous air vehicles start to have problems with the local wildlife, either from the thick flocks of grackles in winter or from the more mischievous neighborhood corvids.
- seanthemon 1y agoThey'll have protecto-drones and decoy drones following them until it's so expensive we go back to good ol' launching packages by trebuchet
- adolph 1y agoThe advantage of the trebuchet or other indirect fires is that the package need not contain and carry a large energy source. For so long as it has enough kinetic energy to maintain maneuverability, soft landing in a yard or porch could be done maybe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Precision_Airdrop_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Precision_Airdrop_System
- nostrademons 1y agoFriend of mine recorded this video 10 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc
- rurban 1y agoBiggest problem already for the last 10 years. This guy uses reflective tape: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=muP8eZasOFs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=muP8eZasOFs
- ihsw 1y ago[dead]
- friendlyprezz 1y agoThere sure is one way to stop em Palmer lucky made another way too, an EMP that looks like a portable speaker
- antithesizer 1y agomy advice on this question is the same as my advice on most questions: befriend the crows.
- not_a_bot_4sho 1y ago"Hear me out, we need more murders"
- thrill 1y ago[flagged]
- cameronh90 1y agoThat would be very relevant, were the article not about Ireland.
- thrill 1y ago[flagged]
- hn_throwaway_99 1y agoI hate to be the "RTFA" guy, but seriously, RTFA. Despite your quick dismissals, the article actually explains quite well why the law is ambiguous - namely, that the height to which the property owner owns the air is only defined by what is "reasonable", but doesn't give an actual meter height that the property owner owns. And the article recommends that regulation defining this height is something that would benefit all parties.
- mig39 1y agoYou reply that the FAA is clear. Someone points out the article is about Ireland. You reply about the UK. You know the UK and Ireland aren't the same, right? Maybe read the article, as it discusses the ambiguity in Irish law about airspace. The word "reasonable" occurs. In practice, that's what I do when I fly my drones in my Canadian neighbourhood. Sure, the airspace above someone's property isn't theirs, but that doesn't mean I want to annoy my neighbours. So I tend to fly high enough that they don't even see or hear my drones at all. I try and be "reasonable" like my Irish cousins. Here's my latest drone photo. I doubt any of my neighbours saw or heard this flight: https://360.menino.com/panorama/the-view-from-eagle-ridge https://360.menino.com/panorama/the-view-from-eagle-ridge
- hansvm 1y agoThe FAA isn't the only relevant authority, even if it were you'd still find low-altitude flights often illegal, even if legal you'd still find some activities like trapping the drone with a net situationally legal, and none of your comment or mine applies anyway because we're talking about the wrong continent.
- monkaiju 1y agoI really hope this type of delivery never catches on... I live in a fairly urban location and still get to do great birdwatching in my backyard. Woodpeckers, hummingbirds, geese and ducks flying over between the various lakes. Losing out on that just so Amazon can make more money (not to mention potentially spy on us even more effectively) would be tragic
- libraryatnight 1y agoI'm also not thrilled about the added strain on wildlife and nature, and also scared of what it means to have drones operated by the companies who just can't seem to consume enough data. Amazon drones would be like the Skeksis Crystal Bats from the Dark Crystal, creepy evil little bastards that you shouldn't let spot you :P
- deepsun 1y agoDiscuss it with your city/county council. If it annoys enough people, you might introduce regulations, aka making agreement with the drone operators.
- mike_d 1y agoThis article is from Ireland, but at least here in the US local governments cannot create laws governing anything that is airborne.
- deepsun 1y agoYes, FAA is federal, so the municipal councils would figure that out. My point is that there's a working democratic process for solving problems like that, besides internet frustration. E.g. buzzing someone's home on an airplane is already a real FAA regulations violation, can be even a criminal offense.
- eclipticplane 1y agoBan any facility that operates delivery drones, then. Or tax them into non-existence.
- Spivak 1y agoNo but I see no reason they can't pass noise ordinances irrespective of the means employed. They can't regulate drones but they can fine you for making noise that happens to be a drone. Can you imagine if concert venues could get around noise ordinances by lifting the speakers with drones? Absurd.
- mike_d 1y agoThe FAA has "field preemption" from Congress. Meaning any state or local law that conflicts with the FAA's stated purpose is automatically rendered moot and unenforceable. The FAAs mandate is the efficient operation of aircraft within the airspace. So a law that bans a drone from using a massive speaker to violate a noise ordnance could be enforced, but a law against the operational noise of an aircraft could not. A city could ban a drone operator from flying over a crime scene low enough to disturb evidence, but could not ban a drone from passing over a crime scene.
- Bluescreenbuddy 1y agoNot in the US. Property owners do not own the airspace above their property.
- giantg2 1y agoNot entirely true. I believe there are laws determining how high you own. I believe it's 100' for my state.
- LeoPanthera 1y agoThe article isn't about the US. However, even the US, that isn't entirely true. United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet. The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over "navigable airspace", which is considered a public highway. This navigable airspace generally begins at 500 feet above the surface in uncongested areas and 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas. Aircraft flying within this navigable airspace are generally not considered to be trespassing. There is a "gray area" between the immediate airspace controlled by the landowner and the federally controlled navigable airspace. While the FAA asserts its authority to regulate all airspace, including this lower stratum, the exact delineation of private airspace rights within this zone, particularly concerning new technologies like drones, is not clear.
- jcims 1y agoThere's a medflight helicopter pad not far from my place out in the country. It's just a small concrete pad on a lot and when it is dispatched it ascends straight up to what I'd guessed was 300' but could easily be 500' before taking off towards its destination. Landings are similar. I always thought it looked weird but now I wonder if it's because it's largely surrounded by private property.
- p_l 1y agoQuite probably it's more to avoid dealing with possible collision dangers.
- 486sx33 1y ago[dead]
- juliusluna879 1y ago[dead]
- _carbyau_ 1y agoMy concern is less the occasional drone and more when Google decides that all their delivery drones - already carrying cameras/radar/lidar for navigational purposes - can be used to update google maps in near realtime. The sheer Big Brother possibilities are insane. The future: "saferoom is where the pants aren't"
- scarab92 1y agoI’ll never understand people who oppose new technology because it could hypothetically be used a negative way. These people just seem to have a chronically cynical outlook on everything. The logical thing to do is to regulate things when they become a problem, not speculatively.
- isuricnamqodn 1y agothey’ve probably read more history than your average bear
- djsjajah 1y agoIf we didn't have people like that, then they would be right.
- monkaiju 1y agoIdk how you can think this is the reasonable take given any familiarity with history...
- anigbrowl 1y agoThe history (and tort law) books are full of examples of problems that were identified ahead of time but ignored by policymakers and tortfeasors until they had fatal consequences.
- nozzlegear 1y agoI live in Iowa where the governor just signed a bill that outlaws drone surveillance of private farms and farmland. I haven't read the full bill yet, so it's possible that it also outlaws surveillance of homes that aren't on farmland, but would at least be illegal to do what you're describing if you own a farm in Iowa.
- Brian_K_White 1y agoThe current ambiguity will magically find itself disambiguated pretty soon after we have our own drones camp out over politician's own homes, in numbers.
- colanderman 1y agoNot at all. Politicians will carve out a law which protects them only. They've done it (or the inverse) before: https://www.propublica.org/article/do-as-we-say-congress-says-then-does-what-it-wants https://www.propublica.org/article/do-as-we-say-congress-say...
- efitz 1y agoYep, but it will backfire as they just write laws to protect their own interests; drone companies’ donations can’t protect them from annoying politicians but probably can for everyone else.
- paulcole 1y agoThis is one of the very best examples of a situation where you can exercise and improve your ability to just let it go and move on with your life.
- Aziell 1y agoI live in a pretty quiet neighborhood, and I’m not thrilled about the idea of drones flying over my backyard all the time. There’s something really jarring about sitting outside and suddenly hearing that loud buzzing overhead. I don’t think anyone’s really asked regular people how they feel about this kind of thing.
- eclipticplane 1y agoThe NYPD drones buzz my neighborhood repeatedly during the summer months, and they are relatively small drones. Incredibly loud and distracting. I'm not looking forward to deliveries via heavier, louder drones.
- GJim 1y agoThat is rather dystopian. I'm surprised the locals let it fly (no pun intended).
- mrguyorama 1y agoFucking with a Cop's toys is a reliably way to suddenly have a lot of trouble with the cops. It doesn't matter what the law says either, because unless you can find a prior case that specifically covers that law, a cop is not required to respect the law.
- benced 1y agoDelivery drones are larger and therefore quieter (larger propellor = more pleasant tone and lower RPM) and fly higher than the consumer drones you’re probably familiar with.
- daniel-grigg 1y agoUntil they drop down to deliver and take off again?
- Aziell 1y agoI still find it pretty distracting. I'm just sitting there trying to chill, and there's this constant buzzing above. Not a fan.
- renewiltord 1y agoOne of the things I find incredibly annoying is that delivery drivers will drive by my home even when they're not delivering to me. Did they even ask for my consent? Once they have self-driving cargo vans, I'm just going to shoot out their tires so they can't spy on me. Or that's what I would sound like if I was a looneybin.
- monkaiju 1y agoThe looney part is you pretending a van driving in front of your house is nearly as invasive as drone flying over your yard...
- CaptainFever 1y agoThat's just because people got used to motor vehicles in their neighbourhoods.
- monkaiju 1y agoNo it's not, vans are quieter and don't give a overhead view of your entire property. Also, I don't love delivery vans zipping around the neighborhood in a rush and clogging the street either.
- simplesimon890 1y agoI live in the path of the drones mentioned in the article and it's an incredibly frustrating experience to be outside and have them fly over the property. they are noisy, intrusive, and increasingly more frequent ( maybe a pass nearby every half hour on a busy day ) Living in an urban environment always will entail some unwanted sounds, dogs barking, passing cars, the occasional helicopter or whatever, but to have a drone passing over your neighborhood to deliver someone coffee or a parcel feels like exploiting every possible avenue to make money, regardless of how disruptive it is to the local population. However bad they are now, it will be 10x the number of drones in a few years. It's a depressing thought.... but hey, at least someone gets their shitty coffee and adds a few euro to the profit of some company so it'll all be worth it in the end.
- scarab92 1y ago[flagged]
- simplesimon890 1y agoCan we please keep name calling to Reddit/Bluesky? Just because they aren't mowing down kids, doesn't mean they don't have negative consequences to neighborhoods or that the cumulative consequences are less than delivery vans. Typically in housing estates, vehicle sound is low due to reduced speeds and vans aren't flying over your house across the airspace of your garden so yes, they are noiser. Plus the amount of weight these drones can carry is low meaning they require compared to a ( large ) van, it would take hundreds of drones to deliver the equivalent weight of one Ford Transit van.
- isuricnamqodn 1y agothere is feedback pressure with regards to land based delivery — traffic, cost, road infrastructure. Removing those constraints will lead to (more) people ordering a coffee rather than walking to the kitchen to make one. That’s fine you may argue, but that coffee creates a negative externality to neighbourhoods that won’t be priced in via capitalism. That’s reality, not a childish dig at capitalism
- 1y ago
- pmarreck 1y agoPretty soon they will be using more silent rotors, which already exist and for some-odd reason aren't yet used in the drone space
- mediumsmart 1y agoProbably, but what are you going to do with all the stuff?
- Joker_vD 1y agowaves his hands right before your nose "The air is common! I am not touching you!" Well, it's still obnoxious. Either fly over the roads, or fly high enough (50 m? 100?) to be unreachable.
- potbelly83 1y agoExactly! The majority of drone enthusiasts are insufferable, repeating the old mantra, "FAA allows to do what we like". I can't wait for some of these cases to hit the supreme court where they can put a stop to applying laws that were meant to govern manned aircraft applying to someone with a drone.
- victorbjorklund 1y agoI just dont understand why we are doing this. Delievery within a city is a solved issue. Wanna get rid of humans? self-driving cars.
- Havoc 1y agoI'd much prefer a sensible regulated approach over straight to nimby. Legislating low noise propellers etc. Drones make a lot of sense versus having a 2 ton truck drive around to hand you a package. Much better if we figure out a workable solution here
- Sohcahtoa82 1y agoMy question is...why would you want to? Throughout the comments, it sounds like people are expecting these drones to only be ~50 feet above the ground, buzzing right over houses, or being a noisy nuisance hovering in place endlessly. Maybe it's because I live in an area with lots of tall trees, but I'd expect these drones to be flying at least 200 feet up. At that height, it becomes difficult to hear the drone unless you're in an incredibly quiet rural area. And it's not like a drone is going to hang around. It'll deliver its package and then head back to base to charge and/or pick up another package.
- aigen01 1y agoI read an article about the folks in College Station who live close to the amazon warehouse that was testing out drone deliveries. Drones would pass by their houses about once every three minutes at low ~50-150 feet above ground and people complained about how loud and frequent they were.
- scoofy 1y agoDrones are surprisingly loud. I’ve been at some golf events where they were doing drone photography and it was a constant distraction from the tranquility.