Originally Posted by Jim2011

Video is recorded at my vid receiver so it would be in my posession. So you are saying an owner could shoot down a Cessna if its in range? He can shoot a car that turns around in his driveway? He does not have the sky legally posted no trespassing every few feet as required by law.

Did you read al1242's link? It's quite informative. The higher the plane, the less his case, but if it's around a thousand feet, or below the minimum altitude for a commercial aircraft, it very likely falls under his property. Prior to the cases in the link, it was presumed that his property would extend all the way into space, it only got capped because aircraft started becoming more commonplace. The case is certainly going to be dodgy if there was a human onboard the plane he shoots, but he can bring the guy to court (The link showed a guy taking the MILITARY to court, and won), no tears will be shed for a drone.

If *anything* is affecting your enjoyment of your land, like you have a great view of the sunset, and then somebody starts flying across it every day, you are the aggrieved party even if the drone was over another persons property. Fire away.

Originally Posted by Hajile

I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAELplrEYu4

It's dorks like this group operating the "drone" that feeds the legislators the will to outlaw anything that even looks like them. I hope the hunters blast everyone of them out of the sky.

Daemon, I respectfully disagree, I can not tell where they shot that thing, I would subscribe to the theory that was well within the hunting area, as the video showed the hunters getting a downed duck or whatever. It looked like he hit the RTH and it returned home with a smoking battery. (which is actually kind of funny)

I have read that document before, and it reads to me that the case is unfolding. If an airline flys over your property every day you don't have the right to shoot down commercial flights because they interfere with your view of the sky or a sunset. The part I read was you have the right to use any area above your land, but not to pollute it for the sake of keeping other people from using it. You can build a 3 story barn if you want one, but you can't put up poles and wires just to keep aircraft from flying over. If you want to construct a radio tower for actual use, you still need to meet certain guidelines like a light on top if it meets a minimum altitude and get permission before construction to make sure you don't endanger aircraft. I imagine it will keep unfolding and privacy debate and legalities will continue to be written. To me it comes down to personal property and if someone has the right to destroy your personal property because it is on or over their land. Again if a salesman parks in their driveway they don't have a right to shoot their car or them just because it is on their property. If anything, they might ask you to leave and if you refuse have you arrested for trespassing, but they can't destroy your property or injury you. Where I live many people fly over low level in ultra light aircraft and the parachute type aircraft. They are in a location they are legally allowed to be in according to airspace regulations, and the courts have ruled in the past that you can photograph anything if you are where you are allowed to be in. One case a man photographed a woman naked in a very tall city apartment and sued her for public indecency. Even though he used a large telescopic lens the courts said he was in his apartment across the street and photographed from a place he was allowed to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspac...ited_States%29

Class G airspace includes all airspace below flight level 600 not otherwise classified as controlled. (AIM 3-3-1) There are no entry or clearance requirements for Class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G airspace is typically the airspace very near the ground (1200 feet or less), beneath Class E airspace. Radio communication is not required in Class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G is completely uncontrolled.

I'm not encouraging people to abuse this right, to park over someones home or activity and snoop or harass anyone. I just wanted to know if anyone knew of a ruling that protected our expensive aircraft from someone who decides they have the right to do anything they want. If such a case came up, I would like to have a copy of the case with me to show to the police officer after I called them so the shooter could be taken into custody for destruction of my personal property as well as reckless endangerment depending on the weapon used and it's application. They start shooting large rifle rounds into the air and no question that is illegal since you can't be sure if will come down and hit someone. Again, all the more reason to record your flight via the video transmitter so you have guaranteed evidence should something like this occur you have the video which includes the lat lon.

Originally Posted by Jim2011

Video is recorded at my vid receiver so it would be in my posession. So you are saying an owner could shoot down a Cessna if its in range? He can shoot a car that turns around in his driveway? He does not have the sky legally posted no trespassing every few feet as required by law.

No, you can not commit murder. You can blast the snot out of a "toy" that is harassing you on your property though. Aircraft have to stay a minimum 500' (realistically, a 1000') away from any person, vehicle or structure. Less than that, snap a pic or two, and take to the local FSDO. They have a way of cleaning that up pretty quick.

There is no law against shooting a model plane but then there also is none against shooting someone car or their house. All could be handled under other existing laws, small claims court or a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Deadstick 8409

No, you can not commit murder. You can blast the snot out of a "toy" that is harassing you on your property though. Aircraft have to stay a minimum 500' (realistically, a 1000') away from any person, vehicle or structure. Less than that, snap a pic or two, and take to the local FSDO. They have a way of cleaning that up pretty quick.

Since we have established that a property owner does not own the airspace above them to the stars since the FAA has jurisdiction over these "highways in the sky" It stands to reason that you cannot destroy someone's property traveling on these highways in the sky anymore than you can shoot a car driving by your home with loud mufflers, weather you consider this $3,000 aircraft a toy or not. If you feel someone is harassing you, you call the police and see if they can be charged with a crime. If you think they are trespassing, you ask them to leave, or call the police to handle the matter.

You take matters in your own hands, the pilot may do the same later on and this is not something you really want to get started. They know where you live, you may not know where they live. If you think vandalizing someones expensive equipment is justified just because you don't like them flying over your property, what type of retribution do you think a person who thinks as yourself might feel is justified for actually destroying a few thousand dollars of their personal possessions? This falls under the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" line of thinking.

Originally Posted by Jim2011

Since we have established that a property owner does not own the airspace above them to the stars since the FAA has jurisdiction over these "highways in the sky" It stands to reason that you cannot destroy someone's property traveling on these highways in the sky anymore than you can shoot a car driving by your home with loud mufflers, weather you consider this $3,000 aircraft a toy or not. If you feel someone is harassing you, you call the police and see if they can be charged with a crime. If you think they are trespassing, you ask them to leave, or call the police to handle the matter.

You take matters in your own hands, the pilot may do the same later on and this is not something you really want to get started. They know where you live, you may not know where they live. If you think vandalizing someones expensive equipment is justified just because you don't like them flying over your property, what type of retribution do you think a person who thinks as yourself might feel is justified for actually destroying a few thousand dollars of their personal possessions? This falls under the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" line of thinking.

Actually, the document says that you still do. They just limited it to below the altitudes of commercial planes. And since RC's are only allowed under 400 feet, you're well inside the air rights of a land owner.

Originally Posted by Hajile

Actually, the document says that you still do. They just limited it to below the altitudes of commercial planes. And since RC's are only allowed under 400 feet, you're well inside the air rights of a land owner.

Land owners have no air rights except for building something within it.

Originally Posted by Gary Evans

Land owners have no air rights except for building something within it.

Great! Tell that to these guys!

Drones Shot Down Over Texas (8 min 59 sec)

I am not trespassing on your property because my helicopter is not touching the ground? You really think that's going to fly in court?

Where does it say that one does not own the air above his land?

"flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land"

To me, all i have to do i declare that a drone flying over my land is ruining my picturesc view of my property, loose as that may be, it is still true. Or i can say that i can no longer comfortably work around my land with the drone buzzing over my head. That can also be true. Ready the shotgun.

Originally Posted by Hajile

Great! Tell that to these guys!

Where does it say that one does not own the air above his land?

Not only do you not own it but you have no authority regarding its use. FAA has total authority over NAS. This is really old news.

Originally Posted by Gary Evans

Not only do you not own it but you have no authority regarding its use. FAA has total authority over NAS. This is really old news.

And how is that supposed to protect your drone from getting shot down? If you're flying your drone over someone's range, and it gets shot down, who's going to win in court?

Folks around here have to live with the scheduled floatplane flights overhead all day long. They like to fly at not much more than treetop level some days along the beachs en route to Vancouver. Those property owners all have 7 and 8 figure homes and they complain up and down about the planes and the noise. They do not have a legal leg to stand on - the flights carry on under federal protection. Shoot at one and you will end up in prison for more than a decade or three.

And in the link, it was the landowner who won.

So are our FPV's safe or not? If it gets shot, will we be able to get compensation fro the landowner for shooting our property over his land?

You're asking a question that no one can answer, because there's no precedent for it.

Originally Posted by Hajile

And in the link, it was the landowner who won.

So are our FPV's safe or not? If it gets shot, will we be able to get compensation fro the landowner for shooting our property over his land?

How easy is it to hit a 1.4m plane moving 50kph at 500ft agl? I am guessing not so easy. Make it very scale and they will just think it is a real plane at that height, no shooting. If you're going to fly over them at 100ft agl with a noisy quad .. well I don't mind if they shoot you down.