DOT to the rescue! (Multi rotor registration)

[Younggun]

Agreed. AFAIK officers were just knocking on every household asking about the drone and more than a few collaborated the story. They suspect it was checking for cars to see who's home. But I doubt it's true.

Yeah, I just can't seeing it making things easier. I guess if you didn't want to be seen driving down the street, but they would have to be robbed almost immediately after the flyover or the intel would no longer be useful.

And you can't really camp in one spot for more than 12 minutes or so due to battery life and needing time to get there and get back.

But criminals aren't always smart, even when they're trying to be. So it's possible.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Except redneck just broke the law.

It's simply not legal to shoot a drone because it flew over your house.




Sent from my HAL 9000

Laws are exactly the road you're going down now. Which would you rather have... Licensing, regulations, insurance requirements, new alphabet agency, etc. Or shotgun justice? Keep in mind a shotgun effective range is less than 100 yds, easy. If you're outta shotgun range then you're safe. Seems easier to keep outta range of the shotgun to me, but that's me.

 

[Younggun]

Laws are exactly the road you're going down now. Which would you rather have... Licensing, regulations, insurance requirements, new alphabet agency, etc. Or shotgun justice? Keep in mind a shotgun effective range is less than 100 yds, easy. If you're outta shotgun range then you're safe. Seems easier to keep outta range of the shotgun to me, but that's me.

I didn't say right or wrong. It's a complicated subject IMO. One might be justified, another not.

Also, 100 yards is 300", max altitude they prefer is flying is 400". That's a small window. Personally, I don't believe in total airspace control above property, but I do believe there are reasonable expectations of having some authority. I don't believe it extends 300' necessarily.

What about a signal loss event in which the multi rotor goes in to RTH mode and the straight line home crosses Mr Rednecks airspace? Also consider that most claims of sorting have happened inside city limits. So there are more legal issues to contend with.

Honestly, I don't believe we are in a "shoot'em down or let the FAA regulate it in to oblivion" situation. That's pretty much the extreme end of either side of the curve and neither extreme holds the answer.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I believe the airspace is my property. Someone in it is trespassing just like parking on my driveway.

I probably won't mind most times but if they get creepy I should have some recourse to report them for trespassing.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

I didn't say right or wrong. It's a complicated subject IMO. One might be justified, another not.

Also, 100 yards is 300", max altitude they prefer is flying is 400". That's a small window. Personally, I don't believe in total airspace control above property, but I do believe there are reasonable expectations of having some authority. I don't believe it extends 300' necessarily.

What about a signal loss event in which the multi rotor goes in to RTH mode and the straight line home crosses Mr Rednecks airspace? Also consider that most claims of sorting have happened inside city limits. So there are more legal issues to contend with.

Honestly, I don't believe we are in a "shoot'em down or let the FAA regulate it in to oblivion" situation. That's pretty much the extreme end of either side of the curve and neither extreme holds the answer.


Sent from my HAL 9000

I'm assuming you meant feet, not inches! Lol.

Sometimes, shit happens. Like the baseball over the fence or Frisbee on the roof. It's just a more expensive toy lost. If you're going to risk situations that could lose a toy or hobby then when you lose it, you just have to suck it up. Plan a flight path that doesn't put you into that situation, don't risk losing it beyond your direct access, etc. What happens when a drone goes haywire or the operator loses control and it causes bodily harm to someone on their property (it's a plausible situation)? Or it gets stuck in a tree next to a house and idiot tries to retrieve it without informing owner and gets shot as a suspected burglar?

What's wrong with going to the property owner and saying, hey can I fly this over your place for a bit, I want to take a photo of the sunset?

There's NO way the government should be regulating it, because they'll just **** it up and no one wins.

On the other hand, I've paid for my privacy, whether it be subterranean, terrestrial or arboreal. I'm pretty territorial and I'm sure many others are. There's plenty of open airspace in parks, lakes, your own property, uninhabited public places where there is no reason to be over my place without permission. It's not like a plane 1/5th of a mile or higher (even then look at all the trouble google Earth got into), it's in your face! Lol

City limits, HOAs, small .000001 acre lots, man I don't know. There's already so much government there it's hard to say what is a reasonable solution there.

 

[Younggun]

How high do you believe that airspace ownership extends? At what altitude should airlines have to purchase a right of way to cross over property? What about smaller planes or CareFlite?

It's a serious question, I don't believe you want ownership at 30,000', but then again it wouldn't surprise me, lol.

Honestly, the airspace argument doesn't really effect me since I have plenty of room to fly, but as with other things it could have far reaching consequences. Both good and bad.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

How high do you believe that airspace ownership extends? At what altitude should airlines have to purchase a right of way to cross over property? What about smaller planes or CareFlite?

It's a serious question, I don't believe you want ownership at 30,000', but then again it wouldn't surprise me, lol.

Honestly, the airspace argument doesn't really effect me since I have plenty of room to fly, but as with other things it could have far reaching consequences. Both good and bad.


Sent from my HAL 9000

Not sure that's why it should be part of the deed like mineral rights. If I purchase a valid legal deed for 30,000' them Airlines better pay up. That's pretty extreme though.

On the flip side 5' is wrong too. Someone flying around in the middle of my back yard 5' off the ground is at the mercy of my kids, God have mercy on that drone.

It's a property rights issue. This ain't the USSR!

 

[Mreed911]

Generally, 500 feet begins Das regulated airspace, but there's no real rights involved. In other places, like downtown New York, vertical rights can be sold for quite a premium.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

How high do you believe that airspace ownership extends? At what altitude should airlines have to purchase a right of way to cross over property? What about smaller planes or CareFlite?

It's a serious question, I don't believe you want ownership at 30,000', but then again it wouldn't surprise me, lol.

Honestly, the airspace argument doesn't really effect me since I have plenty of room to fly, but as with other things it could have far reaching consequences. Both good and bad.


Sent from my HAL 9000

That's a question that's hard to answer. I grew up next to a very active municipal airport. I was about 300 yds from a runway on a hill. I remember being able to identify pilots by their face they'd be so close, and they me. I knew what they flew, what car they drove because I'd recognize them driving out of the parking lot, and how often they flew and with who. They'd waive to me driving and flying by and knew where I lived. I always think of that when planes fly over low, same thing with drones or any remote controlled aircraft with visual capabilities. If you're close enough to clearly visually document me, my property, my activities, etc. It's too close. It's like those people in NYC that set up telescopes to watch others in other building. Just don't want to have to walk out, look up, and worry about the neighbor, law enforcement, government, x-girlfriends, etc. Watching me. It's not the craft itself, it's the visual invasion potential I don't like. It will get abused. By a very few, but it will.

 

[Younggun]

I'm assuming you meant feet, not inches! Lol.

Sometimes, shit happens. Like the baseball over the fence or Frisbee on the roof. It's just a more expensive toy lost. If you're going to risk situations that could lose a toy or hobby then when you lose it, you just have to suck it up. Plan a flight path that doesn't put you into that situation, don't risk losing it beyond your direct access, etc. What happens when a drone goes haywire or the operator loses control and it causes bodily harm to someone on their property (it's a plausible situation)? Or it gets stuck in a tree next to a house and idiot tries to retrieve it without informing owner and gets shot as a suspected burglar?

Wow, you put a lot of scenarios in this paragraph with very different implications.

"Losing" vs "intentionally damaged" are two very different things.

If it causes bodily harm the owner is liable for that

Getting shot as a suspected burglar: well, there are courts to sort out whether or not the homeowner was justified in his use of force. Trespassing doesn't qualify so the homeowner would have to show that a reasonable person would have believed the same, and it would have to be at night. Of course, the home owner would have every right to have the person off their property as well.

What's wrong with going to the property owner and saying, hey can I fly this over your place for a bit, I want to take a photo of the sunset?

Nothing at all. But again, flying over the property may not have been intentional. They are programmed to return home under certain conditions. Can't always predict when some electronics in the transmitter might fail

There's NO way the government should be regulating it, because they'll just **** it up and no one wins.

Totally agree

On the other hand, I've paid for my privacy, whether it be subterranean, terrestrial or arboreal. I'm pretty territorial and I'm sure many others are. There's plenty of open airspace in parks, lakes, your own property, uninhabited public places where there is no reason to be over my place without permission. It's not like a plane 1/5th of a mile or higher (even then look at all the trouble google Earth got into), it's in your face! Lol

Many people do fly in the areas you mentioned. Some even fly at 1/5th mile high, mine has the ability. The FAA frowns upon it though (no actual law against it)

If it's close enough to be considered "in your face" I agree there is a property rights issue. The question is at what altitude is it considered "in your face" and how will that change as technology progresses.

City limits, HOAs, small .000001 acre lots, man I don't know. There's already so much government there it's hard to say what is a reasonable solution there.

HOAs I see as a micro nanny gov. I'd never live in one. I prefer to put up with my neighbors crap and let them put up with mine. For those that live in them and choose to have those rules in place to protect their feelings or whatever, I guess they get what they asked for.

Some cities have passed "drone ordinances". Think they are being fought but don't believe any have been overturned. Only a few so far but in sure the number will grow.



Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

"Losing" vs "intentionally damaged" are two very different things.

I don't necessarily agree. You have a favorite football that you KNOW if it goes over a fence there's a dog on the other side that will tear it apart. There's other parts of the yard you can play in, but you choose to play along the fence. Ball goes over fence. Dog destroys ball.

You knew there was a potential consequence in your action, so is it the dogs fault the ball got destroyed?

It's just an example so take it for what it's worth, but a valid one.

 

[Younggun]

Not sure that's why it should be part of the deed like mineral rights. If I purchase a valid legal deed for 30,000' them Airlines better pay up. That's pretty extreme though.

On the flip side 5' is wrong too. Someone flying around in the middle of my back yard 5' off the ground is at the mercy of my kids, God have mercy on that drone.

It's a property rights issue. This ain't the USSR!

That's a question that's hard to answer. I grew up next to a very active municipal airport. I was about 300 yds from a runway on a hill. I remember being able to identify pilots by their face they'd be so close, and they me. I knew what they flew, what car they drove because I'd recognize them driving out of the parking lot, and how often they flew and with who. They'd waive to me driving and flying by and knew where I lived. I always think of that when planes fly over low, same thing with drones or any remote controlled aircraft with visual capabilities. If you're close enough to clearly visually document me, my property, my activities, etc. It's too close. It's like those people in NYC that set up telescopes to watch others in other building. Just don't want to have to walk out, look up, and worry about the neighbor, law enforcement, government, x-girlfriends, etc. Watching me. It's not the craft itself, it's the visual invasion potential I don't like. It will get abused. By a very few, but it will.

I agree with both of you.

I'd be very interested to know why a drone was hovering just above my trees. The P3s have pretty decent cameras, the next jump is really getting in to professional commercial grade stuff. At about 200" it's hard to tell anything and zooming in just gives a pixelated image. To me, that is a reasonable height where I wouldn't really take issue unless it was REALLY loitering.

I think that's the other thing. Flying by vs hovering. Hovering is much more suspicious than a straight line flight overhead. At least it would make a difference to me.

I probably wouldn't shoot one down either way. I'd grab mine, launch, and follow that sucker, lol. Hard to find the owner of you blast it.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

I probably wouldn't shoot one down either way. I'd grab mine, launch, and follow that sucker, lol. Hard to find the owner of you blast it.

Well shit. No you've opened up a whole new can o' worms. Drone vs drone tactical dog fights.

And if I blast it, pretty sure owner will find me

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

This is one of those times where if people acted decent to each other we won't need laws. I have zero expectations of that though. Something will be codified.

 

[Younggun]

I don't necessarily agree. You have a favorite football that you KNOW if it goes over a fence there's a dog on the other side that will tear it apart. There's other parts of the yard you can play in, but you choose to play along the fence. Ball goes over fence. Dog destroys ball.

You knew there was a potential consequence in your action, so is it the dogs fault the ball got destroyed?

It's just an example so take it for what it's worth, but a valid one.

The dog doesn't have the cognitive ability of humans. It's not intentional.

We were also talking shooting it down vs it landing on property. If it touches your dirt, well.....damn. But RTH would bring it home at a predetermined height and land it where it launched from.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

Well shit. No you've opened up a whole new can o' worms. Drone vs drone tactical dog fights.

And if I blast it, pretty sure owner will find me

Guess that depends on what they were up to.....if they don't, it'd probably be the one you wanted to find.

If it ever happens, and it's not too destroyed, you may still be able to retrieve the flight logs stored on the drone.

A piece of thread handing from the landing gear could work pretty well for jamming up a motor, just gotta make sure it breaks loose.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

This is one of those times where if people acted decent to each other we won't need laws. I have zero expectations of that though. Something will be codified.

Yup.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

The dog doesn't have the cognitive ability of humans. It's not intentional.

We were also talking shooting it down vs it landing on property. If it touches your dirt, well.....damn. But RTH would bring it home at a predetermined height and land it where it launched from.


Sent from my HAL 9000

The dog's cognitive ability has NOTHING to do with your actions, it's just an subject in the point... Change it to whatever you want, doesn't matter. You knew the ball would be lost if it went over the fence or not. Cause and effect. It's not necessarily right or wrong, it sometimes just is. But one thing about the point is, if you didn't play near the fence the ball wouldn't be lost. It's a life lesson.

 

[Younggun]

There is a big difference in that you are talking about an object that has come to rest on your property, where I'm talking about something that is traveling with no reason to stop until an external force, let's say a shotgun, causes it to stop.

Very different. At the worst, it's trespassing at this point. It's not legal to shoot for trespassing.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with the object flying, falling or even the object itself. Nothing to do with the fence or property. Just the individual. The scenario is only reflecting the decision to do something knowing the outcome to be negative, but doing it anyway and facing the consequences. Laws are only going to affect what happens afterward, they don't prevent much if anything.

Let me try a different way. You perceive that the drone is a non threat, others will perceive it is and you know this to be true. Do you still act on your perception or theirs?