Drones: What Airspace Above Property is Owned ?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Plutonius, Sep 21, 2016.

  1. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #1
    An interesting article on drone airspace vs property owner rights.

    What is your opinion on drones and what air space (if any) above a property does the property owner own ?
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Somewhere between where the ground ends and space begins.

    But I did like your article, in which a person shoots a drone out of the sky that he said was over his garden and daughter.

    Seems to me that blasting it with his shotgun and having the thing crash down to earth only increased the danger to his daughter on the ground ... something he probably should have thought about before shooting.

    Sounds like a Trump voter to me.
     
  3. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #3
    Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.:p
     
  4. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #4
    Nobody would fly a drone over a Hillary voter's daughter unless they were making a documentary for Animal Planet.
     
  5. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #5
    You do realize there are Liberal gun owners as well right?
     
  6. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #6
    But Liberal's guns only shoot rainbows and cotton candy.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #7
    I don't remember off the top of my head the names, but there are a few well-known case studied in law school concerning this. I remember the facts somewhat.

    One concerned someone suing airlines for flying over their property, where the court held that people don't have a property right that extends all the way into space, and that it's perfectly fine to fly an aircraft way over someone's property where it is over their property for less than a second.

    A second case concerned a criminal matter, but applies somewhat to civil law too, where cops got in a plane (or was it a helicopter?) and did fly-by's of someone's property to see over the fence where they saw some marijuana plants growing in the yard. The court said that even though it was a low-altitude flyby, that a person doesn't have an expectation of privacy this way, because anyone can be in the sky and peek over a fence. This implied that it was ok for anyone to fly this low. If I remember correctly, it was less than 100ft.

    Finally, a third case concerned land-use restrictions, where a city zoning prohibited people from building over a certain height. Developer sued saying the property right extended as high as possible, and that the city's regulation is a taking and he should be compensated. Court held that it was a proper regulation, property rights don't extend into infinity, and in any case he was still left with valuable land.

    My opinion is more about nuisance. If it's bothersome in some way, or invasive of my privacy in some way, then get it out of here. If it's those things and over my property, I don't see an issue with using some self-help if the owner doesn't comply.
     
  8. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #8
    And excess buckshot raining down on someone, somewhere. This is Kentucky, so we can't really expect elected judges to be very intelligent given the constituency.

    The FAA controls airspace at a certain height. I am surprised this hasn't been worked out already.
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    I suspect that there will eventually be a combination of Court rulings and FAA regulations that will define, reasonably effectively, to what extent above ground level constitutes a property owner's airspace, and what is open to drone use.

    In time I believe that the FAA will require drone manufacturers to include blocks of restricted airspace in the software used to control their craft. Already GPS coordinates for airports and sensitive national areas are programmed in, making it all but impossible to fly your DJI Phantom over the White House or into the landing pattern at JFK. It's entirely conceivable that property owners themselves could someday submit their property coordinates into a global no-go zone database for low-flying drones.

    One thing there is little doubt about: It is always illegal, under Federal Law, to shoot at aircraft, of any description. That means hang-gliders, hot-air balloons, Piper Cubs, Boeing 737s and F-16s flying over your house. It also means you can't shoot at police or news helicopters. And drones. For the very practical reasons that it may be impossible to determine the ownership and purpose of an aircraft flying over your property. It may not be possible to determine whether or not the aircraft is manned. And it is impossible to predict where a crippled aircraft of any description might end up crash-landing.

    An aircraft violating your property rights; invading your privacy, or simply annoying you with its noise may very well give you a case to seek legal redress - either criminal or civil. But don't break out your rifle or home-built SAM to take matters into your own hands.
     
  10. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #10
    Soooo.... you're saying T-shirt cannons are out.
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    In Kentucky? Maybe one or two, I guess.
     
  12. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #12
    LOL, you really are blind to the topic then. I lived in Maryland and there are a ton of people I know who are liberals who actually own firearms. I am actually more of a liberal than a conservative. I believe in universal healthcare (done correctly, not what we have) as well as many of the things you would like to see changed. I own firearms...

    You guys really need to stop making two little boxes to stuff people in.

    That being said, I would rather just make a jammer that drop that drone if it was over my property.
     
  13. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #13
    Nice reply. I'm not sure how the courts will eventually rule on this since I can see both sides of the argument.

    On waterfront homes, their property ends at the water.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 21, 2016 ---
    I think I read, it's above a certain height above ground.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 21, 2016 ---
    Another possible invention to sell on Shark Tank although I'm not sure it's legal.
     
  14. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #14
    I agree that there needs to be a ruling on this. I mean if a drone is creeping around someones windows, then that is a problem and I am sorry, but I should have a right to defend my privacy. That being said, if a drone is way up there and just cutting across the property, then it should be left alone I would think.

    If the guy who shot it down can prove that he was spying, I'd say he was justified in knocking it out of the sky.

    I only see this drone crap getting worse.
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    In Scotland we have the 'freedom to roam', which means we can access forests, fields etc. provided no damage is done and privacy is respected. With regard to the latter, when approaching farm houses or isolated cottages, the usual courtesy is to stay as far away as possible and not get so close that you see people in the windows of the house. Perhaps a rule like that for drones would suffice, but all this would depend on a drone's lens. Thus, perhaps distance per se shouldn't be regulated but whether or not the drone is invasive of privacy or safety.
     
  16. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #16
    In America we don't think about others and tend to be up in everyone's business. Sadly, there have been cases with drones spying on people.
     
  17. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #17
    Privacy now a days is essentially dead. What I'm more concerned with is people weaponizing drones and I could even see, in the future, gun battles between drones :(.
     
  18. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #18
    Sadly, weapons always evolve....
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    I'd also expect to see people deploy jammers and other electronic counter measures to try and keep drones out of their area.

    A company called DroneShield is making a device that can detect drones and then sends an alert by text or email and the DroneDefender is a "gun" that jams the communications of a drone.

    For prisons and security facilities, these solutions make a lot more sense that using a blunderbuss. Of course, it you know someone handy with a spear, that might also work.
     
  20. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #20
    Well, regrettably, we - the West - set the precedent for using drones to deliver lethal payloads. I believe that was a mistake and it is just a matter of time before the tables are turned. Mind you, cars and trucks can do a lot of damage, as we have seen, so I guess we should cross each bridge as we come to it and be wary of becoming paranoid.

    In any case, there should be a market for devices that jam the controls on drones... the hot Christmas present for 2018?
     
  21. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #21
    It's not. Any device that blocks cellular phone signals; GPS; or any other authorized radio transmission is expressly prohibited by the FCC. This even applies to State and Local law enforcement. The cops cannot legally jam your cellphone or GPS receiver.

    No shooting at aircraft. No jamming radios. And for the drone pilots out there: No dropping explosive devices from them either.
     
  22. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #22
    12GA with rock salt should do the trick.
     
  23. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #23
    Thanks.

    The waterfront thing is interesting. It varies greatly from state to state. In MA, for example, it is true that one's property ends at the water. However, there is a statute that allows certain public uses for the space between low tide and high tide. Anyone can fish, faun, and navigate in this in-between zone. I understand the latter just means to walk through. There are examples of folks going to the shore of the Kennedy's private beach during low tide, setting up a beach chair and a tiny fishing rod, and enjoying themselves.
     
  24. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #24
    Buckshot is pretty harmless on the way down. When I first moved here I watched people shoot each other with shotguns on a rabbit hunt for fun by firing at range or up in the air and having it rain down.

    As a New Yorker that freaking blew my mind and scared the hell out of me.
     
  25. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #25
    As a blanket statement, this is an idiotic thing to write.

    Depending on the size of the shot and the angle of discharge (which we don't know), buckshot could seriously injure a person. Absolutely.

    A person shooting something out of the sky is not firing directly over themselves.
     

Share This Page