this might explain it for you in easy to read english. http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=17&pageid=71
edstumph said:residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so.
edstumph said:Actually you do own the air space above your house, check the regs
From your easy to read english ... Many landowners may not be aware of the fact that they have a right to use and possess the airspace the "floats" above the actual property they own. This right is not exclusive, and as such, airspace may be utilized by others for different purposes than a landowner would.edstumph said:this might explain it for you in easy to read english. http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=17&pageid=71
edstumph said:No offense but laws need to be made and one of them should be no flying in any residential area period. Everyone needs their privacy and that is their right. Also residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so. I may get a lot of flame for this, but really don't care because this is how I see it along with most of the world
edstumph said:Also residents do own the air space above them, so this gives no one a right to fly over it without permission or permit to do so.
An organization that represents the interests of multi-rotor hobbyist is desperately needed. It is a wonder that the corporations that make money on the hobby don't support a nationwide UAS/multi-rotor association. If we don't have a voice, or police ourselves, our hobby will be regulated right out of existence. A UAS association could have an online certification course, provide a group insurance policy, and provide guidelines, such as the following:
No flying in residential areas under 150 feet.
The airspace between 150 and 450 AGL is recommended.
UAV should maintain a separation of at least 50 feet from any person, animal or vehicle not briefed on the flight.
Flights within 5 miles of an airport require the pilot to brief the airport of the flight
Insurance should be carried by operators
A certification course should be attained by the operator
The UAV must have identifying information of the owner.
Flights beyond LOS must be equipped with FPV capabilities, and the pilot must maintain visual FPV at all times
Call it the ASSUP! The Association of Small Scale UAS Pilots... (Better names welcomed).
Rich Z said:I think Dr. Joe is on to something.... But there are some caveats. I feel if the government gets too involved, and mandates say testing and certification perhaps even annually or periodically), we could be faced with "recurring bureaucratic paperwork and costly fees".
In 1946 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the air had become a “public highway,” but a landowner still had dominion over “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.”edstumph said:While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground.
I don't know, is it fun to joing?DrJoe said:How about this?
Would you joing SSUPO?
Would you joing SSUPO?
Would you pay a $25 yearly membership for access to an online certification course and access to a group liability policy?
Would you contribute to a PAC to lobby government?
Would you do so if SSUPO stood on the following:
Safe FPV flying should be allowed with proper equipment, not just LOS flying
150 foot agl minimum altitude for residential areas
25 feet of separation from people not briefed on the flight
Notification of flight to airports within 3 miles (current FAA guideline is 5 miles)
ianwood said:How about:
No flying for the purpose of obtaining images or data of private activities.
No flying below 150ft over private property without permission.
No flying within 25ft horizontally of people not aware or briefed on flight activities.
No flying above crowds unless they are briefed on flight activities.
No flying within 3 miles of an airport without permission from the controller.
pjw73nh said:DrJoe wrote:
Would you joing SSUPO?
Would you pay a $25 yearly membership for access to an online certification course and access to a group liability policy?
Would you contribute to a PAC to lobby government?
Would you do so if SSUPO stood on the following:
Safe FPV flying should be allowed with proper equipment, not just LOS flying
150 foot agl minimum altitude for residential areas
25 feet of separation from people not briefed on the flight
Notification of flight to airports within 3 miles (current FAA guideline is 5 miles)
I'm in !!!
I don't know much about setting up an organization, but I imagine it should have some sort of governing body, and be steered by the membership thereof. If you get enough favorable responses, or perhaps (with some tweaking) others may want to come on board, it would be favorable to solicit the manufacturers for support etc.
Personally, I think this is a great starting point.. A nice first step to test waters. Thanks Doc.
GoodnNuff said:This is why we have the AMA. It seems redundant to form another new group to serve the same purpose IMO.
Why start over? Focus this energy to increasing enrollment in an already established group that is currently lobbying for our rights and privileges. Drone pilots, ever increasing in number, would be a powerful asset to the AMA, and the AMA could be a powerful asset to all drone pilots.
I'd agree, but there is one glaring problem. The AMA strictly prohibits flying FPV without the craft remaining in LOS. This means you violate their safety guidelines, and are ineligible for insurance coverage IF you fly out of LOS. With proper equipment, preparation and monitoring, flights out of LOS are possible to conduct safely.