Interesting article. Some is common sense but not flying over private property without owner's consent - ouch.
Privacy fears: Panel has advice for drone operators
Privacy fears: Panel has advice for drone operators
I agree that most of it is common sense, can we ban all airplanes from flying over our private property? No! So why would we ban "drones" from flying over our private property? They need to put some additional language in there to specify that you shouldn't fly over private property for the purpose of invading someone else's privacy. If you fly over private property and you damage someone's property then you should be on the hook to pay damages but there shouldn't be a flat out ban. If someone wants to fly their quad over my yard at 200' to get to where they are going, so be it. If they want to fly over at 50' so be it but I would expect that if they accidentally capture me naked in my backyard that they wouldn't post the video on YouTube. If they hover over my yard at 50' for ten minutes that is a different story.Interesting article. Some is common sense but not flying over private property without owner's consent - ouch.
Privacy fears: Panel has advice for drone operators
I agree that most of it is common sense, can we ban all airplanes from flying over our private property? No! So why would we ban "drones" from flying over our private property?
Aircraft are already required to be 1k feet over "congested" areas. It's 500' over "uncongested" areas.Just give us a 900 ft AGL maximum and a reasonable minimum over "private property" - say 200 ft. Move the Cessnas to 1000 feet AGL minimum.
Aircraft are already required to be 1k feet over "congested" areas. It's 500' over "uncongested" areas.
I can't think of a practical reason recreational drones need more than 400'. I enjoy flying my Phantom up to occasionally 400', but rarely need to get that high. I enjoy flying my Cirrus as low as 500', but rarely fly that low.
The amount over private property is a much more difficult compromise to find. A transitional altitude of 200' would seem reasonable, although I'd rather see 300'. If you hover over, however, you're subject to being busted.
Legislation like this would require informed reasonableness, however. That means it is very unlikely to happen.....
I would say Brookville itself is probably considered uncongested, although maybe not, and if so, only by a short distance.The Cessnas over my house are flying 500 feet. I'd like them to move higher.
Right now we can fly 0 to 400 feet. If they want to take away the first 200-300 feet. I suggest they can give us some more flying room above 400 feet. Right now it's not crowded but it won't stay that way forever.
The assumption that private property ownership gives you a right to the airspace and underground resources is not correct.
In my home state, NV, we have legislation that makes it legal for you to fly over any private property over 250'. Under can be trespassing if it disturbs a lawful occupant of the home but it requires a complaint. Not just the flight.
And taking video or photography of a private person in a state of undress without his/her knowledge is voyeurism. That is illegal at any height.
Property ownership also extends above and below the surface of the ground. In terms of air space, up to the limits set by the FAA a property owner owns the air space above his /her property. Entering into a person's private air space is trespassing. Always has been.
Nothing new about this.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Funny hearing so many different half *** interpretations of a handful of semi-related old case laws. When that prescident was set, drones didn't exist. The judge rightfully decided since they didn't exist, a reasonable amount of airspace the individual could enjoy at the time...