Illegal to fly under 400 foot?

[jlummel]

My opinion is that our pirate pilots will insure the continued creation and development of laws and NFZ's and many cities and towns saying no to drones.

That pretty much nailed it...

 

[GoodnNuff]

That pretty much nailed it...

Couldn't agree more.

 

[m0j0]

I still maintain that if your locality has a law prohibiting using a ladder of other device to spy over a fence, that a drone would be the functional equivalent and thus bound by the same law. My point on this was that the lack of an FAA rule against it would not be an adequate loophole to skirt the intent of the local law. Besides, its creepy and unethical.

I would say in that case maybe... The problem would lie in the basic premise that having a ladder to spy over a fence is a law backed by a statute. Flying a drone is legal. And airspace is public. There has been very little to statutorily govern flight by drones. So what exactly would the officer use to arrest you. You were not on a ladder looking over a fence. My point remains though.. There is very little statutorily that local law enforcement can do about drones/UAV's. I think it will be very interesting to see where the legislation leads. I am even more interested to see where some of these local ordinances go... since local government has no authority to govern airspace and no equipment or training to do it even if they did. It will be interesting.

I can see it now, "Sir you were flying less than 100 feet above that house by Pawksawhatchee Statute you can be fined." Okay exactly how high was I flying? Was it 90 feet 80 feet 60... How many of you have been to court for speeding with a good attorney. What is one of the first questions they ask. "Officer, when was the last time your radar was calculated?"

Again, I'm not saying we should not use good judgment.. We should. I am saying that there are relatively few enforceable statutes specifically for drone flight. Until there is, I don't think there will be a whole bunch of... I flew over my neighbors house they local police seized my Phantom stories. Maybe that happens in England or Australia...

 

[joe21]

I would say in that case maybe... The problem would lie in the basic premise that having a ladder to spy over a fence is a law backed by a statute.

Agreed. Which is why I worded by post like I did. I would find it difficult to believe that a law would specify a "ladder." That out leave the loophole of building a platform, bridge, etc. Last tend to be a bit more general, such as "ladder or other device." That would allow for LEO and court discretion to enforce the intent of the law.

I am saying that there are relatively few enforceable statutes specifically for drone flight.

Agreed. Unfortunately, more are like to come. These will be written by our ill-informed and tech-unaware politicians. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, how they laws are enforced and how the courts apply the new laws.

 

[Larry L]

Why not simply invite him out when you are going to fly again. Take it up until you get the ceiling warning. Show & ask him how you are supposed to go above that? If he still gives you problems, contact someone knowledgeable at a local airport & see if they can correct him. I'm sure with all the hysteria, someone with authority would be happy to educate him.

 

[m0j0]

.

Agreed. Which is why I worded by post like I did. I would find it difficult to believe that a law would specify a "ladder." That out leave the loophole of building a platform, bridge, etc. Last tend to be a bit more general, such as "ladder or other device." That would allow for LEO and court discretion to enforce the intent of the law.



Agreed. Unfortunately, more are like to come. These will be written by our ill-informed and tech-unaware politicians. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, how they laws are enforced and how the courts apply the new laws.

To be honest I don't think it is unfortunate. It is necessary to keep people from doing stupid things or at least be able to hold them accountable for doing stupid things. I have a saying. "Stupid people are stupid!" That won't change no matter what laws come out.

 

[joe21]

Thanx. I do "note". As of today, the FAA is about guidelines which also include flying over people, buildings, cars, etc. It won't be long before there are rules and regulations. Obviously cities/towns will make the laws as witnessed in DC and recently in NYC. Didn't write anything about my "area" having a law and I did not assume the "UAV is not prohibited". I created a metaphor. Many comments in this thread mentioning "founding fathers", "patriotism", ad nauseam, regarding "our" rights as pilots with a plethora of armchair attorneys. Appears to be a fair share of pirates flying too. I've had my P3P since 6 December 2015. I'm new. I live in the Rockies and don't even have 10-hours of flight time. Your comment "You are right - just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should." Being right was unimportant .. don't know if you have the credentials to decide that but nice that you agree with my opinion. My life moves with regard to my neighbor and I don't do what I want when I want with the impetuousness of a child. So, in my search for a worthy attorney's opinion I found Gregory McNeal. He has some credentials ...
"Gregory McNeal, a law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law and frequent contributor about drones for Forbes, says he’s dug through the New York City ordinances and hasn't found any specific language outlawing drones. But if the cops think you’re creating a public risk by flying your drone, you could be hit with a Reckless Endangerment charge, which can carry a penalty of up to seven years in prison. You may win your case if you challenge it in court, but you’d rack up lots of legal fees." Game of Drones
My opinion is that our pirate pilots will insure the continued creation and development of laws and NFZ's and many cities and towns saying no to drones.

Are we reading the same thread? Founding Fathers and patriotism ad nauseam? Do you consider Micheal Heurta as one of the founding fathers? (only government name I cold find. He was mentioned once).

I am sensing some hostility or defensiveness in your reply. It wasn't my intent to provoke. Especially not in my agreement with any of your statements.

You originally wrote:

I understand that if a person has a privacy fence around their backyard that the law says I can't use a ladder to scale the fence to take pictures of a nude person sunning in the privacy of their backyard. I am invading their privacy. However, it would appear that I can fly my UAS over their property and take my nudist pics that way.

(which, incidentally is not a metaphor)

I simply asked how you came to that conclusion. Now that "Gregory McNeal" supports my position and shows your original belief to be incorrect, do you stand by the comment I questioned?

I'm also curious what posts in this thread bring you to conclude there are a "fair share of pirate pilots." Unless you happen to agree that flying at some low altitude over private property (without permission) classifies one as a pirate. In which case I would agree there seem to be a fair share of pirates on this thread. (Agasin, no offense intended by any agreement)

 

[joe21]

.

To be honest I don't think it is unfortunate. It is necessary to keep people from doing stupid things or at least be able to hold them accountable for doing stupid things. I have a saying. "Stupid people are stupid!" That won't change no matter what laws come out.

Two sides to that coin...

You can't fix stupid.
You can't legislate intelligence.
When you make something idiot-proof, they simply invent a better idiot.

I say unfortunate because, IMO, we don't need more laws. Especially the pointless "feel good" laws that politicians are so fond of.

We have laws prohibiting trespass, endangerment, damage to people and property, etc. If we already have a law which states "you can't do that" it is simply political circus to make a law that states "you can't do that with a drone."

Conversely, if we don't have a law which states "you can't do that" (and one is needed) then they should write a law which prohibits "that" regardless of the tool used.

If "that" doesn't harm anyone or infringe on anyone else's rights... then we don't need a law to prohibit it. At that point, it becomes excessive regulation (or involves a fee/permit scheme for the government to tax us indirectly).

 

[Dave from Ok]

No matter what altitude you fly, tell him it's above 400'...there is no friggin way he could tell 200 from 400... And if someone else asks? Tell them you are taking the Chiefs "common sense advice" and flying the way HE wants you to! Thank the Chief whenever you get the chance, for informing you about the right way to fly, and how much better it feels to know your doing things in a legal and publicly safe manor, and how you spread the word to other drone users as well


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Dave from Ok]

These guys need to be the "Big fish" in their little ponds....


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Mark J Colbert]

The homeowner owns the airspace above their home up to 400 ft?
I seriously doubt a court would uphold.

 

[richardtomcat]

Are we reading the same thread? Founding Fathers and patriotism ad nauseam? Do you consider Micheal Heurta as one of the founding fathers? (only government name I cold find. He was mentioned once).

I am sensing some hostility or defensiveness in your reply. It wasn't my intent to provoke. Especially not in my agreement with any of your statements.

You originally wrote:



(which, incidentally is not a metaphor)

I simply asked how you came to that conclusion. Now that "Gregory McNeal" supports my position and shows your original belief to be incorrect, do you stand by the comment I questioned?

I'm also curious what posts in this thread bring you to conclude there are a "fair share of pirate pilots." Unless you happen to agree that flying at some low altitude over private property (without permission) classifies one as a pirate. In which case I would agree there seem to be a fair share of pirates on this thread. (Agasin, no offense intended by any agreement)

1. 
   A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two.

You lack credential. Never thought there were trollers in this forum.

 

[joe21]

1. 
   A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two.

You lack credential. Never thought there were trollers in this forum.

I am well versed in the meaning of metaphor. If you read the definition you posted, it would be obvious that the example you posted was anything but metaphor.

Not sure why you focused on that rather than the underlying question. You posted an example. I questioned how you arrived at that conclusion. You responded with hostility at my agreeing with you, claimed there was no such law as the one used in your example and then quoted a lawyer who proved your own example wrong.

When asked to clarify your position on the topic, you dig yourself further into a grammatical hole and avoid the question entirely.

You have no idea what my credentials may or may not be. I believe the word you were looking for is "credibility." Ironically, when attempting to make a grammatical point (which achieved the opposite) you only further proved your lack of grasp of the language.

With few exceptions, this has been a friendly discussion. Several people offering good information and informed opinions. If there has been any trolling, it is more likely to be attributed to the very few inflammatory responses such as yours.

I offered no hostility toward you and do not understand yours toward me. You posted an opinion. I simply asked how you arrived at that conclusion. If you were unwilling or unable to defend your assertion, you didn't need to respond at all. No reason to be so defensive.

 

[kirk2579]

When you make something idiot-proof, they simply invent a better idiot.

I love that line, will remember it for future use!

good luck and have fun flying!

 

[normr]

I would contact a city commissioner or whatever representatives you have and explain the situation to them and that their Chief is incorrectly applying the guidelines, let them educate the chief and if he doesn't like it coming from them, he might be looking for a new job very soon.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[impilot51]

Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app