I've been trying to shoot you down!

That is the point where our resident expert told everyone that all beaches in the USA are public right of ways and that nobody can be kicked off a beach.
I think I already admitted that you were right. I grew up in Texas and lived for 25 years in california and now in Massachusetts. In every one of those states, the state owns everything to the high tide mark. I also recall that you said you would drop it when I conceded that some states do allow private beach ownership.
 
In Washington State, if there is a public road between your dwelling and the water, you still own the beach but anyone can walk it and use it. If your dwelling is on the same side as the water, it's off limits.

That being said, it's still common courtesy to ask the use of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Consider yourselves lucky over there. Here you can't fly over someone's property at all, regardless of height. I guess all those amazing 6px x 6px images I'd get of all the naked sunbathers in my neighbourhood will just have to wait :(
The devastating disappointment I feel is palpable.

I wish people knew just how incredibly small they are in an image shot from a drone 40 metres away, and how unrecognisable, and un-sexy they are as a six-by-six pixel image. Even shooting in 4k, unless I'm hovering 3 metres from them, I seriously doubt the images are going to be worth the trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greavsieb
Consider yourselves lucky over there. Here you can't fly over someone's property at all, regardless of height. I guess all those amazing 6px x 6px images I'd get of all the naked sunbathers in my neighbourhood will just have to wait :(
The devastating disappointment I feel is palpable.
.

Wow. That's awful. With laws like that, Is you country's government strongly right wing conservative by any chance? :p
 
I think I already admitted that you were right. I grew up in Texas and lived for 25 years in california and now in Massachusetts. In every one of those states, the state owns everything to the high tide mark. I also recall that you said you would drop it when I conceded that some states do allow private beach ownership.

When you cease starting your posts with "YOU WOULD BE WRONG" and realize no one knows it all, you won't find it necessary to ask people to drop such things. Maybe start with "In my opinion" or "In my experience I have found" or something like that. As you can see, just because it was your experience doesn't make it fact.

Just sayin.
Have a pleasant weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
I think I already admitted that you were right. I grew up in Texas and lived for 25 years in california and now in Massachusetts. In every one of those states, the state owns everything to the high tide mark. I also recall that you said you would drop it when I conceded that some states do allow private beach ownership.
Oh, I thought you meant drop it on that thread - didn't realize I wasn't supposed to ever bring it up again.

Steve, I have nothing against you, I think your heart and head are in the right place, and you truly are trying to educate people so that they know the laws, or lack thereof. I also think that you hope your advice will prevent pilots/operators from being afraid to fly because they fear they are in violation of something that could get them in trouble with the law. I understand that - at least I think I do.
However when your mantra is "there are no rules" and "with all the flights.....nobody has ever had a serious injury" that leaves readers with the impression that they can fly anywhere with impunity, and their drones will not hurt anyone, so no problems flying over street fairs, crowds, traffic, etc.
I would like to see you temper your proclomations with some cautions and urge pilots to use common sense.
I think sometimes you speak with the voice of authority when you lack that authority. The "beaches are public" topic was a good example of that.
Again, I realize I come off as an *** when I reply to your posts, but I'd rather be viewed as an *** if it saves someone from making a mistake, like planting themselves on a beach and telling the land owner they have no right to have them removed or arrested. If I think your advice is incomplete (i.e. "there are no laws/rules") then I will comment. Sorry.
 
Fair enough. I will moderate accordingly. You are correct that I give the newbies too much credit and will emphasize that 'Even though there have been no documented serious accidents as defined by the FAA/NTSB to anyone not connected to the flight, it can happen, so please use some common sense.'

Sound better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Personally, I get a lot more value from the posts of a guy who is right 95% of the time than I do from the posts of his criticizers who are right 100% of the time....Just sayin.

I don't mind the criticism, it's how I learn.
Or to put it another way:
I've Never Been So Accurately Insulted In All My Life
 
Fair enough. I will moderate accordingly. You are correct that I give the newbies too much credit and will emphasize that 'Even though there have been no documented serious accidents as defined by the FAA/NTSB to anyone not connected to the flight, it can happen, so please use some common sense.'

Sound better?
Yes, that sound better. Thanks for accomodating my demands <---- typed in good humor, btw.
 
I don't mind the criticism, it's how I learn.
Or to put it another way:
I've Never Been So Accurately Insulted In All My Life
I don't intend to insult you. As I said, I need better filters on what comes out of me - especially on a forum where the intent can't be detected by the tone of my voice.
I just want people to know despite the lack of clear laws on where or how we fly, there can still be some pretty serious consequences to the choices we make.

One drunken pilot crashes his drone on the White House lawn, and the next thing you know, nobody can fly a drone anywhere in D.C.
So when a newbie that just picked up a P3 at Fry's comes to this forum and reads "there are no rules" - the consequences could affect all of us. But with your new disclaimer - we're good. I think.
 
I will expand my "No Rules" statement as: "There are no rules, but despite the lack of clear laws on where or how we fly, there can still be some pretty serious consequences to the choices we make."

How's that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
I will expand my "No Rules" statement as: "There are no rules, but despite the lack of clear laws on where or how we fly, there can still be some pretty serious consequences to the choices we make."

How's that?
I like it. It doesn't change your message about laws, but just reiterates that regardless, we can get in trouble, affect where we can fly, whatever. I'm not one of those doom and gloom "you are going to ruin it for the rest of us!" types - just a realist.
Thanks.
 
Have you read this.
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/02/RULE.pdf

I think we should just lie to the un washed masses as I am and tell them they are laws! Hmmm...
Thanks for the link. I just spent an hour reading it, and I would give the writer a "D" for starting his "analysis" with a preconceived conclusion.
He makes the same mistake that a lot of local amateur legislators make, that "Navigable Airspace" is defined as starting at 500 ft. He references the FAA Act of 1958, which in Section 307(a) Use of Airspace says that "The administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public interest.". Navigable airspace is not defined anywhere in this act of Congress - it's left up to the FAA administrator. But the writer goes on to assert: " Federal regulators then defined “navigable airspace” to include most airspace over 500 feet above ground level."

Here's the problem for the writer. The FAA act of 1958 was the creation of the FAA from the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) after the mid-air collision between a TWA and United airliners over the Grand Canyon in 1956. The act empowered the FAA to take control of all navigable airspace over the United States for both civilian and military purposes. The writer erroneously conflates "controlled airspace" with "navigable airspace". There is no hard-coded definition of "navigable airspace". Controlled airspace mostly starts at 500 ft, but can be higher or lower depending on the location. 14 CFR §91.119(d) 'Minimum safe altitudes' does say that 500 ft is the minimum safe altitude for airplanes, but helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft may operate as low as they wish as long as the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. It can be argued that a multi-rotor aircraft is a helicopter.

His next error is assuming that tree branches over a property line results in the same trespass as a low-flying drone. Completely ignoring that the tree branch is not in flight, where federal law is the jurisdiction:
49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1)
The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.​

He further misstates the purpose of an avigation easement. He thinks the avigation easement provides for the ownership of the air over a property, which is incorrect. An avigation easement is used to restrict a property owner's use of the airspace over his property. Avigation easements are only used in the trapezoidal shaped safety zones extending from the end of a runway for a few thousand feet and usually up to 500 ft AGL. Property owners near an airport really do not like an airport sponsor taking an avigation easement. The writer and many clueless local lawmakers read this as evidence that airspace below 500 ft is not generally navigable.

The writer also spent an inordinate number of pages describing trespass in the 2D world and unconvincingly expanded those same references into 3D space.

I am certain that the writer made other errors, but these three are pretty significant.
 
One drunken pilot crashes his drone on the White House lawn, and the next thing you know, nobody can fly a drone anywhere in D.C.

Cept he was not really drunk nore was it by accident at all that he flew his drone in to the white house So they could roll out the new restrictions that were already typed up edited and ready to go as soon as the guy completed his assigned mission.
 
Just 2 cents but not all beaches are public. I know of some houses that own the beach area and out to 100+ ft in the water. These are private beaches and so rightly there are public beaches too. Just depends on the area and location. So just be careful. My neighbor here in Va owns the property and the water area out to the center of the river. Neighbor across the river owns from the center to his side. Yet anyone can use the river but it is still privately owned. It's class'ed as marsh land and controlled by the Federal Government. So he can't change or modify anything without 5,000 permits and 10 years to get them it seems. Took him a year and a half to get the permit to add a floating dock to his pier.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic