Kentucky man arrested for shooting down drone
- Thread starter SilverStone641
- Start date
Things to keep in mind with this incident:
1. Kentucky (enough said)
2. Man with shotgun who appears to have Olympic-caliber aim
3. Hovering over private property
4. Story quoted in another thread about this, the guy said he saw the camera and if the drone had been moving by (i.e. flying in transit to another spot) he would not have shot it, but he shot it because it was hovering over his backyard.
5. Guy appears to live in a traditional neighborhood (with privacy fence)
My take: I would never fly in a hover over someone else's property, especially if I don't know them. I agree with all the quad-pilots that he was "within his rights" to fly in that airspace in that manner, but I also cannot really blame someone for getting ticked off enough to fire a couple of rounds at the drone. If the guy missed and the quad was being flown using FPV, there is a good chance he would have never even known the guy shot at him. But, it was his luck that he had Wyatt Earp shooting. I am waiting to hear if the quad owner ends up suing for property damage...that will be a more interesting decision, legally.
1. Kentucky (enough said)
2. Man with shotgun who appears to have Olympic-caliber aim
3. Hovering over private property
4. Story quoted in another thread about this, the guy said he saw the camera and if the drone had been moving by (i.e. flying in transit to another spot) he would not have shot it, but he shot it because it was hovering over his backyard.
5. Guy appears to live in a traditional neighborhood (with privacy fence)
My take: I would never fly in a hover over someone else's property, especially if I don't know them. I agree with all the quad-pilots that he was "within his rights" to fly in that airspace in that manner, but I also cannot really blame someone for getting ticked off enough to fire a couple of rounds at the drone. If the guy missed and the quad was being flown using FPV, there is a good chance he would have never even known the guy shot at him. But, it was his luck that he had Wyatt Earp shooting. I am waiting to hear if the quad owner ends up suing for property damage...that will be a more interesting decision, legally.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2014
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 70
Obviously the shooter is lying through his teeth. The data flight recorder of the drone did not fly 10 feet above his property nor did it cross his property line. See for yourself here is the video on this link http://www.wdrb.com/…/update-drone-owner-disputes-shooters-…. Data of the flight telemetry recorder don't lie. Spread the word about the truth so that we Phantom fliers are not judged and condemned by public opinion.
Great news link FLPTFLYER, thanks for posting. Nice to see the shooter had to spend 3 days in jail.
I guess I'm glad I didn't read all the crap prior to FLPTFLYER's post which I quoted.
When I originally read this story on my FB feed I was on the side of the shooter.
It was clearly portrayed with the subtext of a pervert spying on his kids - in which case, I wholeheartedly support the actions of the parent (although thankfully firearms are far less prevalent here in the UK). Even so, randomly firing a shotgun into the air is a bit nuts.
Now we have the whole story, it would appear that most of the shooters' account is complete and utter ********. I'd recommend that any would-be drone killers wear either a headcam or have someone else filming the incident, or you're going to get caught out
It was clearly portrayed with the subtext of a pervert spying on his kids - in which case, I wholeheartedly support the actions of the parent (although thankfully firearms are far less prevalent here in the UK). Even so, randomly firing a shotgun into the air is a bit nuts.
Now we have the whole story, it would appear that most of the shooters' account is complete and utter ********. I'd recommend that any would-be drone killers wear either a headcam or have someone else filming the incident, or you're going to get caught out
So after seeing the news......
I imagine Municipalities across the nation will be having discussions and deciding what to do about those awful snooping drones. Prepare for a SLEW of city level ordinances attempting to tell you what you can and cannot do with your drone.
Bureaucrats are never ones to miss an opportunity to ink new rules to tell you what you can and cannot do.
The question is "Is the airspace above your private property yours or is it public"? And if it's not yours, how far above your home IS considered yours? 10ft? 100ft? 500ft?
It "appears" a homeowner has some grounds to claim trespass if your drone overflies his property at less than 500ft. Obviously to fly above that is to enter Federally regulated airspace.
That leaves ZERO room to overfly private property according to today's guidelines.
However, given the rise of the commercial use of drones, the US Government is considering lowering that 500ft guideline. My opinion: Ultimately, we will likely see local laws banning the use of drones over private property with exemptions for law enforcement, city, state or federal business or VERY deep corporate pockets. Sadly, I have the feeling the days of flying where ever you want are going to end sooner than we all had hoped. At least in urban areas, restricted areas and near private land.
Source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...metz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html
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.” In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. 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.
Another possibility....
Imagine a registry like the "Do Not Call Lists" where people can register their property and then a drone operator is required to check that list before overflying that property or face fines.
No matter what, the days of carefree flying are are probably numbered.
I imagine Municipalities across the nation will be having discussions and deciding what to do about those awful snooping drones. Prepare for a SLEW of city level ordinances attempting to tell you what you can and cannot do with your drone.
Bureaucrats are never ones to miss an opportunity to ink new rules to tell you what you can and cannot do.
The question is "Is the airspace above your private property yours or is it public"? And if it's not yours, how far above your home IS considered yours? 10ft? 100ft? 500ft?
It "appears" a homeowner has some grounds to claim trespass if your drone overflies his property at less than 500ft. Obviously to fly above that is to enter Federally regulated airspace.
That leaves ZERO room to overfly private property according to today's guidelines.
However, given the rise of the commercial use of drones, the US Government is considering lowering that 500ft guideline. My opinion: Ultimately, we will likely see local laws banning the use of drones over private property with exemptions for law enforcement, city, state or federal business or VERY deep corporate pockets. Sadly, I have the feeling the days of flying where ever you want are going to end sooner than we all had hoped. At least in urban areas, restricted areas and near private land.
Source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...metz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html
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.” In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. 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.
Another possibility....
Imagine a registry like the "Do Not Call Lists" where people can register their property and then a drone operator is required to check that list before overflying that property or face fines.
No matter what, the days of carefree flying are are probably numbered.
Wearing a bikini should be a privilege, not a right.
Your analysis would be wrong.
You are confusing unregulated with uncontrolled airspace. There is no unregulated airspace in the USA.
The FAA regulates airspace from the ground to 60,000 ft. when anything leaves the ground the flight is governed by FAA rules exclusively. Controlled airspace is that where ATC can provide radar coverage and separation of participating aircraft. That is aircraft on an IFR flight plan and VFR aircraft with a transponder requesting ATC services. That typically happens at 500 ft because below that ATC radar coverage is unreliable.
The answer to the question of how much airspace do you own is answered in the 1946 case U.S. vs. Causby, the Supreme Court said landowners have exclusive right of airspace surrounding their property. In part, the decision says “The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land”.
The SCOTUS decision of last century is still good. Navigable airspace is an undefined term. Drones are navigating in the NAS, so that would make it navigable airspace even though it is in uncontrolled airspace.
So, an overflight of 100 ft or even 50 ft over your typical home is probably not trespass. If you stop to watch the teenage daughter sunbathing nude, then you are likely violating trespass laws regardless of your altitude. We don't need a definition of how much airspace does the homeowner own because there are already plenty of state and local laws covering trespass - we don't need any more rules.
These laws are technology agnostic, meaning that it doesn't matter if you're using a drone or a camera on a pole. Trespass is trespass.
All airspace is federally regulated. All of it.
Ok true story time. About 20 years ago I was living in a small house in a residential neighborhood. There was a large grassy open salt marsh a mile or two from that house. Early one evening a couple local teens were bored and decided to set a fire out in the middle of that marsh. That turned into a very large brush fire which took almost 12 hours to bring under control. About 23:00 I was peacefully drifting off to sleep when I was awakened by the sound of a helicopter. A very loud helicopter which was very close. I laid in bed figuring it wouldn't be long before it flew away and the quiet would return once again. It didn't.
After 15 or 20 minutes I got up, got dressed and went outside. The helicopter was directly over the roof of my house hovering, I assume so it could get news footage of the fire. It wasn't low enough that I could count the rivets but it was definitely low enough that I could see the lap joints separating individual belly pieces.
If I had fired a shotgun at that helicopter that night, I would have ended up in federal prison even if I didn't hit it. If the FAA is going to step in and say that drones are aircraft which fall under their jurisdiction (and they have), then anyone shooting at said aircraft ought to face the exact same federal penalties as someone shooting at any other aircraft faces. If I'm going to be subject to regulation by the same agency, I should also get to enjoy the same protections. Right is right, fair is fair.
In spite of your opening statement, do you realize what you posted totally supported "my" analysis?
thx
Well, I see what you're saying...but this is from WP...is it wrong?
Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."[3] The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[4]
Property owners may waive (or purchasers may be required to waive) any putative notion of "air rights" near an airport, for convenience in future real estate transactions, and to avoid lawsuits from future owners nuisance claims against low flying aircraft. This is called a navigation easement.
So while it may be Federally Regulated, some leeway is afforded to property owners. Yes? No?
First, what is "WP"?
The way the law is written - no. Navigable airspace is not a hard definition. Personal drones are aircraft under the jurisdiction of the FAA. The FAA wants personal drones to stay below 400 ft. therefore the airspace below 400 ft is navigable airspace.
The Avigation Easement (not Navigation) is solely for the protection of low flying aircraft in a runway protection zone. [link]. The Runway Protection Zone is a trapezoidal area from the ends of a runway in which no structures are permitted. The easement agreement is between the property owner and the airport sponsor- usually the city, county or port authority. Not the FAA.
As a condition of receiving federal grant money, the airport obligates itself to adhere to FAA standards. These contractual obligations are known as “grant assurances.” FAA standards and recommendations are developed and enforced exclusively by the FAA. Federal law specifically states that the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for ensuring compliance with grant assurances. Property owners are not a party to the contract with the FAA, nor are they third party beneficiaries. The airport’s obligations are solely a product of its contract with the FAA.
Avigation Easements are cheaper than acquiring the property through eminent domain and typically restrict the property owners from building new structures or adding exterior lights which pilots may confuse with runway environment lights.
In spite of your opening statement, do you realize what you posted totally supported "my" analysis?
thx
I don't see it. You said:
If there is proof of trespass, such as photos of your wife topless in the back yard, or other supporting evidence, then just overflying your property below 500 ft is perfectly legal and not trespass. Regulated airspace begins as soon as you leave the ground. Not 500 ft.
