NTSB Rules Against Pirker

bobbycwall said:
petersachs said:
aggiesrwe03 said:
Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.
Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.


So you're saying the State of Oregon's law about this is invalid? I find that hard to believe. Legistlative Counsel is not full of dumb people. See section 837.380
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs837.html

I especially like 837.100 Issuance of citations for violations. In addition to any other persons permitted to enforce violations, the Director of the Oregon Department of Aviation and any employee specifically designated by the director may issue citations for violations established under ORS 837.990 in the manner provided by ORS chapter 153. [Formerly 493.225; 1991 c.460 §11; 1999 c.1051 §114; 2011 c.597 §148]


The states do have the right to enforce such laws absolutely 100% they CAN be more strict than the FAA rules if they choose, and local and state authorities can enforce their own laws. The notion that the FAA is the only agency allowed to enforce the law is just not true.
 
bobbycwall said:
petersachs said:
aggiesrwe03 said:
Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.
Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.


So you're saying the State of Oregon's law about this is invalid? I find that hard to believe. Legistlative Counsel is not full of dumb people. See section 837.380
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs837.html
The portions pertaining to the State's regulation of its agencies drones is okay, because a state has jurisdiction over that. But Section 837.380 purports to claim that landowners own the airspace up to 400' above their property, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's 1946 Causby decision and therefore invalid. Of course someone would have to challenge it for it to be struck down.

With the exception of regulating its own agencies and regulating ground operations (where you can be standing while launching, landing or operating), no state of local government has any authority to regulate flight, registration, certification, etc. That's falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA. It's called "field preemption."
 
petersachs said:
bobbycwall said:
petersachs said:
aggiesrwe03 said:
Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.
Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.


So you're saying the State of Oregon's law about this is invalid? I find that hard to believe. Legistlative Counsel is not full of dumb people. See section 837.380
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs837.html

petersachs said:
The portions pertaining to the State's regulation of its agencies drones is okay, because a state has jurisdiction over that. But Section 837.380 purports to claim that landowners own the airspace up to 400' above their property, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's 1946 Causby decision and therefore invalid. Of course someone would have to challenge it for it to be struck down.

Lol you read faster than me, not there yet!!
 
petersachs said:
bobbycwall said:
petersachs said:
aggiesrwe03 said:
Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.
Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.


So you're saying the State of Oregon's law about this is invalid? I find that hard to believe. Legistlative Counsel is not full of dumb people. See section 837.380
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs837.html
The portions pertaining to the State's regulation of its agencies drones is okay, because a state has jurisdiction over that. But Section 837.380 purports to claim that landowners own the airspace up to 400' above their property, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's 1946 Causby decision and therefore invalid. Of course someone would have to challenge it for it to be struck down.

petersachs said:
With the exception of regulating its own agencies and regulating ground operations (where you can be standing while launching, landing or operating), no state of local government has any authority to regulate flight, registration, certification, etc. That's falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA. It's called "field preemption."

This may be, but they can enforce federal law.
 
CarlJ said:
The damage is done, the die is cast, and we're seeing the very begins of what is sure to be a very regulated hobby. People liken flying quads to playing golf in terms of risk to the general public, but they forget that golf is only permitted in designated areas.

The only thing I find surprising about this, is that you guys are surprised.

Did you think the FAA was going to go easy on us if there were less shenanigans on Youtube? Pretty sure they cast that die way before the first Phantom took flight and way before Pirker took his.

They don't give a monkey's about amateur flying. We're nothing but an unnecessary nuisance no matter how safely we fly. As far as they see it, unless you're a pilot, you don't even know what safe is. If it weren't for an act of Congress, you'd already be restricted to the edge of town at some AMA sanctioned field. (It's kind of shocking Congress did something useful but that's another story.)

Here are the FAA's priorities:

1 Maintaining safety and operation of commercial and private flight in the NAS. (As frequent SLF, I am all in favor of this priority.)
2 Bureaucracy (looking busy).
3 Catering to major industry players.
4 Doing the minimum necessary to maintain other overdue projects (e.g. NextGen).
...
...
...
10 Catering to aerospace contractors who intend to populate the sUAS space with expensive hardware.
...
...
...
99 The type of toilet paper used in FAA offices.
100 The rights of amateur RC flyers.
 
aggiesrwe03 said:
This may be, but they can enforce federal law.
Actually, no, they can't. (If by "they" you mean the state).
 
aggiesrwe03 said:
SteveMann said:
aggiesrwe03 said:
This may be, but they can enforce federal law.
Actually, no, they can't. (If by "they" you mean the state).

As a matter of fact they can if they are given that authority by their governing jurisdiction.
They can only report it to the FAA, as any citizen could do. They cannot themselves enforce it.
 
petersachs said:
aggiesrwe03 said:
Sadly I am not as versed on physics as I would like to be, but I do know there exists an equation that can determine exactly the amount of force an object traveling at a given speed can and does have. I learned it in paramedic school when we learned about trauma and force and all that stuff (the equation wasn't all that important when applying it to street medicine, so I didn't retain it, it was more of an example of how much damage can occur at relatively low speeds). Anyway if you applied said problem to a 4oz "projectile" meeting a car windshield at 70mph (plus the speed of the "aircraft") then there is bound to be potential for damage. Lol, again I'm not saying it is an absolute just that it's possible, hell I've seen blades of grass stuck in bricks after tornados. I think we kinda agree with each other, just have a bit of a different stance. Never fear though, knowing the interwebs as I do, there's a guy out there that knows the equation I mentioned, and I'm sure we will both be getting a physics lecture in 3...2...1... lol
I learned the same thing in EMT school. I don't recall the formula either. Someone will likely chime in with it. I think we agree in the manner you describe as well.

I'm not sure about a physics lecture, but a couple of points maybe, since there is obviously much confusion in this thread on impact forces, momentum and kinetic energy.

When two objects collide there is actually no simple answer as to the forces generated, even in the simple case of a small moving mass (projectile) hitting a large stationary mass (target) and approximately coming to rest (inelastic collision) as a result of the impact.

The disposition of the kinetic energy of the moving mass is largely indeterminate in such an event since it becomes distributed into numerous forms that arise from the work done in deforming the projectile and target.

The force generated during the impact can only be determined by considering the change of momentum of the projectile. The total change over the duration of the collision is simple - it goes from an initial value of mass x velocity of the projectile, to zero. But the force exerted to produce that change is given by the rate of change of momentum, which in the simplest approximation (constant deceleration) is the change in momentum divided by the duration of the impact. Newton's 2nd law of motion, for anyone interested.

So there is the problem - the duration of the impact is determined by the physical properties of the two objects involved and, specifically, how much they deform on impact. A collision between two hard objects results in little deformation, a very short impact (deceleration time), and thus very large forces. The opposite is true if they are both soft - the deceleration time is much longer and the force is much less. That, of course, is one reason why vehicle crush zones and airbags reduce collision injuries, and why falling on a soft surface hurts less than on a hard surface.

If you recall an EMT formula then it likely made a number of assumptions about the collision - probably a human body hitting a hard, massive object. Even then the numbers are likely to be somewhat inaccurate guesses, because the human body varies considerably in impact response depending on where it hits.
 
The physics of a Phantom achieving terminal velocity and striking someone has been discussed ad nauseam. It was generally agreed that without knowing that basic information it was impossible to ascertain what type of injury a person would sustain from a free falling Phantom...we just don't know, but a good guess is it would hurt like hell, and it was not advised that you try it at home.

I just not sure what else we can add that is helpful to that conversation, we simply do not have enough information to give anything other than conjecture.

Now if that is concluded, can we please get back to our crack team of legal experts so that they can continue with their conjecture?
 
CarlJ said:
, but a good guess is it would hurt like hell, and it was not advised that you try it at home.
Yes, yes it would. You would likely have a nasty bruise and even need some stitches, but that does not raise to the level of an accident as defined by the FAA. This would be an incident. Nothing more.

As I've said before, of the tens of thousands of sUAVs flying, there are crashes. Where's the blood trail? Where is all the carnage that the fear-mongers are crying about? Where's the mayhem?
 
SteveMann said:
CarlJ said:
, but a good guess is it would hurt like hell, and it was not advised that you try it at home.
Yes, yes it would. You would likely have a nasty bruise and even need some stitches, but that does not raise to the level of an accident as defined by the FAA. This would be an incident. Nothing more.

As I've said before, of the tens of thousands of sUAVs flying, there are crashes. Where's the blood trail? Where is all the carnage that the fear-mongers are crying about? Where's the mayhem?

In my opinion the Piker flight wasn't dangerous, it was poorly done video, but it wasn't dangerous. Yet I find myself siding with the "fear-mongers" more and more these days, and the reason I'm siding with them has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of any particular action, but because of association. I'd rather be called a fear monger, than human filth or a waste of skin.

Some of the comments and action made by this community are down right embarrassing. There is no honor here, no code, no ethical approach, it's do what I want, when I want, and **** anyone who doesn't like it. Yeah, I don't want to be associated with that...call me crazy.

To be fair there are members like yourself and others that are genuine interlocutors, but you are too few. It's civil war up in this *****, and collectively we are facing some pretty serious issues.
 
Cloud9 said:
I found this article to be a good read.
http://dronelife.com/2014/05/22/fly-dro ... worry-faa/

Whether or not it will become 100% true is another thing, but the guy does make a lot of sense

I see his point, however, his argument fails when you take it to its logical conclusion which is, it is not illegal until you get caught.

Apply this to murder, drugs use, etc. and you see where his logic fails. If you do get caught the consequences can be devastating to you. So I suppose we each have to determine what our personal squeal point is with regard to that risk. Bearing in mind that each time somebody is caught it only makes the case for stronger and more restrictive regulations.
 
Cloud9 said:
AMA hosting live Q&A regarding recent drone legislation

For anyone interested, this is happening 1pm EST today 25 Nov 2014

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx

I watched the recording, and I am impressed. Rich Hanson, AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs, has a very good grasp of the current FAA situation.
 
SteveMann said:
Cloud9 said:
AMA hosting live Q&A regarding recent drone legislation

For anyone interested, this is happening 1pm EST today 25 Nov 2014

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx

I watched the recording, and I am impressed. Rich Hanson, AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs, has a very good grasp of the current FAA situation.


I have had the good fortune to have known Rich for almost 20 years now. He is perfect for this job. Even tempered, hard to ruffle, and always keeps a clear head and a laser focus on his objective. He was an Army chopper pilot in Viet Nam, ran the Arizona Department of Public Safety (State Police) Aviation Department for many. many years, and even worked for Air West airline (now US Air) for a few years. He served as the District X Vice President for 15 years and has somehow held onto his great disposition and good humor. He is also a member of the AMA Hall of Fame.

Here's his full bio:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HansonRich.pdf
 
So someone in Australia got killed by a cricket ball. DISCUSS AT LENGTH PLZ!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.