Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 93

  1. #1
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    Journalists using drones.



    Intresting article how drones will erode our privicy by their use by journalists. A few things about this does not see quite right, but not sure where the regulations sit right now.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-journalists/

    Seems drones are limited to 400 feet, but models are not? If flying less than 400 feet and over property they would be trespassing. Seems those writing this don't know this. Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.

    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  2. #2
    phlpsfrnk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    516
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot



    Intresting article how drones will erode our privicy by their use by journalists.Β* A few things about this does not see quite right, but not sure where the regulations sit right now.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-journalists/

    Seems drones are limited to 400 feet, but models are not?Β* If flying less than 400 feet and over property they would be trespassing.Β* Seems those writing this don't know this.Β* Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.

    Where do you get it that models are not restricted?

    Regards
    Frank
    It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    York, UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,214
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    Here is the problem ... if that is the correct term.

    Your image does not belong to you. It belongs to the person taking it.

  4. #4
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

    Here is the problem ... if that is the correct term.

    Your image does not belong to you. It belongs to the person taking it.
    But the model commited trespassing to take the picture.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  5. #5
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot



    Intresting article how drones will erode our privicy by their use by journalists. A few things about this does not see quite right, but not sure where the regulations sit right now.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-journalists/

    Seems drones are limited to 400 feet, but models are not? If flying less than 400 feet and over property they would be trespassing. Seems those writing this don't know this. Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.

    Where do you get it that models are not restricted?

    Regards
    Frank
    Because the last law said models are not to be regulated. Also before the newest law takes effect there is only an AC that does not have the effect of law, as it is only advisory.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    York, UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,214
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    Not sure that a machine can commit any offence. If I take a picture of you as I walk past your house, can you prosecute my camera?

    If my machine flies over your house and takes your picture ... where is the harm or loss?

    You don't own the sky above your property ... so you don't have any exclusive right to its use, afaics.


    Dunno about the US, but in the UK, trespass is not a criminal offence. You can't be arrested or prosecuted for trespass ... only for the damage that you cause. Most often, any such damage requires a civil remedy, rather than a criminal one.






  7. #7
    hugger-4641's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    McKenzie, TN
    Posts
    1,835

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    In the U.S., tresspassing is a criminal offense. But for a private land owner, proving tresspass and getting it prosecuted can be very difficult depending on the area of the country you live in. There is a process for getting a No-Fly-Zone established, but I'm not aware of it being used by individuals, usually this is done by large corporations trying to protect proprietary trade secrets.
    Jerry
    AMA -922698 Nomal people scare me, but not as much as I scare them...

  8. #8
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

    Not sure that a machine can commit any offence. If I take a picture of you as I walk past your house, can you prosecute my camera?

    If my machine flies over your house and takes your picture ... where is the harm or loss?

    You don't own the sky above your property ... so you don't have any exclusive right to its use, afaics.


    Dunno about the US, but in the UK, trespass is not a criminal offence. You can't be arrested or prosecuted for trespass ... only for the damage that you cause. Most often, any such damage requires a civil remedy, rather than a criminal one.






    You would not be commiting trespassing as you did not cross the property boundry. That boundry line extends up to the minimum altitude limits of the FAA.

    Yes you do own the air above your property. Do a search on AIR RIGHTS.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    York, UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,214
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    I'll take your word for it.

    It's different here.

  10. #10
    phlpsfrnk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    516
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


    ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

    Not sure that a machine can commit any offence. If I take a picture of you as I walk past your house, can you prosecute my camera?

    If my machine flies over your house and takes your picture ... where is the harm or loss?

    You don't own the sky above your property ... so you don't have any exclusive right to its use, afaics.


    Dunno about the US, but in the UK, trespass is not a criminal offence. You can't be arrested or prosecuted for trespass ... only for the damage that you cause. Most often, any such damage requires a civil remedy, rather than a criminal one.






    You would not be commiting trespassing as you did not cross the property boundry.Β* That boundry line extends up to the minimum altitude limits of the FAA.

    Yes you do own the air above your property.Β* Do a search on AIR RIGHTS.
    ? Minimum altitude limits of the FAA? Where is it written that the FAA has "minimum altitude limits” when it comes to air traffic? With the exception of class A airspace FAA control starts at the surface and extends to FL 600.

    Regards
    Frank
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Om33740.gif 
Views:	6 
Size:	34.4 KB 
ID:	1826402  
    It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

  11. #11
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


    ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

    Not sure that a machine can commit any offence. If I take a picture of you as I walk past your house, can you prosecute my camera?

    If my machine flies over your house and takes your picture ... where is the harm or loss?

    You don't own the sky above your property ... so you don't have any exclusive right to its use, afaics.


    Dunno about the US, but in the UK, trespass is not a criminal offence. You can't be arrested or prosecuted for trespass ... only for the damage that you cause. Most often, any such damage requires a civil remedy, rather than a criminal one.






    You would not be commiting trespassing as you did not cross the property boundry. That boundry line extends up to the minimum altitude limits of the FAA.

    Yes you do own the air above your property. Do a search on AIR RIGHTS.
    ? Minimum altitude limits of the FAA? Where is it written that the FAA has "minimum altitude limits” when it comes to air traffic? With the exception of class A airspace FAA control starts at the surface and extends to FL 600.

    Regards
    Frank
    The FAA has minimum altitude limits below which aircraft cannot fly. Generally when not near an airport,it is 1000 feet over populated areas, and 500 feet from people or structures in non populated areas. The only exceptions are emergencies and helicopter routes.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    York, UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,214
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    Our 500 foot rule is just that. Imagine you are in a bubble of 500 foot radius.

    You can fly right down to one millimetre from the surface, provided you stay 500 feet clear of people vessels or structures. You have to be both VFR and VMC, of course. Done it many hundreds of times.

    Now, in reality, it is almost impossible to be sure that there isn't someone taking a pee behind a hedgerow ... and a fence is technically a structure (maybe) ... and someone could claim that you caused his horse to miscarry its foal ... but so long as you are acting reasonably, you won't get nicked. AFAIK.

    With the permission of the land-owner, there is no barrier to your making a landing, either. (I'm talking non-commercial flights, here) But, even if you do land without permission, the worst you can be acccused of is trespass, with its attendant requirement that the property owner shows the harm or loss which he has suffered.

    Your rules may differ.

  13. #13
    phlpsfrnk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    516
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

    Our 500 foot rule is just that. Imagine you are in a bubble of 500 foot radius.

    You can fly right down to one millimetre from the surface, provided you stay 500 feet clear of people vessels or structures. You have to be both VFR and VMC, of course. Done it many hundreds of times.

    Now, in reality, it is almost impossible to be sure that there isn't someone taking a pee behind a hedgerow ... and a fence is technically a structure (maybe) ... and someone could claim that you caused his horse to miscarry its foal ... but so long as you are acting reasonably, you won't get nicked. AFAIK.

    With the permission of the land-owner, there is no barrier to your making a landing, either. (I'm talking non-commercial flights, here) But, even if you do land without permission, the worst you can be acccused of is trespass, with its attendant requirement that the property owner shows the harm or loss which he has suffered.

    Your rules may differ.
    Acctually it is pretty much the same here; (bold added)

    FAR Part 91

    Sec. 91.119 β€” Minimum safe altitudes: General.

    Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

    (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

    (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

    (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

    (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surfaceβ€”

    (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

    (2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    Not sure what Sport_Pilot is refering to.

    Regards
    Frank

    It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

  14. #14
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    I am refering to section 91.119 which limits the minimum altitude. This defines the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft. When you are flying a UAV below 400 feet you are, in most places, flying in non navigable airspace and thus trespassing the property you are overflying.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  15. #15
    phlpsfrnk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    516
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    I am refering to section 91.119 which limits the minimum altitude.Β* This defines the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft.Β* When you are flying a UAV below 400 feet you are, in most places, flying in non navigable airspace and thus trespassing the property you are overflying.
    I quoted 91.119 in its entirty and I did not read it saying anything about it "defining the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft." It only talks to minimum safe altitudes. How does one fly (navigate) in "non navigable airspace"?

    Regards
    Frank
    It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

  16. #16
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,699
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    Β* Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.

    Probably when one is flown over a Texan's land and is shot down...Of course that would be of little newsworthiness since the story about shooting those that tried to retrieve the drone would completely eclipse that little story...

    I think I've figured this forum out now...It really isn't about AMA or much of anything else...Just people that have some need to validate their existence based on some rule or lack of rule... and that philosophy is magnified and embraced if some entity or organization can be used to bolster their dependent position.

    Argue on!
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    4,736
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    I figured Texas would come up in this discussion at least once. Texas has the most property protecting laws of any state in the US. A landowner or renter in Texas is allowed to use deadly force if he finds someone on his property without permission no matter what they are doing. The origin of the law comes from when Texas had so many cattle ranches and rustlers were a major problem. Ranchers were given the right to shoot people inside their fences on sight to protect their cattle. The laws have stayed on the books so there's this odd little quirk of behavior here where if you're walking through a neighborhood you always stay on the sidewalks and don't hang around looking into someone's backyard or windows as you go.
    No kid, I said break ground and fly into the wind!

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Granger, IN
    Posts
    1,156
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    Texas has the most property protecting laws of any state in the US. A landowner or renter in Texas is allowed to use deadly force if he finds someone on his property without permission no matter what they are doing.
    So if you see a little kid cutting across your back yard you can shoot him dead? Somehow, I doubt it. How about a cite to this supposed law?
    Al Gunn
    Ultra Sport Brotherhood No. 9

  19. #19
    rgburrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    854
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    If the law is going to ingore these invasions of privacy then the law should also ignore the discharge of firearms shooting down these drones.

  20. #20
    rgburrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    854
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn

    Texas has the most property protecting laws of any state in the US. A landowner or renter in Texas is allowed to use deadly force if he finds someone on his property without permission no matter what they are doing.
    So if you see a little kid cutting across your back yard you can shoot him dead? Somehow, I doubt it. How about a cite to this supposed law?
    Yup. And his dad when he comes to get his kid!

  21. #21
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    I am refering to section 91.119 which limits the minimum altitude. This defines the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft. When you are flying a UAV below 400 feet you are, in most places, flying in non navigable airspace and thus trespassing the property you are overflying.
    I quoted 91.119 in its entirty and I did not read it saying anything about it "defining the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft." It only talks to minimum safe altitudes. How does one fly (navigate) in "non navigable airspace"?

    Regards
    Frank
    Because rulings on air rights have defined the air rights up to the limits of the FAA minimum altitude. Especially for full scale aircraft. Various state trespassing laws will sometimes describe overflights below minimum altitude as violating their trespasing law.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  22. #22
    eddieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jackson, MI
    Posts
    2,046
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.

    SP, calling you out on this. Please stop posting based on supposition and a poor understanding of the regs. First, it's totally legal to operate aircraft below 500' above ground in sparsely inhabited areas as long as you're more than 500' from a person or structure and you pose no hazard. Buzzing a lake is one example. Having been a CFI over 30 years, I'm well acquainted with what is and isn't allowed. 
    You shot yourself in the foot over 'air rights', as it's more of a real estate/property development concern. Property owners have no claim on any airspace above their property beyond what they can 'reasonably use'.
    From wikipedia: "The first legal limits placed on air rights came about because of the airplane. Eventually, owners only had rights to airspacethat they could reasonably use. It would be impractical for the development of air travel for individual landowners to own all the air above them, because airplanes would be constantlytrespassing."
    I might not be very good, but I am fun to watch!

  23. #23
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: eddieC

    SP, calling you out on this. Please stop posting based on supposition and a poor understanding of the regs. First, it's totally legal to operate aircraft below 500' above ground in sparsely inhabited areas as long as you're more than 500' from a person or structure and you pose no hazard. Buzzing a lake is one example. Having been a CFI over 30 years, I'm well acquainted with what is and isn't allowed.
    You shot yourself in the foot over 'air rights', as it's more of a real estate/property development concern. Property owners have no claim on any airspace above their property beyond what they can 'reasonably use'.
    From wikipedia: "The first legal limits placed on air rights came about because of theairplane. Eventually, owners only had rights toairspacethat they could reasonably use. It would be impractical for the development of air travel for individual landowners to own all the air above them, because airplanes would be constantlytrespassing."
    Yes what you say is legal. What Isaid is correct, I did not get into all of the specifics of the reg and left out some of this. Note Isaid "generally". But by the same token it is not legal to fly closer than 500 feet from a house. And besides we are talking UAV's not full scale aircraftt.

    From Wikipedia.

    "At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."["
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  24. #24
    rgburrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    854
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    And besides we are talking UAV's not full scale aircraftt.
    Contrary to popular opinion in this forum UAVs, hobby or not, are aircraft. Certain types of hobby aircraft are exempted from the FAA regulations by law but only if they follow other regulations. Just because you call it a hobby RC plane does not mean that you have full control over what you can do with it. Specifically, you cannot use the exemption for any commerical purpose. And taking pictures to sell rag magazines is a commercial purpose. But hey, these people have never cared about confidentiallity, privacy, or even basic dignity so why should they care about legality.

  25. #25
    rgburrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    854
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Journalists using drones.


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    "At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."["
    And this is why other laws and regulations exist. A simple minded, one-sidedinterpretation of this says that if I won a large farm and my enjoyment of that farm includes flying RC planes from an airstrip on that farm and that my enjoyment further means I can fly as high as possible even up to the edge of space with an RC balloon so I can take pictures of my house from near space then I can do it! Right? Simple minded and one-sided!


Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:24 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.