RCU Forums

RCU Forums (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   dawning of the new days (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11081083-dawning-new-days.html)

mongo 05-14-2012 08:54 PM

dawning of the new days
 
some possible foreshadowing of what our possible future might be, included here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-agencies.html

interesting reading, anyway.

TimJ 05-14-2012 11:50 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
joy[:'(]

phlpsfrnk 05-15-2012 01:36 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: mongo

some possible foreshadowing of what our possible future might be, included here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-agencies.html

interesting reading, anyway.
What I find interesting is this;

"The rule announced today calls for agencies to first show they can operate a drone before getting an FAA permit. Drones must fly within 400 feet (122 meters) of the ground, remain in sight of the operator and stay clear of airports, the FAA said."

Sounds very much like the 30 year old AC 91-57;

"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify . . . ."

Regards
Frank

Sport_Pilot 05-15-2012 05:19 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
What will be interesting will be the court cases when people shoot them down!

Silent-AV8R 05-15-2012 05:46 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
This is consistent with what the ARC memo of 4/1/2009 presented for limits on civil and public agency sUAS. 400 max altitude, within visual line of sight.

There are certainly going to be court cases, more likely driven by privacy concerns.

bradpaul 05-15-2012 06:38 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Court cases by landowners are a certantity............................. the US Supreme Court decision in "US v Causby" recognised that a landowner has rights in the "lower reaches of the airspace":

"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; font-family: sans-serif; ">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 thepublic interestin using the airspace forair navigationagainst 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".

Brad<br type="_moz" /></span>

JohnShe 05-15-2012 07:19 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Well, the flying over part is an invasion of privacy if the intended purpose is surveillance. I also worry about the drones crashing into my house and maybe injuring me or other occupants as well as the potential damage to my house.


Looks like the FAA is trying to evolve the drone rules from the model airplane guidelines. I would have felt better if they had restricting overflights to safer locations.



Sport_Pilot 05-15-2012 07:29 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
I suspect shooting down a police sUAV will land in court a lot faster than a civil case on privicy issues. More motivation as well.

littlecrankshaf 05-15-2012 07:31 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnShe

Well, the flying over part is an invasion of privacy if the intended purpose is surveillance. I also worry about the drones crashing into my house and maybe injuring me or other occupants as well as the potential damage to my house.


Looks like the FAA is trying to evolve the drone rules from the model airplane guidelines. I would have felt better if they had restricting overflights to safer locations.



Wow! I would have thought the “I like big brother oversights” guys would be jubilant about such a development.

Silent-AV8R 05-15-2012 07:38 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I suspect shooting down a police sUAV will land in court a lot faster than a civil case on privicy issues. More motivation as well.

I'm betting we see a privacy case before we see a shoot down. In fact there is a case right now involving the use of a Predator drone in North Dakota to catch some cattle thieves.

This article talks about the AND case

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

JohnShe 05-15-2012 07:44 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

Wow! I would have thought the &ldquo;I like big brother oversights&rdquo; guys would be jubilant about such a development.
Really? Who are they? It is interesting though, that the use of drone surveillance and attacks evolved during the G. W. Bush administration.



Sport_Pilot 05-15-2012 09:21 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I suspect shooting down a police sUAV will land in court a lot faster than a civil case on privicy issues. More motivation as well.

I'm betting we see a privacy case before we see a shoot down. In fact there is a case right now involving the use of a Predator drone in North Dakota to catch some cattle thieves.

This article talks about the AND case

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

But it started in criminal court did it not? And is not over privacy per say, but use in police tactics.

Sport_Pilot 05-15-2012 09:25 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Quote:

Really? Who are they? It is interesting though, that the use of drone surveillance and attacks evolved during the G. W. Bush administration.
No it started in the Bush administration. It evolved into a fine butdeadly art under Obama.

RCKen 05-15-2012 01:45 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Ok guys, let's be careful here and not let this degrade into a political argument. If that happens I'll close down this thread. This not the place to discuss politics<div>
</div><div>Ken</div>

JohnShe 05-15-2012 02:54 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Whoops! http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...ssed_smile.gif Sorry, I was thinking historically.



jamie 05-15-2012 05:57 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
can a land owner keep you from flying over there land or there house ? is ther a law on this ?

Silent-AV8R 05-15-2012 10:20 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: jamie

can a land owner keep you from flying over there land or there house ? is ther a law on this ?

See post #6 above.

KidEpoxy 05-16-2012 06:22 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Quote:

can a land owner keep you from flying over there land or there house ? is ther a law on this ?
what does the law say about flying over somebodys south 40 of soybeans at 200 up'
(lets say 1000'+ from structure/people/vehicle)

in a cesna152?

The regs would take into play part C 'Sparse' minimum altitudes (aka No Minimum Alt),
and the civil case would evaluate just how high is reasonable 'AirProperty' use of Soy plants
... 200' tall soybeans? I dont think so. the property owner is clearly NOT using the airspace 200-350000 feet up and flying in that 200-350000' zone dont bother his use of his soybean crop land.

Now, the argument that just SEEING a contrail of a jumojet interferes with 'enjoyment' of their property
(or that just seeing a UAS:MA at 6000'up interferes with their enjoyment)
(or that just seeing a UAS:MA at 200'up & 1200'over interferes with their enjoyment)
well, that what crazy judges and jurys are for.
Heck, crazy courts see the term 'Shall Not Be Infringed' as meaning 'OK To Ban'... so who knows what different courts will rule in different states/countys regarding someone seeing an aircraft flying at a legal altitude somewhere over their land or over land NEAR their land.

The biggest cases are NOT going to be about some model (UAS:MA) in the countryside,
but about the Gov and the paparazzi ('Public'UAS and 'Civil'UAS) ops flying with the purpose of LOOKING AT YOU rather than flying with the purpose of recreational flying

The big gripe is that folks can SEE and HEAR a police heli, but they wont notice a drone spying on them,
which kinda makes OUR case that
our UAS:MA cant be that intrusive
if they say they cant see or hear it when the cops do it
with UAS:Public

bradpaul 05-16-2012 06:30 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
If a government /police drone heli is hovering and looking in your bedroom window do you have the right to take action to knock it out of the air?<div>
</div><div>Do the police need a search warrant to do that type of survalence?</div><div>
</div><div>These are serious privacy issuse and I would believe the 4th Amendment issues.  Not asking if you WOULD DO IT, but if you HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT.</div><div>
</div><div>Brad</div>

KidEpoxy 05-16-2012 06:33 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
If a government /police manned heli is hovering and looking in your bedroom window
do you have the right to take action to knock it out of the air?


as a constitutional issue
it dont matter if its manned or not, same constitutional right applies

Sport_Pilot 05-16-2012 08:46 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Looks like the police has the right at least to 400 feet above the property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

However this was partially based that overflights by helicopters at this height was not rare. I would likely be rare for drones. Also I believe this was a liberal court, it might be a differant issue for a conservative court, and might be differant for a privately owned drone taking, say for example, real estate photo's.

koastrc 05-16-2012 09:55 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
The police got a call from a old woman that the guy next door was exposing himself. The police did some checking. The old lady took the police into a room and said look out this window over there in his room. The cops looked and couldn't see much. They told the women they really could see no problem. She said stand on this box and take a look. Eyes can't trespass unless you position yourself to do so. Think about it. If you are looking under the cushion of a couch searching for drugs and find a murder weapon. That is the fruits of the a good search. If you look under the couch for a pickup truck and find the same murder weapon. Well, that is a bad search. If you are flying about looking for a missing child and see a bomb making operation. What do we have there?

KidEpoxy 05-18-2012 06:39 AM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
from Sports wiki linki-
Quote:

However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:

Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.

Also vital to the Court's ruling was the fact that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:

As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment
hmm, manned heli at 400' is considered not to be undue noise,
why are we fearing folks saying a 2500' UAV:MA interferes with their use of property by nuisance (aka Property Air Rights)?
Or flying that legal NAS use UAV:MA at the same 'legal' alt as the other NAS users... 'any member of the public'

again,
the privacy problem folks are now complaining about is NOT that police already watch us by air,
but that with UAV:Public they can watch us with craft that are too small to be seen or heard
... which, again, is great for us to hear them say
that our UAV:MA (legally operating in the NAS) are NOT obtrusive and nuisance interfering with their Property Air Rights
because they are far too quiet and unnoticeable when the ground pilots are G-men


We (ama) should be embracing the Privacy Issue,
and queuing up citations and quotes of all these 'respectable' sources
saying how hard it is to know there is a UAV near them
... so we can play that back when folks later want to whine about how noisy and visually obtrusive they are (re: Proerty Air Rights)

NorfolkSouthern 05-18-2012 06:51 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
Here's another one I picked up: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...er-denver?lite

Sheriff said it could be a weather balloon. Could it have been one of his drones?

NS

mongo 05-18-2012 08:26 PM

RE: dawning of the new days
 
well, for sure, better one of his drones, than any of our stuff.
really hoping that this does not turn out to be something a modeler/hobbyist did.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 PM.