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.</p>

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Where do you get it that models are not restricted?

Regards
Frank

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.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

But the model commited trespassing to take the picture.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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.

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.

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.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

I'll take your word for it.

It's different here.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

? 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

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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.

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.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Acctually it is pretty much the same here; (bold added)

Not sure what Sport_Pilot is refering to.

Regards
Frank

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.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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"?:eek:

Regards
Frank

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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!

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.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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?

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.:eek:

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Yup. And his dad when he comes to get his kid! http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...n/punching.gif

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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.

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. <div>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'.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">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."</span></div>

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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."<sup class="Template-Fact" sizcache08639037385570287="38 105 56" sizset="false" style="white-space: nowrap">["</sup>

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...bananahead.gif

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

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! http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...spinnyeyes.gif

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Good post but I;ll have to point out; Certain types of hobby aircraft are exempted from the FAA regulations by law but only if they follow other regulations. LOL


Bottom line is that virtually everything we do as humans is now regulated...people are conditioned so now to actually find comfort in that fact... whether they'll admit it or not is another story... We seem to be happier trading rights for privileges...

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Patently false. A property owner's air rights do not extend 'up to the minimum altitude limits of the FAA'. Where do you get this stuff? As already stated, you own the airspace for 'reasonable use'. There's nothing to stop an aircraft fromflying lowover your property, keeping the 500' limit from people or structures. By the same token, a property owner can't put up a 200' windmill and not expect FAA (or local) review.

FALSE. You are aware that there is uncontrolled airspace is the USA that extends from the surface to 18,000' (FL180), aren't you?

Which is what I said. A house is a 'structure'.

phlpsfrnk, sorry, not true. PCA (Positive Control Airspace) overlies the US 18,000-60,000', below that are several classes of airspace to include uncontrolled airspace which in some areas are ground level to 18,000'.

This is straying from the thread subject, so I'll discuss via PM.

</p>

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Afraid not! Above 18,000 or so, the airspace is "positive control" regardless of where you are in the USA.
The Rocketeers flying LARGE rockets in contests do so with the FAA's knowledge and concent. The airspace above such activities is sort of a restricted area.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

eddieC,
I'll concede that point but the original point of my post was that the FAA control (classifications of airspace B, C, D, E & G) started at the surface. I agree with you that Sport_Pilot’s comments are patently false and I believe I showed that by posting the FAR 91.119 that he refers to and letting everyone read it for themselves what they actually say rather than his interpretation. There is a reason that bogeagle’s post about the UK regs and their similarities to ours are mainly because of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx which the US and the UK are members of. All of the counties in the world that I have worked and flown in begin their air traffic control from the surface up.
I am constantly amazed by some of the interpretations that come out on these forums, “It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.”

Regards
Frank

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

ICAO defines a model aircraft as weighing less than 25 kg. FAA represents the US in ICAO and ostensibly has the responsibility for enforcing agreed to ICAO standards in the NAS. AMA members don't comply with FAA regs, have not for a long time, and now Congress says they don't have to. AMA does not require members to adhere to a 400' ceiling and strongly opposes FAA on the issue. Cite federal regs as you will, but they don't apply to AMA members. Only AMA regulation is germane.
What is the altitude ceiling for models per AMA? They have been silent on this............

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

We have quite a bit of Class G airspace, over here. Known as the "open FIR" or "injun Country". This is pretty much unregulated airspace and provides you with a lot of freedom with which to hang yourself.

IIRC, class G can extend to FL195, though it is often penetrated by other classes of airspace, typically airways or manoevering areas in the vicinity of airports.

However, as pointed out, there is no specific regulation pertaining to model aircraft weighing less than 7kg (in the UK) ... except the usual catch-all which places responsibility on the shoulders of the operator. That's no more than the normal civic duty-of-care, requiring "reasonable" behaviour.


“A person must not recklessly or negligently
cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any
person or property”



You can't drop things from any model.
You have to keep it in sight. (how do you do that if it's free-flight?)
You aren't allowed to make money from your flying ... unless the gubmint gets a "cut".


That's the main bits covered.

No mention is made of staying a minimum distance from people or houses or what-not. That stuff only comes into play when the model's weight exceeds 20kg. At that point, the model becomes subject to much the same regs as does a full-sized aeroplane.


When flying FPV or surveillance aircraft, the CAA has created an amendment to the effect that the model must stay 50 m away from any person, vessel or structure, which is not associated with the flying activities. That's a new one to me. It seems to be an attempt to stop the "intrusive" use of FPV equipment. I don't suppose that it can be policed, though.


But, they then went and muddied the waters again, by adding this note ... NOTE: The provision of data solely for the use of monitoring the model is not
considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘surveillance or data acquisition’.




So, as I read it, you can fly FPV <7kg, anywhere you like (even in controlled airspace) ... provided that you are only using the FPV equipment for guiding the model (as opposed to data gathering).

What a dog's dinner. Glad I just fly 'em by eyeball.

Could be wrong about any of that ... some FPVer will likely put me right. My brain is smoking.

Not interested in the opinions of the BMFA ... they carry no regulatory weight.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

cj,
Please read A.2.c of your AMA Safety Code.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

What Isaid is correct and was confirmed by your post. Other than some details that I did not mention and not really gemain to the discussion.

Or was it that this did not mention navigable airspace? I don't think that is anywhere in that part. It is elsewhere in the law and possibly in the FAR's.

Also someone quoted something said from Causby VS the US. That is that one has only the right to reasonable use to his air space above his property. Often interpreted that the owner has no rights in any airspace an aircraft is using. But Ido not believe that is the case with many cases of trespassing.In factthe reasonableuse clause has been usedagainst thegovenment foraircraft flying well above minimum altitudes.Aircraft owners have been succesfully sued for noise and other damage over property. The government has had to pay damages from sonic boom for aircraft flying way above minimum altitudes. Even in Causby VS US the govenment had to pay compensation, though that may have been for air rights, not sure. Remember this was right after WWII and most were very pro military, not sure if a similar suit would fall the same way again.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

The air rights actually extend above that limit for real estate purpose. You can build a windmill as high as you want if not near an airport or other restricted airspace, with the proper permits that is.Though a radio tower is another matter. But for aircraft flying too low the FAA rule defines where the aircraft cannot be and that cannot be less than 500 feet above a house or group of people. In fact they must be above 1000 feet above in populated areas.

[/quote]

Navigable airspace and controlled airspace is a different concept. Controlled and uncontrolled airspace includes both navigable andnon navigable airspace.The fact thatan airplane can actually flythrough non navigable airspace does not makeit navigable airspace.

</p>

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

There is a lot of airspace beyond 3 mi proximity to an airport, Frank.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Definition of navigable airspace.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/navigable-airspace/

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

cj_rumley,
Highlighted above you make some blanket statements about the AMA that are just not true.

Thirty seven years ago in Jan 1976 then AMA Executive Director, John Worth wrote in part:

F.A.A. REQUESTS AMA COOPERATION AGAIN

A few years ago, in 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration responded to some reports of near misses between models and full-scale planes by asking AMA cooperation to alert modelers to the need for vigilance in their operations. At the time, much controversy arose because it appeared that the FAA was trying to limit model flying to altitudes less than 400 feet.

That was cleared up when AMA-FAA discussions indicated that the altitude figure was not a limit but a warning point. What it boiled down to was the fact that the FAA was (and still is) concerned about any model flying over 400 feet, to the extent that they wanted to be informed when and where such flying might take place particularly if this was within 3 miles of an airport.

Once the air was cleared on this point there began a general movement toward dialogue between modelers and FAA personnel on the local scene. The FAA was pleased by this because they gained a much better idea of the location and nature of model flying actives and they also got to know many modelers and gained an appreciation for their activities. At the same time, many modelers got to know about FAA problems concerning aircraft traffic control and the need to be conscious of full-scale activity near their flying sites.

The FAA record since 1972 has been noticeably free of any incidents between models and full-scale aircraft...

It was because of those discussions in the 70’s between the AMA and FAA that the AMA safety code has had some version of it that we see today. AC 91-57 was published in 1981 and several AMA officials have discussed it since then.

It was mentioned in Mar 1977 by then AMA President, John Clemems
It was mentioned in Jan 1981 by then AMA President, Earl Witt
It was mentioned in MA articles by AMA PR representative Geoffrey Styles in Jun 1982, Jan 1990 and Jan 1992.

More recently I quote;

You are correct in that a difference does exist between the language in the current FAA Advisory Circular, AC 91-57, and AMA's implementation of this guideline in the AMA Safety code. AMA believes the only significant risk to the manned aviation community posed by aeromodeling is when model aircraft are flown in close proximity to an airport. As such, the AMA Safety Code advises modelers to remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA believes this meets the intent of the Advisory Circular in creating a means by which model airplanes can operate in a safe and cooperative manner without imposing an undue restriction on the modeling community.

AMA's experience has shown that the risk posed by model aviation diminishes significantly at distances greater than 3 miles and any residual exposure can be mitigated almost entirely by proper safety training and the modelers ability to see and avoid the manned aircraft when a conflict exists. This has been AMA's position since the AC was published in June, 1981, and this is AMA's position going forward.

That having been said, there are some unique aeromodeling activities such as thermal soaring and Free Flight where additional risks do exist due to the nature of the operations. In these incidences AMA is considering additional means for mitigating the risks while essentially allowing the modelers to continue to enjoy these activities. We will work directly with the modelers, the Special Interest Groups and the FAA in developing these procedures. Once the concepts are developed and put forward for consideration more information will be made available through this forum and the AMA web site.

Though there are as yet no guarantees, AMA is confident we will be able to work through these issues, resolve any remaining concerns and ultimately provide a safe and effective program that allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the past. “

Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs

We can discuss the merits of the issues quoted above but to say that the AMA ignores the FAA or that the AMA has been “silent” on the 400’ issue is patently false.

Regards
Frank

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

Sport,
That definition only proves to me that your interpretation of FAA regs and the NAS is flawed.

Your original post stated;

That statement is either false or if it is a question, see post #37 above.

Regards
Frank

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

No my interpretation is not flawed, yours may be. You are trying to apply part 92 to an issue of jurisdiction and it just doesn't work. The boundries of jurisdiction overlapand the fact that the FAA has control of airspace to the surface does not mean that state and local has no jurisdiction in matters other than how aircraft are operated. For example, If your assumption was correct, then the localpolice would have no jurisdiction of stolen aircraft at airports because the FAA has control of aircraft to the surface. But of course the police can arrest you for stealing an aircraft from an airport because the FAA's control only extends to the control of traffic and aviation regulations. Trespassing is not an aviation regulation.

You took that out of context. I also said I was not sure where we are right now. That is I was not sure if it had changed right now.

We had no 400 foot rule except near airports and the FAA only had an advisory. Not sure how that will change because the FAA's stanceseemed to bethat they would regulate models above 400 feet.

RE: Journalists using drones.
 

I thought this argument had a familiar ring to it;

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9602439

I do not think anyone agreed with you back then either.