Journalists using drones.
12-03-2012 | 10:18 AM
#1
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>
12-03-2012 | 11:43 AM
#2
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Spring Hill, FL
RE: Journalists using drones.
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.</p>
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>
Regards
Frank
12-03-2012 | 12:21 PM
#4
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.
Here is the problem ... if that is the correct term.
Your image does not belong to you. It belongs to the person taking it.
12-03-2012 | 12:24 PM
#5
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
Where do you get it that models are not restricted?
Regards
Frank
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.</p>
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>
Regards
Frank
12-03-2012 | 12:34 PM
#6
Senior Member
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.
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.
12-03-2012 | 12:43 PM
#7
My Feedback: (6)
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.
12-03-2012 | 12:59 PM
#8
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.
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.
12-04-2012 | 03:04 AM
#10
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Spring Hill, FL
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
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.
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.
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.
Regards
Frank
12-04-2012 | 04:27 AM
#11
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
? 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
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
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.
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.
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.
Regards
Frank
12-04-2012 | 04:33 AM
#12
Senior Member
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.
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.
12-04-2012 | 06:06 AM
#13
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Spring Hill, FL
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.
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.
FAR Part 91
Sec. 91.119 — 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 surface—
(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.
Sec. 91.119 — 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 surface—
(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.
Regards
Frank
12-04-2012 | 06:47 AM
#14
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.
12-04-2012 | 07:35 AM
#15
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Spring Hill, FL
RE: Journalists using drones.
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 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.
Regards
Frank
12-04-2012 | 08:25 AM
#16
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.</p>
Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.</p>
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!
12-04-2012 | 08:41 AM
#17
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.
12-04-2012 | 09:33 AM
#18
My Feedback: (6)
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.
12-04-2012 | 09:56 AM
#20
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn
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?
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.
12-04-2012 | 09:59 AM
#21
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
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
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 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.
Regards
Frank
12-04-2012 | 10:07 AM
#22
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Jackson, MI
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>
12-04-2012 | 10:37 AM
#23
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.<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>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."</span></div>
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>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."</span></div>
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>
12-04-2012 | 12:43 PM
#24
RE: Journalists using drones.
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
And besides we are talking UAV's not full scale aircraftt.
And besides we are talking UAV's not full scale aircraftt.
12-04-2012 | 12:49 PM
#25
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."<sup class="Template-Fact" sizset="false" sizcache08639037385570287="38 105 56" style="white-space: nowrap">["</sup>
"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" sizset="false" sizcache08639037385570287="38 105 56" style="white-space: nowrap">["</sup>
