Another Drone Shot Down

[RED333]

FAA controls above 500 feet, aircraft below is a no no.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/crw/local_more/media/LowFly.pdf

Fly over my house is OK as long as it does not stop. We have had maned helos fly over low, bank and "pop" the blades, very cool to "feel" the pop.

[nightrunner]

2 hours ago, Hozzie said:

If most people had any idea what detail you can see (and by that I mean what you can't see) from a drone at 100ft, they would realize a drone is absolutely no infringement on their privacy.  I am not saying anyone should just hover over anyone else's property without permission, but just passing over is absolutely no invasion of anyone's privacy in my view.  I don't do it most of the time, but I have certainly flown over private land at an altitude of 100 ft taking video of the nice Tennessee country side.  

At the end of the day, this is an FAA issue once they are in the air.  As much as most would like to believe they own the area above their property, they don't, it's airspace controlled by the FAA.  One can argue with that, but legally that is the case.   There is certainly a case for privacy, but simply saying you can't fly over any private property isn't going to pass muster.  I suspect most don't think about a news chopper flying over as an infringement and yet they can zoom in to take a picture of a pimple of your face.  These drone camera's don't zoom.  For me it is simply a matter of misunderstanding them.  I would be glad to show anyone mine and let you watch while I fly it.   If you see someone flying one, ask about it.  they would love to talk to you about it.

 

Now, I'm not saying it's common or even available without putting it together yourself, but it wouldn't be that hard to put zoom or even thermal imaging or night vision on one. Not to mention the guy who mounted a pistol on one.

 

Id love to pick one up just for fun to play around with. Not to mention what could be done if you were technically inclined.

[Hozzie]

I agree that people could do that, but if they really wanted to take pictures of you or your property, it is magnitudes easier just to use a normal zoom camera.

[Obiwan]

I think the laws that need to be updated are stalking (and related) laws. This issue is more stalking than trespass in my opinion.

[Dustbuster]

Anyone who takes a firearm and shoots into the air should be held responsible for their actions. What a round can do to any aircraft that is passing over can cause Extreme damage injury and or fatalities.

If you don't like drones just take your large fat naked butt back in the house with your coffee and cigarettes and don't come out till it goes away. If you're naked but wants to stand outside and shoot at a drone, be prepared to pay for the drone after you hit it and or the airliner or small jet the crashes because not only did you miss but your round one another half mile and took out that aircraft that was passing over.

If I remember correctly as we've learned in countless hours of training in classroom activity you are responsible for anything that you shoot you're also supposed to be responsible and be sure of your target and beyond.

[TrickyNicky]

27 minutes ago, Dustbuster said:

Anyone who takes a firearm and shoots into the air should be held responsible for their actions. What a round can do to any aircraft that is passing over can cause Extreme damage injury and or fatalities.

If you don't like drones just take your large fat naked butt back in the house with your coffee and cigarettes and don't come out till it goes away. If you're naked but wants to stand outside and shoot at a drone, be prepared to pay for the drone after you hit it and or the airliner or small jet the crashes because not only did you miss but your round one another half mile and took out that aircraft that was passing over.

If I remember correctly as we've learned in countless hours of training in classroom activity you are responsible for anything that you shoot you're also supposed to be responsible and be sure of your target and beyond.

 

see, thats where we are just two very different people Dusty. 

 

If the presance of a drone upset me that much for whatever reason, and ESPECIALLY if I think they're filming, I plan to strip buck azz nekkid and do the macarena.

If the tomfoolery persists I may give my car a sexy car wash while blasting some Def Leppard. You know what they say, "Heavy like a bomb baby, come and get it on." 

 

Nobody wants to see that. Nobody.

I may not own my airspace, but I anticipate it will remain unpolluted.

[Omega]

11 hours ago, Hozzie said:

Nope, have a drone and know the laws. They just made new recommendations to reduce the requirements to fly for commercial purposes (FAA Part 107) but it is not a law for in visual site for hobbyists. It is a guideline (read recommendation) to stay within visual site, but not a law.

I don't know, that is not how this reads to me: http://dronelife.com/2016/08/25/hobby-fliers-need-to-take-part-107-test/

The FAA's pages seem to point to the fact that if you do not fly line-of-sight you need to be a commercial drone pilot. 

Quote

Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

Even flying under part 107 you need to go through a certification class ($150ish) and have a background check.  And while it may not be law, it is a regulation which may cost you some $$ if you break them.  I don't own anything beyond hobby level drones so am not going to go through the hassle but it seems even then you may have to fall under part 107 unless you belong to a club.

 

And they also add this:

Quote

Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary vehicle.

So I guess those guys that got their drone shot down would of had some explaining to do if they stuck around.

[Hozzie]

As with most things, there are multiple interpretations. Mine and many others is it isn't the law and all of those items are guidelines or suggestions. I will keep flying like I do and what happens, happens. I don't get too stupid so I am not worried about it, but I am over the .GOV telling me what to do. I have pretty well taken the stance of I'll do what I want and deal with the consequences if they catch me for just about everything. I equate it to speeding, we all do it and a few get caught. I am much less worried about having an issue flying my drone.

[Omega]

8 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

As with most things, there are multiple interpretations. Mine and many others is it isn't the law and all of those items are guidelines or suggestions. I will keep flying like I do and what happens, happens. I don't get too stupid so I am not worried about it, but I am over the .GOV telling me what to do. I have pretty well taken the stance of I'll do what I want and deal with the consequences if they catch me for just about everything. I equate it to speeding, we all do it and a few get caught. I am much less worried about having an issue flying my drone.

Oh I hear you, I see it the same way as far as it relates to speeding.  But as with speeding I do see it as a regulation/law due to the fact they can fine you if you get caught.  I don't think that LEO would welcome calling the speed limit a suggestion, so I would guess the FAA won't like that either.

[Hozzie]

The difference is the speed limit is a law, not a guideline. I think words matter. Don't get me wrong, I know it would cost to fight it, but I am tired of their non stop bs.

[Omega]

6 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

The difference is the speed limit is a law, not a guideline. I think words matter. Don't get me wrong, I know it would cost to fight it, but I am tired of their non stop bs.

It's law: Public Law 112-95 Section 336  But like you said words matter, so you may have a legit argument due to the fact that it does not state line-of-sight specifically under the hobby portion, only that

Quote

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization

But it does state line-of-sight for other operators within that law.   I too am not going to worry about it since I fly in private property only, but it is good to know what rules/laws you are breaking to keep you from arguing a losing position.