Tractor from drone's pov

[mapper]

My 2 cents worth, I was involved in mapping and aerial photography for the past 35 years, in that time the changes in technology were mind boggling to say the least. Small drone development in the past few years has seen an incredible increase in capability and an equally incredible decrease in price, as a result their has been a huge increase in the numbers of drones in the air, and while most operators stayed within the rules for safe and legal operations there were a few that did not. I had reports from our flying contractors of encountering drones at over 1500 feet above terrain, at that time the rules were that small unregulated drones could not exceed 500' above terrain and couldn't be out of sight of the operator. With this sort of thing happening it was only a matter of time before the FAA got involved.

 

[Garandman]

There was a segment on NPR tonight about drones that raised a lot of interesting questions, even with an idiotic host.

- Bird strikes are a big problem at airports. Some airports want to use drones to disperse flocks of birds.

- Some police departments have established "No fly zones" around public events. This raises 1st Amendment issues especially in the event of police misconduct.

- Should there be mandatory liability insurance in case of property damage after a crash? What if someone is injured?

- Cities and states are passing a hodge-Podge of laws, while the FAA maintains they have jurisdiction over all airspace. Do you "own" the airspace above private property? To what height?

Those are just the issues facing small private drones. Larger commercial units raise even more issues.

But Vladimir Putin just signed legislation similar to what was passed here.....

 

[joefromga]

The local police can't regulate airspace. Really the faa can't either according to the Constitution but they do. And since the feds won the last war they get to decide.
If soemo is inured it would be treated like any other person who is injured anywhere else. What if a kid at your kids party gets hurt? Should you be required to have party insurance? According to the faa you don't own any airspace. Not even an inch.
You really don't own anything.

 

[IslandTractor]

The local police can't regulate airspace. Really the faa can't either according to the Constitution but they do. And since the feds won the last war they get to decide. If soemo is inured it would be treated like any other person who is injured anywhere else. What if a kid at your kids party gets hurt? Should you be required to have party insurance? According to the faa you don't own any airspace. Not even an inch. You really don't own anything.

That's a pretty extreme and incorrect summary. Sadly the Founding Fathers were troglodytes who didn't anticipate airplanes so didn't include the FAA in the Constitution but they did provide language that has allowed the government to step in when problems arise. FDA, FAA, NTSB etc etc significantly improve safety and wellbeing of the public regardless of what self educated constitutional scholars think.

 

[CCWKen]

Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace 500 feet AGL (Above Ground Level).

I own the air space up to that level on my property. And that's what allows me to erect antennas, towers and buildings. There are other requirements/rules that go along with that, such as tower lighting, height near air ports, ect, but it belongs to me. And my airspace is protected by trespass laws. Keep that in mind when flying your toys.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. 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 controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land.

 

[IslandTractor]

I own the air space up to that level on my property. And that's what allows me to erect antennas, towers and buildings. There are other requirements/rules that go along with that, such as tower lighting, height near air ports, ect, but it belongs to me. And my airspace is protected by trespass laws. Keep that in mind when flying your toys.

I know that for practical purposes the FAA and many local governments seem to be agreeing with the 500ft limit. I have seen at least one article though that pointed out that SCOTUS has never ruled on the matter of air rights as they pertain to drone use etc. Lots of potential twists especially in urban and suburban locations. Can I use my drone in "my" airspace to look over your fence/hedge and photograph your family in your backyard? Might be easy to dismiss a simple example like that but surely there will be drone related issues that require balancing of conflicting legal "rights" that eventually make it to the SCOTUS.

 

[4570Man]

Can I just climb up on my roof for "roof repairs" and look over your fence at you in the backyard? I didn't break any laws and didn't require the use of an expensive drone.

 

[IslandTractor]

Can I just climb up on my roof for "roof repairs" and look over your fence at you in the backyard? I didn't break any laws and didn't require the use of an expensive drone.

I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn last night but I do recall some principle of "expected privacy" that comes to play in these cases. The drone twist is that drones with sophisticated software/hardware/cameras allow monitoring of areas in ways that raise new issues. While most discussion of privacy rights vis a vis drone use is currently focused on government/LEO surveillance, it is pretty clear that private drone use and surveillance are going to raise additional issues. Google was sued for taking photographs from a car (part of their Street View program) of a family at their pool. District courts upheld Google as the family had no expectation of privacy if someone could see them from the street. What if Google's next iteration of Street View includes a drone flying at 501ft???

 

[Garandman]

I own the air space up to that level on my property. And that's what allows me to erect antennas, towers and buildings. There are other requirements/rules that go along with that, such as tower lighting, height near air ports, ect, but it belongs to me. And my airspace is protected by trespass laws. Keep that in mind when flying your toys.

There are no shortage of people excessively concerned about "your toys." I'm just surprised they don't express similar privacy concerns to government surveillance operations, which Texas has prety much granted carte blanche.

Texas's Drone Law Is Pretty Much The Opposite Of Every Other State's Drone Law - Texas Monthly

The people at Logan referred me to: https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/ which states:

when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower…with prior notice of the operation;

Except that Logan says:

Neither FAA Boston Tower or Massport are in the position to approve drone operations near Logan Airport. ....However, local procedures for approving drone activity do not yet exist for airspace around .... airports like Logan.

From the emails I got it sounds like Logan has adopted the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

 

[Garandman]

AMA safety code has useful guidelines.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf