Please don't shoot at that drone

The Federal Aviation Administration, in response to a series of more than a dozen such shootings, recently confirmed that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited The Aircraft Sabotage Act, 18 USC 32, a statute that makes it a felony to damage or destroy any aircraft, manned or unmanned.
Click to expand...

A lot of people talk smack about shooting down drones. I do not think it is exactly a good idea.
 
A couple weeks ago a drone dropped a couple floatation jackets to a couple people caught in a rip current, beating lifeguards by 3 minutes. One of the swimmers said he was exhausted and about to drown. It bought them time until lifeguards to get out on jet skis to retrieve them.

Awesome.
 
Bailey Boat said:
That depends on what that drone is doing..... Lawful purpose, leave it alone. Spying onto my property or family, ya coming down.....
Click to expand...

Goofyfoot2001 said:
Drones are flipping awesome and if you have any other opinion, you have never flown one and are ignorant on the subject. That is all.
Click to expand...

Drones ARE awesome and can be quite useful in many situations.
However, they can be nefarious, too, based on the controllers intentions.
Im definitely with Bailey, here....stick to public airways, don't peek in a window or swoop in over my backyard tryin to check us out, and your precious little birdie will be just fine.
 
I'm not saying all drones are evil and I can see multiple good uses for them but they also lend themselves to the dark side and that's where my concern lies.... I do know for a fact that they are very useful in the Real Estate arena.
 
I always wonder how long before someone flies one with a big fat anti-personnel mine attached into somewhere populated.
 
Drones are just like firearms. They're tools. They do good in the hands of good people, and bad in the hands of bad folks. As long as one isn't invading my privacy, I don't have much of an issue with one.

I can see mixed results from using them as medical delivery though. It can potentially save a lot of lives by getting life saving medication to emergency situations, but likewise, I could see some pill heads scheming to shoot them down to score some drugs. Its shocking how much ingenuity drug addicts can have when they need a fix.
 
NCLivingBrit said:
I always wonder how long before someone flies one with a big fat anti-personnel mine attached into somewhere populated.
Click to expand...
You can go ahead and bet your bottom dollar and last red cent that the really bad guys have looked/are looking into doing exactly that
 
RedneckFur said:
As long as one isn't invading my privacy, I don't have much of an issue with one.
Click to expand...

And this makes me curious. When do you (or anyone reading this) consider your privacy invaded?

I've only flown out of my yard, around the neighborhood, down and across the highway, down the main road, and across some planted fields. All flights have been at max altitude.

Personally, I wouldn't hover over someone's backyard or house, even at 400ft. I usually cruise and keep it moving.
 
Last edited:
kcult said:
Personally, I wouldn't hover over someone's backyard or house, even at 400ft. I usually cruise and keep it moving.
Click to expand...

This is the answer right here.

And, truth be told, I wouldn't have a problem with you stopping, hovering, and checking things out for a minute or two if we were working, building something, or playing with the dog....even as low as fifty or sixty feet.
Heck, I'd probably wave at you. You might give a wing waggle back at me and then move on.

Personally, excessive loitering/hovering would qualify...and Im not sure exactly where that threshhold actually is. It's situationally fluid, but pilot and I will both know when it gets to that point because I'll shoo you away like a stray dog.
Instant triggers would be hovering over my wife/daughter in the pool or peeking in a window. Ain't nobody got time for that. I'll start actively drone hunting if that junk happens even once.

We've got a kid in our neighborhood that flies his around. He'll do a couple of laps around at max altitude, even comes over my backyard. He's having fun, maintaining 'safe' distances, and generally not being an asshat with it....much like I suspect you are doing, too.
Have fun and safe flying, bud...
 
Last edited:
I reasonably consider privacy to be in non-navigable space. That would be below the treeline or area obstructions on a property. Above the areas trees would be navigable for all aircraft and federally regulated.

The intent of the flight must also be taken into consideration. If the intent is surveillance, then it is not legal in NC. If someone in a public space is casually captured on recreational video or photo and feels their activity privacy has been breached, then maybe you should take that activity into a private area, indoors. Privacy fence really isn't a legal definition.

Google Earth captures with great detail virtually every square inch of ground surface, plus in the Mecklenburg county area, Google air flights are of greater than usual detail. You have no true air-view privacy.
 
kcult said:
And this makes me curious. When do you (or anyone reading this) consider your privacy invaded?

I've only flown out of my yard, around the neighborhood, down and across the highway, down the main road, and across some planted fields. All flights have been at max altitude.

Personally, I wouldn't hover over someone's backyard or house, even at 400ft. I usually cruise and keep it moving.
Click to expand...

I'd consider it an invasion of my property if it was flying below the tree line within my property lines, or obviously carrying photo or video equipment and hovering over my property. If it happens to pass over my house on its way somewhere else, and doesn't stick around, I don't mind.
 
htperry said:
I reasonably consider privacy to be in non-navigable space. That would be below the treeline or area obstructions on a property. Above the areas trees would be navigable for all aircraft and federally regulated.

The intent of the flight must also be taken into consideration. If the intent is surveillance, then it is not legal in NC. If someone in a public space is casually captured on recreational video or photo and feels their activity privacy has been breached, then maybe you should take that activity into a private area, indoors. Privacy fence really isn't a legal definition.

Google Earth captures with great detail virtually every square inch of ground surface, plus in the Mecklenburg county area, Google air flights are of greater than usual detail. You have no true air-view privacy.
Click to expand...

In US vs Causby, SCOTUS 1946, a paraglider was circling 83 feet over private property taking pictures.
The SCOTUS findings were two-fold. The court rejected the United States Government's assertion to "possess" and "control" airspace down to ground level, and it nullified the common law doctrine (Cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum, or “whose is the soil, his it is up to the sky.”) that property extends indefinitely upward.
The FAA has declared anything over 500' as public navigable airspace and SCOTUS has held that, at least, 83' feet is your property. Even though SCOTUS declined to actually set a number, my ownership of airspace ends somewhere between those two altitudes.
As the tallest trees on my property are approx 40', your 'non navigable airspace' and 'below the treeline' statements don't hold water in light of the fact I own at least 83' of altitude.
Additionally, why must I take the intent of the flight into account? With a land based trespasser, I have no obliation to do that. All I have to do is communicate that they are trespassing and tell them to leave. Intent has no bearing there, why should it up above? The tricky part would be communicating to a drone that they are trespassing and it's time for them to leave.
 
draco88 said:
In US vs Causby, SCOTUS 1946, a paraglider was circling 83 feet over private property taking pictures.
Click to expand...

This 1946 case has been unsuccessfully quoted many times and not yet determined by the courts or FAA to be applicable. I suspect quoting this ruling when calling the FAA to complain about a low flying plane, helicopter, balloon or drone would be met with less than satisfying response. "The drone police will be right there, sir." Maybe someone should bear the burden of taking a case specific to sUAS (drone) fear back to SCOTUS. BTW, the same FAA has defined that 400' and below is the navigable space for RC craft, in an effort to avoid mid-air conflicts between manned and unmanned craft.

Intent and commercial use is in the NC law. Trespass laws are written with actual presence on the property in mind. If someone wants a new or changed law, legislators are more than happy to listen. Shout very loud at the RC toy accusations of trespass. Unfortunately, most aUAS don't have microphones, only very wide angle cameras.

I am involved in all aspects of sUAS. It never ceases to amaze me how much non-drone people know and how important they think their outdoors activities might be to recreational drone operators taking pictures of the horizon. Most of the time people in our shots ruin the shot, not enhance it. We really don't care what you are doing, and BTW, you looks like ants in our video and pictures from 200 feet. I acknowledge and agree with a certain level of privacy on my own (and others) property, but some people take it to an unreasonable and unrealistic argument. That's why I agree that the level below a treeline is reasonable.

Yes, that's me ---- I think. Hard to tell. This is a shot at an altitude (about 30') and distance similar to being in your backyard. I see another CFF member, too. I'm writing down all those tag numbers. ;)

DJI_0042_LI.jpg
 
Last edited:
htperry said:
This 1946 case has been unsuccessfully quoted many times and not yet determined by the courts or FAA to be applicable. I suspect quoting this ruling when calling the FAA to complain about a low flying plane, helicopter, balloon or drone would be met with less than satisfying response. "The drone police will be right there, sir." Maybe someone should bear the burden of taking a case specific to sUAS (drone) fear back to SCOTUS. BTW, the same FAA has defined that 400' and below is the navigable space for RC craft, in an effort to avoid mid-air conflicts between manned and unmanned craft.

Intent and commercial use is in the NC law. Trespass laws are written with actual presence on the property in mind. If someone wants a new or changed law, legislators are more than happy to listen. Shout very loud at the RC toy accusations of trespass. Unfortunately, most aUAS don't have microphones, only very wide angle cameras.

I am involved in all aspects of sUAS. It never ceases to amaze me how much non-drone people know and how important they think their outdoors activities might be to recreational drone operators taking pictures of the horizon. Most of the time people in our shots ruin the shot, not enhance it. We really don't care what you are doing, and BTW, you looks like ants in our video and pictures from 200 feet. I acknowledge and agree with a certain level of privacy on my own (and others) property, but some people take it to an unreasonable and unrealistic argument. That's why I agree that the level below a treeline is reasonable.

Yes, that's me ---- I think. Hard to tell. This is a shot at an altitude (about 30') and distance similar to being in your backyard.

View attachment 39684
Click to expand...
Did you read my post upstream that said I actually wouldn't have a problem with someone flying by, checkin things out and keeping on moving? That I would even wave, too?
I still stand by that as Im not against drone operation at all. Ive even toyed with the idea of getting into it...mostly because my son is started to get interested in it.
Thanks for the heads up on intent wrote into NC Law...somehow I missed that. I'll look into that further. Probably will help me in more areas than just this.
No doubt it's a sticky situation all around...there has to be some delineation somewhere. Where, though, is the big question.
 
draco88 said:
Did you read my post upstream that said I actually wouldn't have a problem with someone flying by, checkin things out and keeping on moving? That I would even wave, too?
Click to expand...

I was answering the general points of your post, not taking issue with you.

Here is the information and statutes for NC drone law: https://www.ncdot.gov/aviation/uas/about/

While I feel NC is generally drone friendly, some of these state aviation regulations are stupid and seem to be written from the knee-jerk of un-knowledgeable persons.
 
Last edited:
htperry said:
I was answering the general points of your post, not taking issue with you.
Click to expand...
If that first paragraph came off a litle b****y, I assure you, that wasn't the intent. I was trying to reaffirm that I am not against drone operation at all.
Sorry if it sounded that way...and looking back, it sure did. My bad.

I'll give those regs in the pdf a look. The more you know, and all that lol
 
Last edited:
update....

When a patient who needs an organ transplantation is finally matched with a donor, every second matters. A longer wait between when an organ is removed from a donor and when it is placed into a recipient is associated with poorer organ function following transplantation. To maximize the chances of success, organs must be shipped from A to B as quickly and as safely as possible—and a recent test run suggests that drones are up to the task.

link:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human...ones-can-safely-deliver-organs-for-transplant

please don't shoot that drone
 
draco88 said:
You can go ahead and bet your bottom dollar and last red cent that the really bad guys have looked/are looking into doing exactly that
Click to expand...
So, you're saying the government is experimenting with this.

:D
 
Last edited:
turkeydance said:
update....

When a patient who needs an organ transplantation is finally matched with a donor, every second matters. A longer wait between when an organ is removed from a donor and when it is placed into a recipient is associated with poorer organ function following transplantation. To maximize the chances of success, organs must be shipped from A to B as quickly and as safely as possible—and a recent test run suggests that drones are up to the task.

link:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human...ones-can-safely-deliver-organs-for-transplant

please don't shoot that drone
Click to expand...

But free and delicious human organs!?
 
The bench is the only reason I can think of that a drone would be over my backyard woods. But since I've camouflaged it I don't think it can be seen, and I know for a fact that the remote operated shotgun can't be seen.
 
htperry said:
This 1946 case has been unsuccessfully quoted many times and not yet determined by the courts or FAA to be applicable. I suspect quoting this ruling when calling the FAA to complain about a low flying plane, helicopter, balloon or drone would be met with less than satisfying response. "The drone police will be right there, sir." Maybe someone should bear the burden of taking a case specific to sUAS (drone) fear back to SCOTUS. BTW, the same FAA has defined that 400' and below is the navigable space for RC craft, in an effort to avoid mid-air conflicts between manned and unmanned craft.

Intent and commercial use is in the NC law. Trespass laws are written with actual presence on the property in mind. If someone wants a new or changed law, legislators are more than happy to listen. Shout very loud at the RC toy accusations of trespass. Unfortunately, most aUAS don't have microphones, only very wide angle cameras.

I am involved in all aspects of sUAS. It never ceases to amaze me how much non-drone people know and how important they think their outdoors activities might be to recreational drone operators taking pictures of the horizon. Most of the time people in our shots ruin the shot, not enhance it. We really don't care what you are doing, and BTW, you looks like ants in our video and pictures from 200 feet. I acknowledge and agree with a certain level of privacy on my own (and others) property, but some people take it to an unreasonable and unrealistic argument. That's why I agree that the level below a treeline is reasonable.

Yes, that's me ---- I think. Hard to tell. This is a shot at an altitude (about 30') and distance similar to being in your backyard. I see another CFF member, too. I'm writing down all those tag numbers. ;)

View attachment 39684
Click to expand...


Hey! I'm in this unauthorized commando drone photo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yes, you can see my bald spot from space gadamnit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom