Should people have the right to control the air space above their homes and single-unit businesses and keep the space free from drones?
Here's a link to a shooting: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...est-nj-homeowner-for-downing-neighbors-drone/
To begin, can you define the 'airspace' above your home? How far does it extend? Then some consideration should be given to 'what happens if you miss that drone (and odds are you will) and your projectile leaves your airspace and enters someone elses airspace? Then, once momentum of your projectile is lost and gravity assumes control odds are it won't return to it's point of origination. It will most likely land a ways away. Possibly on the top of someones head, or the roof of their car, whatever. I'd say that regardless of what your 'rights' are, wisdom will prevent you from protecting your airspace. One would hope anyway. I think that that would fall under the category of 'common sense'.
I think the FAA 500 feet above the ground (or away from any person, or structure) rule is sufficient. Drones should have that same rule as manned aircraft.
Airspace? Do you own it? When you purchase a home with garden ... do you purchase also a column of airspace above it??? And from whom? From the State? [The only subject which can claim sovereignty over the airspace is the State]. No, you don't ... so ... What we can do against drones is to activate jamming system which would stop the remote control of them and with a hacking system take over them forcing them to take land in your property. So that any drone which will dare to enter your privacy will be yours!
I don't have to establish what the legal airspace would be. I'm sorry. I forgot we'd have liberals. If it were me shooting at a drone I would use a shotgun with birdshot.
Look up air rights The USA owns the airspace that is used by planes but if it can be used by you and you own the land then it is yours. You have to sign those rights away when you live by an airport so that planes can land and take off. (thats about all I know)
what i dont get is a model airplane that someone uses for a hobby is now considered a drone...heck i did that when i was a kid...i think they need to define a true drone ..one used for spying or talking photos...
I agree, I don't understand the distinction. But, what are called drones seem to carry a payload--usually a camera--and perform some activity beyond simply flying.
This. What if the drone needs to go somewhere down the road from your house and everybody has restricted airspace above their homes? What is it supposed to do teleport? We deal with noise complaints from the locals about our helicopters all the time. We do our best to not fly directly over peoples houses but oftentimes its unavoidable. It would be a nightmare if we had to deal with a million little restricted airspaces above everyones house. I understand that aircraft are loud and can get annoying, especially at night, but we fly at night pretty often and we sometimes have to fly over someones house. Sorry but it's not really something we can help. Its funny because I literally just read an opinion piece in the local paper yesterday about "Stupid Army helicopters flying over my house at night".
And I suppose a law saying you would stay above, say, 750 feet, would be intolerable. I mean, since the people in those houses are the enemy there should be no restrictions. And, how about restrictions on how long you can hover over a house? No, no, no. While there is some confusion between what is a drone and what is a toy remote control aircraft, there is no confusion with most people between a manned army helicopter and a drone. And, I'm curious and I'm assuming you would know but are there no restrictions on military helicopters now? If your shortest route is over the White House at 100 feet, are you good to go?
Well we do try to only fly over houses at higher altitudes to not disturb people. But you have to understand that a helicopter is loud. Even at 500 ft they can rattle windows and whatnot or you will hear it at the very least. Some businesses have put in formal requests to have a no fly zone over their establishment and we respect that. As far as normal houses we just try to not be rude. The rule of thumb is to pretty much just not be an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Don't go buzzing the locals houses at 100ft or anything. We don't hover over peoples houses and most of the time when people complain about us flying overhead they are hearing us leaving the area and going to some remote site to do things. Many of our air corridors fly directly over heavily populated areas but we have altitude restrictions that keep us high enough to where you can hear us but it shouldn't be too annoying. Us and the fighter pilots and heavy pilots have different restrictions. We are allowed to fly lower than they are. The FAA rule for us is we can fly as low as we want as long as it doesn't cause a hazard to persons or property on the ground. Which pretty much translates to just don't be an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). We have specific routes that we use to fly low that usually follow rivers or something. We have large training areas everywhere that are mapped out in more rural and remote areas but there are still some random houses out there. We try to avoid flying near them but to be honest we don't keep a map of exactly where everyones house is and sometimes we honestly just don't see it. There's a lot of stuff going on in a military helicopter we unfortunately don't notice every single house dotted around the country side when we are flying around. I'm not saying there should be no restrictions Im saying every single house shouldn't have a no fly zone above it. Plus unlike in the movies we usually don't do the cool star wars spaceship style landing where we drop in from high up and spin around and plop down. We land like airplanes do on a long final approach which means we are going to be flying slow and low as we come in for landing. Airfields aren't out in the middle of nowhere they are next to populated areas. So as we are coming in on the glide path we are usually flying over a lot of houses or businesses or something. We don't really have a choice. I understand that the city was here long before the Army base came and many of the houses and businesses were here long before the base came. It sucks that some people unfortunately got stuck in the landing path of the airfield.
Seems to me this is the best way of doing things, maybe if air routes could be homesteaded that'd be a decent alternative, but until then - this is the best we've got. Other than complete state control
That would give you less protection than the current FAA regulations of 500 feet above ground. I doubt if you'd have 200 feet with a shotgun. - - - Updated - - - The legal definition, if I remember correctly, is that remote controlled planes aren't allowed to leave the sight of the controller. Drones can. Hobbyists have been able to buy remote controlled planes with cameras for at least 6 or 7 years now.
Like planes, they just need to fly above 500 feet. Please read my post mentioning of that limit. The other thing is that drones have a crash rate that's much higher than manned aircraft. I would think you would be aware of current FAA regulations of 500 feet above ground.
I'm not a pilot, on board or land based, but ultra-lights are exempt from many of the aircraft laws and regulations. In the article I read, the neighbor had a remote-control plane with a camera flying around his property. A shotgun with #7 birdshot does not have an effective range of 500 feet.
We are helicopters, not airplanes. FAR 91 aircraft minimums don't apply to us. But we still do our best to not be intentionally rude and fly low around congested areas.
I honestly don't care if a drone flies over my house. Might be a different story if it was spying on me but with the exciting lifestyle I live these days I can't see anyone bothering.
