Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house

[Droolguy]

Droolguy fortunately the vast majority of drone operators operate more or less legally for now. I am on several RC boards and the current attitude is the hell with the FAA, the public and the media. If the RC folks fail to police themselves, and it is apparent from the majority of postings they will not, they are going to have onerous restrictions shoved down their throats. They are ignorantly relying up the Reauthorization Act of I believe 2012 to hang their collective hats on and they are about to be surprised. It is not a matter of if but when a valid and documentable full sized aircraft/drone incident does occur and when it does the industry and operators will be all but finished. By your broad based claim about the inability of judging heights is all the more reason to mandate that drones have an electronic height restrictor that cannot be manipulated! Judging height is not as difficult as you erroneously believe.

The undeniable truth/reality is that the drone operators are going to be their own undoing.

I am very familiar with what drone operators are doing, and I have a 333 exemption currently in processing to use them commercially inside the states, as well as persuing a degree in sUAS. So I keep very current on the subject.

Judging height is exactly as difficult as I believe, just because you can do it with your RC plane after practicing with it, doesnt mean that you can do it with a drone that doesnt conform to a set dimension and silhouette that you are intimately familiar with.

Dont mistake learned processes with natural ones.

Also, this whole drone operators do it to themselves line of thinking is bull. The vast majority do what they are supposed to, the issue is that doing the right thing is uninteresting to most people. Who actively search out rule breakers because its more exciting. So those are the only ones the news reports on, and those are the only videos on youtube going viral.

The problem is one of scale that people havent figured out yet, just because there are videos on Youtube does not mean that something is a huge issue. Most of the time those videos are specifically put up because they represent something "cool" to the uploader or viewer base which statistically makes them not representative of common happenings.

The government and most of the people are not able to dissociate alarmism generated but the sheer mass of media available now-a-days, with the actual statistical impact of those events.

If it doesnt get fixed this is probably the No. 1 contender for "Things that will probably destroy our country, eventually."

[Longitude Zero]

NOT thinking that quad/drone operators are doing it to themselves is BS. If it were not for the scofflaws and the videos on YouTube there would be NO ISSUE in the public eye. Quad/drone operators need to clean their own house and not let the minority dictate what happens to the law abiding majority. Here is a reminder for you, "The squeaking wheel gets the grease." As to judging height/distance accurately all I need to do is see the object in front of me one time and then when I see it again at a distance/height determining the height is an approximation based upon the decreased angular view. If you can judge horizontal distance with reasonable accuracy height is nothing more than horizontal distance turned into the vertical.

[Bawanna]

Your both correct just approaching it from different angles.

Like so many other things in life a few bad eggs ruin the whole deal for everybody.

Like shooting in gravel pits and such. 100 people go, shoot safe, clean up after themselves and all is good.

Then you get 2 or 3 that bring their tv or home appliances, blast em, leave crap all over the place, turning the pristine nice shooting area into a land fill and then it becomes an issue. They close the area, now the 100 good people got no place to go shoot.

We had an area where many got together and had cleanup weekends to clean up all the messes. Worked for awhile but eventually they shut down the whole area.

These drones are even harder to track so the few looking for exciting stuff are surely gonna cause headaches for the serious operators.

I've had the wife out in her bikini trying to bait em but it's starting to get chilly and we've never seen a drone so she's becoming more and more uncooperative, hope I get one soon, like seeing her in the bikini.

[Droolguy]

It's a new world, removing all the videos from Youtube and policing other people are not reasonable, and in most cases not even possible without that other persons consent. The fact that you would even suggest such things implies ignorance to the current political and social structure.

As for being able to judge height accurately by just seeing the object once I have a feeling the Dunnigan-Kreuger effect is in full swing here.

Either that or your definition of accurate must be very different than mine and even if this was true, the people making the claims had never seen the drone before so what would their frame of reference be?

[Bawanna]

I didn't see anybody suggest removing any Youtube video's myself. I know that would probably be an impossible task although the world would be a lot better place if a lot of it was removed.

Keep it friendly here folks.

[yqtszhj]

.... I can get a dozen people to say that the moon isn't real for a case of beer.

The moon isn't real.


If I say it 12 times can I get a dozon cases of beer? It will save you time waiting on the other 11 people to chime in.

[Longitude Zero]

It's a new world, removing all the videos from Youtube and policing other people are not reasonable, and in most cases not even possible without that other persons consent. The fact that you would even suggest such things implies ignorance to the current political and social structure.

As for being able to judge height accurately by just seeing the object once I have a feeling the Dunnigan-Kreuger effect is in full swing here.

Either that or your definition of accurate must be very different than mine and even if this was true, the people making the claims had never seen the drone before so what would their frame of reference be?

I suggested nothing and the fact you think I did calls reading and comprehension skills into serious question! Ad hominems are the self destruction of invalid arguments in the first place. If you want to see a probable textbook example of a DK then mirrors abound. I fly quads as a hobbyist. A coworker is working on 333 Exemption Status. UAV's can do great work but ONLY IF THEY ARE OPERATED BY SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE OPERATORS! It is clear that many folks flying quads/drones should NOT be allowed to walk let alone operate a complicated piece of technology. All anybody needs to do is look at the Facebook pages and enthusiast webboards to see the that the arrogant scofflaw attitude of "I will do what I dang well please and screw the FAA and the public." Those the do not actively disassociate themselves from the scofflaws get what they deserve since the did nothing to stop it.

[yqtszhj]

Beer, Beer, Beer.......

[getsome]

Ahhhh the good old days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuIdCz_98A

[Droolguy]

"If it were not for the scofflaws and the videos on YouTube there would be NO ISSUE in the public eye. Quad/drone operators need to clean their own house and not let the minority dictate what happens to the law abiding majority."

Implied suggestion is that both the "scofflaws" and "Youtube" need to be controlled by "Quad/drone operators" (Specifically, the "law abiding majority"). To do so would mean infringing on other peoples rights, and would also mean the removal of said content from Youtube because without it there would be "NO ISSUE" (as well as the censorship/removal of "scofflaws") as to leave it there would be considered letting "the minority dictate what happens".

My statement that "The fact that you would even suggest such things implies ignorance to the current political and social structure." is not classified as an ad hominem attack as it is an observance because the solutions you propose are not possible inside the current system, therefore you must be ignorant of the current system. I could have stated it a bit more politically correctly, but I did not think it would offend you the way it was worded which was my mistake. I did not say that you were an "ignorant person" which would have been an ad hominem attack because it's in reference to you as a person and not a specific set of data, for all I know you might be very knowledgeable about other things.

You are free to prove me wrong in which case I would consent to the error, actually, I will state that the use of "suggest" on my part was erroneous and should have been more along the lines of an inferral.

If you mean that my stating that the Dunnigan-Kreuger effect was the reason you were so confident in your ability to determine was an ad-hominem attack, I was simply providing a reason to back up your claimed natural ability of observation as stated in "As to judging height/distance accurately all I need to do is see the object in front of me one time and then when I see it again at a distance/height determining the height is an approximation based upon the decreased angular view. If you can judge horizontal distance with reasonable accuracy height is nothing more than horizontal distance turned into the vertical."

As for implying that I was the one suffering from "DK" as you put it... I make no claims to know everything or even to know the majority of information on aviation. What I do know however is backed up by licenses, certifications, and classes specifically on the subject of which I can provide proof as long as you are willing to provide proof of similar studies. I will not go out of my way to provide credentials if you can't provide any in return.

To get back on the subject at hand though, I wholly believe that the verdict in this case was brought about by media and political pressure, because people are intimidated by sUAS technology and are looking for ways to strike out in order to alleviate that fear in some small way.

I would also like to ask if you claim that you could determine the heights of flying objects before you began flying remote control aircraft on a regular basis? Or was it something that you had to learn by flying them? And if you could answer the question posed in my previous response of "the people making the claims had never seen the drone before so what would their frame of reference be?".

[SlowBurn]

The altitude of the drone was within the vertical range of a shotgun ergo it was flying too low

[Planedude]

If the FAA demands drones stay below 400ft and we except an average (mature) tree height of 70/80ft than any legal operating altitude of a drone puts it in the range of my 12gage with the right load and choke...


My issue with this incident is the blasting with the shotgun at all. The next furious (and a little paranoid) do good-er might just decide to shoot down little Johnny's toy drone at take-off and end up blasting out the windows of a nearby house (or worse) because the court said he had a right to shoot the little "spybots".

It is the odd truth of the state of technology that RC Quads have become so complex and sophisticated that they are super easy to fly. Pick and load the right combo of hardware and software and your quad will fly stable and even return to it launching spot and self land with the flip of one switch. The new level of tech has made flying them successfully a skill in the wheelhouse of anyone who could play a few levels of Donkey Kong. My Sons newest quad has a "WTF' button on the controller. Lose sight of the quad or if you feel its getting away from you, push the button and the quad will right itself, power up to a select height (90ft on my boys) and hover in that spot, correcting for any wind, until the pilot feels he is ready to start flying again. It is a complex control problem that is a button push away and used to save the quad from a crash, but a paranoid someone might presume the quad is "watching me" and grab up the ol blunderbuss.

Yes the RC community has self policing to do before the hammer comes down on them. I wish them luck, it is a very interesting hobby that could be gutted clean by a couple of idiot operators.

[SlowBurn]

FAA regs exempt model airplanes (which would include non-commercial drones) below 400' keeping at least 3 miles from any airport, away from populated areas. They don't, and can't, authorize you to fly (much less hover) your drone over below 400' over MY property. If you do that without permission, you are trespassing, PERIOD.

The legal remedy for trespassing is another matter, and doesn't normally include shooting them down unless you've been warned, are invading privacy, are threatening, or some other factor. Just like we can't always just shoot an ordinary trespasser or smash up his car for parking in our private driveway.

But property owners do have legal rights and non commercial drones hovering over private property are violating those rights as much as uninvited jerks using our front stoop for a hang out. Go away.

[Longitude Zero]

If the FAA demands drones stay below 400ft and we except an average (mature) tree height of 70/80ft than any legal operating altitude of a drone puts it in the range of my 12gage with the right load and choke...

It is the odd truth of the state of technology that RC Quads have become so complex and sophisticated that they are super easy to fly. Pick and load the right combo of hardware and software and your quad will fly stable and even return to it launching spot and self land with the flip of one switch. The new level of tech has made flying them successfully a skill in the wheelhouse of anyone who could play a few levels of Donkey Kong. My Sons newest quad has a "WTF' button on the controller. Lose sight of the quad or if you feel its getting away from you, push the button and the quad will right itself, power up to a select height (90ft on my boys) and hover in that spot, correcting for any wind, until the pilot feels he is ready to start flying again. It is a complex control problem that is a button push away and used to save the quad from a crash, but a paranoid someone might presume the quad is "watching me" and grab up the ol blunderbuss.

Yes the RC community has self policing to do before the hammer comes down on them. I wish them luck, it is a very interesting hobby that could be gutted clean by a couple of idiot operators.

Precisely.

[Longitude Zero]

FAA regs exempt model airplanes (which would include non-commercial drones) below 400' keeping at least 3 miles from any airport, away from populated areas. They don't, and can't, authorize you to fly (much less hover) your drone over below 400' over MY property. If you do that without permission, you are trespassing, PERIOD.

The legal remedy for trespassing is another matter, and doesn't normally include shooting them down unless you've been warned, are invading privacy, are threatening, or some other factor. Just like we can't always just shoot an ordinary trespasser or smash up his car for parking in our private driveway.

But property owners do have legal rights and non commercial drones hovering over private property are violating those rights as much as uninvited jerks using our front stoop for a hang out. Go away.

You have hit the nail squarely on its head.