By Matthew Schroyer sUAS News
“As soon as I hit the go home mode, because the GPS and compasses were damaged, it went crazy,” Hindi said. “I flipped off the ‘come home’ mode and went into manual control. It wasn’t working right, but we were able to bring it in for a crash landing anyway.”
“I had more control than I anticipated,” he said. “I couldn’t believe it didn’t just drop out of the sky.”
Read More
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/
Comments
Will Snodgrass:
Sorry, Will, that was me. I was using simple language to give an understandable impression of a complicated and poorly-defined legal matter. It's illegal to film someone when they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I suggested using visible lighting because nothing says "do not expect privacy" like a copter-mounted white spotlight.
Property ownership does not grant the right to restrict flights traveling over the property. If it did, coast-to-coast airline travel would be practically impossible. This principle is established in United States vs. Causby and in similar laws and rulings in other countries.
The pilots would have to repay the property owners for any losses due to reduced property value or loss of enjoyment of the property, but as the pilots were clearly completely ineffective in stopping the shooting that claim would be difficult to prove. Similarly, firing a gun without a silencer is a purposefully attention-grabbing activity and eliminates any expectation of privacy. You can't make that much noise and then declare "nobody look at me".
Finally, legally speaking, trespassing is no excuse for theft, and "finders keepers" is theft. If someone crashes their plane on your property, the law requires that you return it. Similarly, if someone drives their car on your private driveway you are not allowed to keep or smash it up.
Patch,
Good call. I apologize for staying off topic.
My point is that the drone was used as a publicity stunt, not because it is the right tool for the job. There are plenty of places for drone journalism, this seems more like provocation and publicity seeking, in my humble opinion.
There we go, after several rambling posts, I finally figured out how to say my piece with two sentences.
: )
Considering who the OP is, I'm surprised y'all are talking about birds & hunt clubs. How about we discuss the issues affecting all of US, and the future of amateur UAS?
Did he have a COA? Did he file a NOTAM? Is he licensed for the TX he used? Did he have insurance? Did he inform the persons/property that he was going to overfly them, and put them in harms way? What are his certifications? Etc, etc, etc.
We can sit and squabble about PETA and the NRA all day, but at the end of it, lets focus on what he's done to our common interest, and work towards not letting it happen again. Agreed?
IANAL, but:
IF the area is a private club (the public does not have access) AND the drone is recording... then it is possibly a violation of the club's rights for the drone to be there. (assuming the club does NOT consent to being recorded)
The question would probably come down to the state of mind of the members of the club. If they feel that the drone was there to "harm" them, then they could potentially make a self-defense claim. Pennsylvania does have a "castle doctrine" as well as protections for gun ranges.
I'm guessing that the club(or at least the individual doing the shooting) is within their rights, or at least well-within a grey area that the animal rights group doesn't want to go after them for damages.
My only suggestion is that the club spend less time hovering.
Ramboky,
I'm not saying they (animal rights) should do nothing, just that people have been shown plenty of video already. This is not an effective action, time to try something else, be smarter, analyze what is actually going and look at cause and effect. Andrew had a great idea, build some drone targets and give these people something else to shoot at, take the business away from the canned hunts. Maybe the drone targets could shoot back with a laser or something, these rednecks are all ego based creatures, challenge their ego don't confront it directly, that becomes a silly game in an instant. I grew up around these (rednecks) kind of people, if you just wag your finger in their face and tell not to do something, they become set in stone and will die before listening to what you are saying.
I don't completely subscribe to the ideas that "If the authorities are not doing anything, then it must be legal". Authorities overlook illegal activities all the time, especially if it's in their best interests. But that doesn't make it legal. Sometimes it takes a citizen to stand up and draw attention to the issue before the authorities will be forces into action.
Tony, seriously?
Yes, a skyscraper can be built, provided you get the proper approvals. That approval will depend on where you are going to be building it. You just try getting approval to build a skyscraper where it will interfere with air traffic.
Flying a drone over your property is very different than trespass. Trespass involves putting your feet on land.
Try to get a building permit to build an addition over your neighbor's property. Just try.
Your rights to your property extend about 20-30 feet above the land, or above a structure you have built.
Ramboky, I think you misunderstand my point, I believe these canned hunts are disgusting! I'm only saying that the general populace doesn't care about it for more than two seconds, therefore merely bringing attention to the activity is nothing more than a form of masturbation, and they are only using a drone because it is novel and will bring one more moment of fleeting attention, there is no real solution in their actions. All they've done is provoked some weaponized simpletons.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next