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
I don't think you are accurate in all of your comments.. as the press never has wavers. I believe the wavers are due to the nature of the program and chance for something to be seen as defamation of character.. however if filming it is what it is without the prankster nature then you wouldn't need a waver.
I think the real question in all this is what is a true violation of privacy.. nearly everyone in the world has a camera phone.. just because a multicopter can go places your camera phone can't doesn't mean it violates privacy... I could just as easily be up on a cherry picker watching thie shooting range... all from public property.
@Mark Privacy is not out the window because of guns. There are many other issues here, like I said earlier you can;'t just hover a drone with a video camera over someones property, and then justify an Invasion of privacy because of what happened after the fact. There are a number of laws about unauthorized surveillance. You have to notify someone for instance if your going to be recording them depending on the circumstances.
There is a reason that people incidentally filmed for a tv show have to sign waivers, otherwise there face is blurred out. And I don't think a hovering Drone is sufficient notification.
This also isn't an issue of mineral rights or open Airspace. Unless he was flying his drone at 10000ft when this happened, your airplane analogy doesn't exactly hold up. Furthermore he was putting everyone on the property in danger. If that drone had hit someone, there would be serious issues over his civil and criminal liability. I'm not justifying what happened here, but would you really like a drone not flying but hovering over your home filming youy, hoping to catch you doing something bad? How long would you let that Go on?
I think I would be sending the club a bill for the damage to the multicopter.. from what I can see and read about this it doesn't seem like the pilot was in violation of any laws as privacy is out the window because of the firing of guns, and your property rights do not extend limitlessly into the sky.
The person that shot at the drone should be taken to court in the same way he would be if he took a baseball bat to a car.
So where exactly does private property extend? It sounds like your definition of private property extents indefinately upwards.. so a airplane flying over my house would be tresspassing in my private property. Oil companies can literally drill under your house as long as they start their hole on their property.
My question for this thread is where exactly does private property extend and thus you would be in violation flying over it.
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.
In terms of old fashioned photography, it is perfectly legal (in the US) to film private property or persons, as long as you are standing on public property (this is how the paparazzi get away with what they do).
Since this vehicle flies above ground, it's in the hands of the FAA.
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.
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 9 Next