If anyone in the group has or knows of anyone that has been shutdown for commercial sUAS use would you please contact me.
roryp at volt aerial robotics dot com
Thanks
Rory
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
If anyone in the group has or knows of anyone that has been shutdown for commercial sUAS use would you please contact me.
roryp at volt aerial robotics dot com
Thanks
Rory
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
The FAA's authority is not limited to navigable airspace. See the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Sec 307 (c) use of airspace.
Thats why intimidation works so well very few folks have the cash to dance the feds, ashamed
I think I need to find a benefactor with deep pockets and we can test the above mentioned legal principles.
United States v. Causby in 1946
The court's decision, authored by Justice William O. Douglas
"if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land,"
Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coel...
This is where the discussion begins, with the oldest laws.
As citizens of the twenty-first century we acknowledge that a large commercial industry exists in the airspace above our property. We have granted these commercial interests reasonable access for the last century, with flyover rights.
Technology has now advanced to the point where the common person can access the near-ground airspace to accomplish meaningful work. This is a new "reasonable use" that needs to be added to the case law. It's that simple.
The law will form itself around our needs, go forth and and do your business.
I strongly agree with the above. I think that the FAA to some extent does not want this issue clarified in a court of law becuase then the flood gates would open and they would loose all control below navigable airspace.
The date on that thread is from 2011.. so I really don't take any value in the thread.. since most of the FAA stuff happened after that and would be a more represenative of the current state of the policies and regulations.
Here's a good one for you:
http://www.helifreak.com/showthread.php?t=310889&highlight=cease
Yes, exactly. That is I think what the situation is. All I've ever seen is this really vague letter, or at worst, an official "cease and desist, because we say so" letter. I think there's absolutely no legal basis for this, and they know it, but they are using their position of authority to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. And most people are just taking it.
But there's a lot of people not just taking it. I keep saying this, but if you look around, there are a lot of people doing this in the US. They just try to keep their head down and not get noticed. I've NEVER heard of anybody going to jail, or even being fined. Most get this letter, and they just give up.
If somebody had the money, I can't imagine this would hold up to a Supreme Court challenge. It's completely nonsensical.
They cannot support their position by pointing to their mandate of ensuring safety within the national airspace, since they are singling out commercial uses only and not including recreational uses. (heaven forbid)
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next