TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.yahoo.com/news/virginia-wom ... 30595.html

Cleaning her shotguns on the front porch when drone strayed on to her property.

Not arrested. Facing a civil suit from drone owner.

Bird shot.

What's the difference in a drone, over your property, peeping down on your head and a clown, standing outside, peeping through your window?

Oldgringo wrote:What's the difference in a drone, over your property, peeping down on your head and a clown, standing outside, peeping through your window?

The difference is that you use buckshot instead of birdshot on the peeping tom.

The difference is usually people have property rights but not air space rights. This will be an interesting case.

Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... u_own.html

TexasTornado wrote:

Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... u_own.html

I don't know how the author of the Slate article can make the statement "While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground."

Here are the FAA flight rules under CFR Part 91.
Depending on the aircraft type the altitude rules for operation are different:

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere.
An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas.
Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas.
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft.
If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight- shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed
in paragraph (c) of this section.

So you can see, for example, a helicopter can be operated as close to the surface as possible if it's (a) not a congested area, as long as it does not pose a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and (b) if can make a safe landing without hazard to persons or property in the event of a power failure.

My career flying helicopters under CFR Part 135 (on-demand charter) were even less stringent. No altitudes restrictions in other than congested areas. I would have been in jail a thousand times over for trespassing every time I flew over someone's property at less that 500'.

I think that it depends upon the usage of the drone. I know for example, that my drone license allows me to fly up to 400 feet in an otherwise unrestricted airspace. That is recreational, non business flight.

Since I live near DFW airport, I'm going to put up a circle slash airplanes sign on my property, and then I'm going to call the sheriff every time one of those pesky American Airlines flights goes over my house at 5000 ft.

I would have to look it up, however I think the FAA now consider shooting at UAVs (drones) like shooting at aircraft. This may apply to UAVs licensed under Part 107. If the operator was operating the UAV outside their line of sight they were potentially in violation of the FAA regs on such devices. In Texas the UAV operator would have been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos.

G.A. Heath wrote:I would have to look it up, however I think the FAA now consider shooting at UAVs (drones) like shooting at aircraft. This may apply to UAVs licensed under Part 107. If the operator was operating the UAV outside their line of sight they were potentially in violation of the FAA regs on such devices. In Texas the UAV operator would have been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos.

I'm not sure we know if it was operating illegally if it was recording, given that there are exceptions and I haven't yet seen anything to indicate if it did or didn't meet an exception (for example, it could have been flying over her property but been recording a view of public property and at the prescribe altitude or less, or other exceptions):
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.423.htm

She was probably just practicing for dove season.

Jusme wrote:She was probably just practicing for dove season.

Well, that certainly puts a new twist on trap & skeet shooting.

Glockster wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I would have to look it up, however I think the FAA now consider shooting at UAVs (drones) like shooting at aircraft. This may apply to UAVs licensed under Part 107. If the operator was operating the UAV outside their line of sight they were potentially in violation of the FAA regs on such devices. In Texas the UAV operator would have been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos.

I'm not sure we know if it was operating illegally if it was recording, given that there are exceptions and I haven't yet seen anything to indicate if it did or didn't meet an exception (for example, it could have been flying over her property but been recording a view of public property and at the prescribe altitude or less, or other exceptions):
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.423.htm

I should have chosen my words more carefully, and phrased it as "In Texas the UAV operator would have most likely been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos." This was not in Texas, however it is not uncommon to see UAVs flown in Texas and record illegally. 90% of the time these folks that overfly private property record the entire flight. Additionally there is some, although not worth me taking the risk, ambiguity in the law regarding the language "with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property." The fact that you have intent and the meaning of surveillance coming into play muddies the waters slightly. If I remember correctly the woman who shot the drone down has Robert Duvall as a neighbor, odds are this UAV was being used for commercial purposes (Think paparazzi).

G.A. Heath wrote:

Glockster wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I would have to look it up, however I think the FAA now consider shooting at UAVs (drones) like shooting at aircraft. This may apply to UAVs licensed under Part 107. If the operator was operating the UAV outside their line of sight they were potentially in violation of the FAA regs on such devices. In Texas the UAV operator would have been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos.

I'm not sure we know if it was operating illegally if it was recording, given that there are exceptions and I haven't yet seen anything to indicate if it did or didn't meet an exception (for example, it could have been flying over her property but been recording a view of public property and at the prescribe altitude or less, or other exceptions):
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.423.htm

I should have chosen my words more carefully, and phrased it as "In Texas the UAV operator would have most likely been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos." This was not in Texas, however it is not uncommon to see UAVs flown in Texas and record illegally. 90% of the time these folks that overfly private property record the entire flight. Additionally there is some, although not worth me taking the risk, ambiguity in the law regarding the language "with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property." The fact that you have intent and the meaning of surveillance coming into play muddies the waters slightly. If I remember correctly the woman who shot the drone down has Robert Duvall as a neighbor, odds are this UAV was being used for commercial purposes (Think paparazzi).

Sure, understand and point taken. Was also simply pointing out that there are some exceptions. Many of which go out the window if it is used for commercial purposes. But oddly, as I read the Texas law, I can have my camera on all the time if I simply remove the video card and use the video feed for navigational aid purposes, or alternately can record all the time if I set the drone/camera to record me at all times and I am either on my property or property I'm authorized access to, or on public property. Not saying I personally would do that, just what the law allows me to do as I understand it.

Glockster wrote:Sure, understand and point taken. Was also simply pointing out that there are some exceptions. Many of which go out the window if it is used for commercial purposes. But oddly, as I read the Texas law, I can have my camera on all the time if I simply remove the video card and use the video feed for navigational aid purposes, or alternately can record all the time if I set the drone/camera to record me at all times and I am either on my property or property I'm authorized access to, or on public property. Not saying I personally would do that, just what the law allows me to do as I understand it.

I cleaned out the quote chain to make it a bit more readable. If the camera is capturing an image, recording or not, it technically violates Texas law. Although as long as you and no one else sees the image you have a defense to prosecution. Now if someone else is watching the monitor you have now displayed the image to a third party and lost the defense to prosecution. With two guys being involved (both most likely watching the monitor), if this was in Texas the pilot of the device would have been in violation of the law if the camera saw the shooters property unless they had permission to record it.