Have there been any legal challenges to the goggles ruling in the US.

[tstr14]

'Aircraft' do not and can not respect individual property boundaries. By the time a goggles blinded pilot realises there is a trespassing, low flying manned aircraft over their property it is probably going to be to late to even attempt to figure out what avoiding action to take.

If a manned aircraft is flying 400 feet or lower over my property, there is already a serious problem, whether I'm flying a drone or not.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

If a manned aircraft is flying 400 feet or lower over my property, there is already a serious problem, whether I'm flying a drone or not.

Probably true but, should anything happen, it wont stop you being the lowest rung of the ladder.

 

[tstr14]

Probably true but, should anything happen, it wont stop you being the lowest rung of the ladder.

Wait - are you saying I can't use the shoulder fired anti aircraft missile I purchased from Amazon last week? Well crap, I'm sending it back then!

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Wait - are you saying I can't use the shoulder fired anti aircraft missile I purchased from Amazon last week? Well crap, I'm sending it back then!

Yes

 

[Cafguy]

Would you tolerate a stranger flying a drone over and around your property?

Flying a Drone over someones property is legal-Flying "Around" someones property ( staying for a period of time) is called Lingering and could get you a ride to the pokey. Just sayin!

 

[Vic Moss]

Flying a Drone over someones property is legal-Flying "Around" someones property is called Lingering and could get you a ride to the pokey. Just sayin!

No it can't. We have full and free access to the NAS in the U.S. unless there is an FAA restriction otherwise. Simply flying around the property over someone's land without permission isn't a crime. Annoying and unfriendly, but not a crime. Contrary to what some states have tried to do.

 

[Cafguy]

No it can't. We have full and free access to the NAS in the U.S. unless there is an FAA restriction otherwise. Simply flying around the property over someone's land without permission isn't a crime. Annoying and unfriendly, but not a crime. Contrary to what some states have tried to do.

In L.A. flying a Drone over someones property and sticking around to film that property without permission is a form of harassment. If they can prove you were filming the property or people living there you can be jailed for it.. You can thank the local celebrity reporters for that one.

 

[Vic Moss]

In L.A. flying a Drone over someones property and sticking around to film that property without permission is a form of harassment. If they can prove you were filming the property or people living there you can be jailed for it.. You can thank the local celebrity reporters for that one.

Interesting violation of the First Amendment.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Thanks for all the answers! The one thing I find disturbing is that the law applies even if you are on private land. While fully agreeing with regards to the safety of others, while I'm on my own land, provided I'm not located somewhere where it could be harmful, such as a flight path for an airport, I feel the FAA should have limited authority over my activities. So long as all activity remains within my boundaries and at 400 feet or lower, and I'm not engaged in otherwise illegal activities such as looking in neighbor's windows or scaring their animals, etcetera, of what concern is it to the government?

With amateur radio, there is an organization (ARRL) in the US that acts on behalf of ham radio operators to protect their hobby concerns from intrusion by the FCC. The same for firearm owners (NRA) vs multiple state, local and Federal laws and actions. Is there any such advocacy group for drone operators?

The FAA controls the airspace....it allows you to fly as you wish over other people's properties, in general, within the laws (other than restricted airspace, etc.) You can't have it both ways where, just because it is your property , that you would get expanded privileges, and a guy who takes off from a park ( for instance ) a block away is subject to different, stricter regulations as he flies towards and into the boundaries of your private property. Airspace is airspace and although you own the land, you do not own the airspace above, and everyone who uses it is subject to the same set of rules.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yorkshire_Pud is right - even a few seconds glance at a controller screen to frame a shot or alter exposure settings will result in a frantic visual hunt to relocate the position of the drone when it is at the limits of VLOS,

Not for me. The true limit of VLOS as required in the regs, for me, is about 100 yards, and at that distance I have no problem finding it again after glancing away for a moment.

Beyond that (mini 4 Pro) I can't tell attitude well enough to consider myself able to adequately be in full control.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Interesting violation of the First Amendment.

The "right to privacy" is one of the most prominent that truly does exist in our jurisprudence, is codified in all sorts of statute law, and even played a part in the famous Roe v. Wade ruling back in 1972 IIRC, and yet is not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the USC.

It falls under the ninth amendment, a right retained by the people but unenumerated. That's the basic constitutional basis for codified privacy rights, and has been upheld in courts in numerous cases.

 

[mavic3usa]

The "right to privacy" is one of the most prominent that truly does exist in our jurisprudence, is codified in all sorts of statute law, and even played a part in the famous Roe v. ruling back in 1972 IIRC, and yet is not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the USC.

It falls under the ninth amendment, a right retained by the people but unenumerated. That's the basic constitutional basis for codified privacy rights, and has been upheld in courts in numerous cases.

Sometimes I think people confuse the right to privacy to the right to be left alone. I found this to be helpful:

In these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Constitutional Amendments imply the following privacy rights:

• The First Amendment provides the freedom to choose any religious belief and to keep that choice private.
• The Third Amendment protects the zone of privacy in the home.
• The Fourth Amendment protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches. It also applies to unlawful seizures by law enforcement. This is where all that “probable cause" talk comes from.
• The Fifth Amendment provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.
• The Ninth Amendment, interpreted as justifying a broad reading of the Bill of Rights, protects fundamental rights to privacy in ways not provided above.
• The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from making laws that violate personal autonomy protections provided for in the first 13 Amendments. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws violating racial equality principles or freedom of speech.

Source: https://www.findlaw.com/injury/tort...es/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html

 

[MS Coast]

Thanks for all the answers! The one thing I find disturbing is that the law applies even if you are on private land.

On your own land. Not in your own sky.

 

[Vic Moss]

The "right to privacy" is one of the most prominent that truly does exist in our jurisprudence, is codified in all sorts of statute law, and even played a part in the famous Roe v. Wade ruling back in 1972 IIRC, and yet is not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the USC.

It falls under the ninth amendment, a right retained by the people but unenumerated. That's the basic constitutional basis for codified privacy rights, and has been upheld in courts in numerous cases.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" has been found to be non-existent when something is visible from any public thoroughfare, and the NAS is a public thoroughfare. In such SCOTUS rulings as Ciraolo v CA, and Riley v. FL, anything visible from the NAS enjoys no such privacy protection. While those rulings apply to manned aircraft (& LEO aircraft in those cases), until there is a counter ruling concerning UAS, those stand for all aviation.

And look up Arne Svenson's case in NYC. He was even cleared of privacy claims by neighbors he shot photos from from his NYC high rise apartment. The judge ruled is photos were protected by the First Amendment. And since it was not appealed after that, that's precedent in that district. Privacy isn't a given. It's limited by SCOTUS rulings.

If the LA law is ever challenged, it would certainly be interesting to see just how far is goes up the judicial ladder. But until that or another bill advances to federal court, we have our precedent.

Nothing visible from the NAS, or any other public thoroughfare, has privacy attached.

 

[mavic3usa]

IMO not legal opinion, since nothing is absolutely, the very narrow exception would be if you were in a bedroom having sex or in a bathroom in a state of undress for example and you accidentally left your blinds slightly open and it's 2am in your 35th floor apartment, a drone comes by and if you hover and peek into that window with the intent to self-gratify, I can promise you won't get away with it if you are found.

 

[Vic Moss]

IMO not legal opinion, since nothing is absolutely, the very narrow exception would be if you were in a bedroom having sex or in a bathroom in a state of undress for example and you accidentally left your blinds slightly open and it's 2am in your 35th floor apartment, a drone comes by and if you hover and peek into that window with the intent to self-gratify, I can promise you won't get away with it if you are found.

That would be a self-gratification issue, and very illegal. But if someone does see it from a public thoroughfare, there is no privacy.

 

[Cafguy]

The FAA controls the airspace....it allows you to fly as you wish over other people's properties, in general, within the laws (other than restricted airspace, etc.) You can't have it both ways where, just because it is your property , that you would get expanded privileges, and a guy who takes off from a park ( for instance ) a block away is subject to different, stricter regulations as he flies towards and into the boundaries of your private property. Airspace is airspace and although you own the land, you do not own the airspace above, and everyone who uses it is subject to the same set of rules.

All very true BUT Flying my Drone in the federal Airspace Does not give me permission to use the Airspace to harass or Spy on my neighbors activities. nor those of their children -and so we have this law against "lingering" around someones property.
If some Local Weirdo with a Drone decides to film your daughter in your private pool surrounded by a fence. Now thanks to the law this creep can be prosecuted. We all have the right to fly in the Federal airspace as long as we Don't break any laws while doing so. This right does not let me go around filming people enjoying activities in their backyard without their permission. Fly over all you want.- just don't do it constantly- Film all you want BUT Do not make someone the subject of a video without their permission. simple really.

 

[MARK (LI)]

All very true BUT Flying my Drone in the federal Airspace Does not give me permission to use the Airspace to harass or Spy on my neighbors activities. nor those of their children -and so we have this law against "lingering" around someones property.
If some Local Weirdo with a Drone decides to film your daughter in your private pool surrounded by a fence. Now thanks to the law this creep can be prosecuted. We all have the right to fly in the Federal airspace as long as we Don't break any laws while doing so. This right does not let me go around filming people enjoying activities in their backyard without their permission. Fly over all you want.- just don't do it constantly- Film all you want BUT Do not make someone the subject of a video without their permission. simple really.

I think this is going way off the OP's topic....which was about needing a spotter while flying FPV over his own property....If you notice, I did qualify my statement by staitingt "within the laws"...but the point I was making is that he can't have a set of lenient laws for him because it is over his own property.......he gets the same benefits, and is subject to the same regulations as everyone else........nothing about him flying over someone else's property

 

[3rdof5]

Wait a minute, I was not talking about flying over someone else's property, I was talking about flying over my own!

It makes no difference where you fly, all airspace is under FAA authority. The moment you lift off from your own private land, you are under FAA rules.