Police came by my house

[FormerMember07122019_2]

I haven't flown near many animals but I did fly over a pond with some cattle with my M1P and they were barely interested.


View attachment 60802

I have flown my M2P within 50ft of deer and wild turkeys (not the kind you drink) and the reaction was identical to these cows, not much, if any.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

I have flown my M2P within 50ft of deer and wild turkeys (not the kind you drink) and the reaction was identical to these cows, not much, if any.

So what you're saying is that Cows and Turkeys have a more reality based grasp of safety than most people?

(I wouldn't argue that by the way) lol

Regards
Ari

 

[Kingram]

This is not true, they must be in violation of a law or ordinance.

Her is my city noise law , I don't think the Mavic 2 is noisy enough to violate this law , but maybe the Mavic Air lol

 

[RayOZ]

Why? Why is it better to stop doing what we enjoy to satisfy their paranoia? And then, why stop with just drones? Maybe the next thing is they don't like you parking the car pointing towards their house!

I'm sorry but they need to realize they are in the wrong which they probably won't, but as long as OP isn't breaking any laws and has made a best effort, too bad. I'd try to start a conversation as long as they were not crazy people.

Because I don't like confrontations and dealing with people who think their rights are more important than others. You can't control how other people think or react, but you can control your own actions. My action is to find somewhere to fly where I won't be bothered.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

My action is to find somewhere to fly where I won't be bothered.

When I'm flying for fun, which sadly is less and less now days, I'm totally with you Ray. I'd rather just move on than argue the point.

When I'm flying on the job I don't have that luxury. Someone has paid me to complete a job, I've gone through all the processes, checked the charts, airspace requirements, obtained any permissions needed, done the JSA and all the paperwork, dotted all the i s and crossed all the t s and then because a paranoid or ego driven individual thinks they know the rules I should tuck tail and run? Sorry, can't do that.

As I've said before, "polite respectful confidence" is the best approach with these individual (or the police). If they won't engage I just open up my flight case, take out one of my pre prepared photocopies of CASR 101, My RePL, Insurance details and hand it to them and say "there you go, read through that, if you have any further concerns please call CASA or the local police and now if you don't mind, you''re not allowed to be within 30M of me would you please move behind the signage or I'll have no choice but to call the police myself".

Remembering, I've already had to abort a flight and land perhaps in the middle of a pre programmed waypoint mission and wasted a battery and my time to deal with their self importance for a start and as I almost always make arrangement to take off and land from private property to avoid local council red tape (like the $800 they want to sting me in Brisbane to take off and land from council land for example, I'm in Logan here) they're generally trespassing if they've walked up to me. For that matter what part do they not understand of the reflective safety gear boldly labeled

C.A.S.A. Certified Remote Pilot
Aviation Ref No *******
Stay 30M Clear

I'm all for avoiding drama whenever and where ever I can, I've had a lot of success avoiding problems and have far more "pleasant educational public encounters" than "raging egos" but there has to be a balance somewhere and tugging the forelock and shuffling off like a whipped cur every time someone gets their gonads in an uproar is not balance.

I want to stress, 98.5% of public encounters I have the person who approaches me might be a little concerned, or just curious. If they are open to civilised discussion then I never begrudge landing and dealing with these people, I answer all the questions, let them look at the display, play back some video, some of them even get a go on the sticks if the envornment lends itself to a learner (and are always delighted, reassured and amazed that it's "so safe and easy that even they can fly it!!"). These encounters I consider investment in the future of the hobby and the industry, and to be honest I just down right enjoy it especially the kids and the oldies. The kids over 70 are sometimes the most fun

The other 1.5% of closed minded bigots, well What else can we do? I totally respect recreational fliers who just don't want to be drawn into a confrontation but as I've said before, if we let ourselves be "run out of town on a rail" when we're within our legal rights then soon we're going to abdicate those rights by default. You don't deal effectively with bullies by placating them.

Regards
Ari

 

[Donny66]

I flew a few times this weekend ... Lol good night team Mavic Pilots!!! Life is too short and we need to enjoy our wonderful hobby and these people need to get a life, or a hobby ... and definitely get **** !! Lol

 

[Donny66]

I flew a few times this weekend ... Lol good night team Mavic Pilots!!! Life is too short and we need to enjoy our wonderful hobby and these people need to get a life, our a hobby ... and definitely get L$&@ !! Lol

By the way a bird tried to attack my Mavic Zoom about 25 feet from landing at my house (I think a hawk or a vulture) couldn’t tell but I landed fine.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

By the way a bird tried to attack my Mavic Zoom about 25 feet from landing at my house (I think a hawk or a vulture) couldn’t tell but I landed fine.

I do a lot of flying in rural areas (prefer it ... less idio..... err people) and virtually every time I fly something with feathers wants to kamikaze my aircraft, now of course being Australia we all know our birds are way meaner than your birds but still at times I wonder why?

Anyway, best tip for new pilots. Don't try and run for home and land if attacked by a bird of prey, it's faster and can do anything your R.P.A. can do but better.....except climb or descend vertically. If attacked flick over into sport or ATTI mode and hover and just wait for them to make the pass. When they are about 20-30 feet away (depends how fast the bird is) and lined up as they will usually be diving at you, climb as fast as you can. When they undershoot wash off some hight again as they turn. Then wait for the next pass and "wash lather repeat". It takes a bit of nerve and any number of passes but in the end the bird will tire, THEN fly home and land.

It's not a 100% magic bullet, depends on your timing, how much battery you have etc but it's your best shot because if they want you that bad in any sort of horizontal flight they'll get you.

Regards
Ari

 

[Maviac]

My only comment here is that I hope nobody tries to rely on the “legal” advice or commentary given in this thread. There have been some grossly incorrect and incomplete claims made so far. At least a few folks have pointed out, more correctly, that it’s unclear.

The reality here is that there are thousands, maybe 10s of thousands, of different disorderly conduct laws/ordinances in the US alone, with a huge range of what qualifies. I don’t think this would likely qualify under any I’ve ever read, but there is no possible way to make a blanket statement that it is or isn’t (and federal preemption rules are complex and not at all open and shut).

Same with nuisance. It doesn’t sound like there would be a civil nuisance claim either, but I can imagine similar circumstances where there could be. Anyone who makes a blanket statement that it is, isn’t, or couldn’t be misunderstands basic principles of how the law works (which I guess is a pretty blanket statement) because statutory and common law are different everywhere.

Not to mention privacy rights and other potential areas of civil law. Even though the FAA regulates airspace, do their rules preempt local laws on cameras?

Source: me, who deals with similar issues (and frankly far more complex preemption issues) for a living.

Also, for the record, the OP didn’t do anything wrong and dealt with this appropriately, as far as I can tell.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

@Maviac

I wouldn't know where to start with U.S. law. Compared to Australia America is far more prone to litigation. Here you're more likely to get a punch in the mouth than sued lol More expensive on the dental front but far simpler

As it stands now we have it a *lot* easier in Australia. Currently C.A.S.A. by Commonwealth decree is the sole arbiter of airspace and aviation safety legislation, the police have no jurisdiction unless you are breaching some other non R.P.A. related law like trespass or public nuisance or similar and can't even ask to see your credentials (this is about the change later this year).

We are informed by the C.A.S.A. endorsed training organisations that to date there has never been a successful "privacy" based R.P.A. litigation in Australia and legal opinion is that none could be successfully mounted under the current legislative regime which of course never fore saw R.P.A. and I'm sure will catch up sooner rather than later.

With a very few exceptions (Mostly National parks) local or state governments can make all the rules they want and enforce them if you are on the ground in their area but once you are 1mm off the ground it's back to C.A.S.A, so for commercial operations we usually just get permission to take off and land from private property adjoining where we need to operate and follow the C.A.S.A. regulations.

Currently there is no such thing as a "No Fly Zone" in Australia, the last two were repealed last year. They are now disignated "Restricted" RA1, RA2 and RA3 and you can request permission of the controlling authority for exemption, even recreational pilots can ask for a RA1 or RA2 exemption (Good Luck with RA3)

I know it's far FAR more convoluted in the U.S. and we have it a lot easier, but I'm sure they'll catch up here given time :/ .

I agree that you should always consult an expert in the jurisdiction you are operating in. I was on the phone today talking to experts ensuring I had my insurance cover right from the legal angles. You just can't play fast and loose.

Regards
Ari

 

[noosaguy]

Obviously laws change from country to country but here is Australia, we're not allowed to fly within 30m of another persons, building, boats or vehicles. That's 100' so unless we're in rural environment, flying from your own backyard is illegal.

 

[DanMan32]

US isn't that much different as far as jurisdiction is concerned. People still complain though so law enforcement still have to investigate mostly on the basis of possible violation of non-FAA laws.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

we're not allowed to fly within 30m of another persons,

Totally correct for recreational pilots. My RePL and ReOC manuals with approved procedures reduce that to 15m but the requirements are strict.

not allowed to fly within 30m of , building, boats or vehicles.

It's actually stated along the manner of "may not overfly populous areas or operate in such a manner as to endanger other aircraft, structures or property" without a distance given except for persons but it might as well say 30m for the average pilot.

flying from your own backyard is illegal.

Not exactly correct but might as well be in most cases, you can fly inside your own property as a recreational pilot as long as you can do it in such a way as you comply with all the standard operating conditions which obviously for the average suburban block is not possible so out of the question as you say.

If you lived in my block which is atypically large and borders a large bushland area on one side not roads or other properties even a recreational pilot could (probably) get away with ascending from my rear fenceline and fly out over the bush. In my case I didn't leave it to chance however and did a formal Job Safety Assessment with risk assessment and threat and error management measures in place all documented and lodged with the Chief Pilot to cover my butt 110%. This wouldn't be an option for a recreational pilot of course.

Regards
Ari

 

[Diletanten]

I think that flights below 365 feet over private property can be considered as trespassing.

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), a United States Supreme Court Decision related to ownership of airspace above private property .

The Court held that title to land includes domain over the lower altitudes.

Flights above 365 feet (111 m) were considered within the public easement declared by congress.

The court held the public's right of flight does not extend downward to the earth's surface. finding "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" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it."

 

[kilomikebravo]

D: Now THAT is a VERY interesting post and I'm surprised it has never come up here before (or at least I haven't seen this case mentioned previously.) Since it's a Supreme Court decision, I'd say that supercedes the notion that the FAA controls the atmosphere to the ground.

BTW, are you an attorney?

 

[Maviac]

I think that flights below 365 feet over private property can be considered as trespassing.

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), a United States Supreme Court Decision related to ownership of airspace above private property .

The Court held that title to land includes domain over the lower altitudes.

Flights above 365 feet (111 m) were considered within the public easement declared by congress.

The court held the public's right of flight does not extend downward to the earth's surface. finding "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" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it."

Interesting case. I probably read it at some point but don’t remember it. I’ll take a closer look later, but I am not going to lose any sleep over this. The court mentioned that the question was not whether congress could legislatively control airspace at a certain height, which was not before the court. And as a Takings Clause case, I don’t think it’s necessarily applicable to a trespass case (but maybe; as I said I’ll take a closer look later).

The real issue, I think, is preemption. Generally property issues are state-law concerns, but if Congress (or the FAA through legislative mandate) say otherwise, then there’s preemption (although the extent of the preemption is a hugely complex question), subject to potential Supremacy Clause issues.

Anyway, good catch.

 

[Maviac]

@Maviac

I wouldn't know where to start with U.S. law. Compared to Australia America is far more prone to litigation. Here you're more likely to get a punch in the mouth than sued lol More expensive on the dental front but far simpler

As it stands now we have it a *lot* easier in Australia. Currently C.A.S.A. by Commonwealth decree is the sole arbiter of airspace and aviation safety legislation, the police have no jurisdiction unless you are breaching some other non R.P.A. related law like trespass or public nuisance or similar and can't even ask to see your credentials (this is about the change later this year).

We are informed by the C.A.S.A. endorsed training organisations that to date there has never been a successful "privacy" based R.P.A. litigation in Australia and legal opinion is that none could be successfully mounted under the current legislative regime which of course never fore saw R.P.A. and I'm sure will catch up sooner rather than later.

With a very few exceptions (Mostly National parks) local or state governments can make all the rules they want and enforce them if you are on the ground in their area but once you are 1mm off the ground it's back to C.A.S.A, so for commercial operations we usually just get permission to take off and land from private property adjoining where we need to operate and follow the C.A.S.A. regulations.

Currently there is no such thing as a "No Fly Zone" in Australia, the last two were repealed last year. They are now disignated "Restricted" RA1, RA2 and RA3 and you can request permission of the controlling authority for exemption, even recreational pilots can ask for a RA1 or RA2 exemption (Good Luck with RA3)

I know it's far FAR more convoluted in the U.S. and we have it a lot easier, but I'm sure they'll catch up here given time :/ .

I agree that you should always consult an expert in the jurisdiction you are operating in. I was on the phone today talking to experts ensuring I had my insurance cover right from the legal angles. You just can't play fast and loose.

Regards
Ari

A friend of mine who does personal injury work practiced for a while in Australia. She pointed out that while there is less litigation there than the US, it’s largely because the compensation systems are more fair and companies tend to be more accountable. Of course, given what she does, there’s some bias in that view, but I can say that a large part of the spike in US litigation is corporate defendants that refuse to be reasonable on legitimate cases. I’ve never been hit for attorneys’ fees for frivolous litigation (I represent both plaintiffs and defendants) but I’ve gotten a lot of fees awarded in my favor against big corporations that raised frivolous defenses or were abusive in their disclosures.

Anyway, glad to hear you’re on top of things as far as insurance. A shocking number of people don’t understand the basics of what they need to do to protect themselves, or at least don’t call an expert to help hem out (case in point, “based on a real case”: a wealthy family who bought their son a new Ferrari but only got minimum insurance. He then killed someone in a wreck. They were a lot less wealthy after that, and could have fully protected themselves for a few thousand dollars per year).

 

[CaptBill]

Interesting case. I probably read it at some point but don’t remember it. I’ll take a closer look later, but I am not going to lose any sleep over this. The court mentioned that the question was not whether congress could legislatively control airspace at a certain height, which was not before the court. And as a Takings Clause case, I don’t think it’s necessarily applicable to a trespass case (but maybe; as I said I’ll take a closer look later).

The real issue, I think, is preemption. Generally property issues are state-law concerns, but if Congress (or the FAA through legislative mandate) say otherwise, then there’s preemption (although the extent of the preemption is a hugely complex question), subject to potential Supremacy Clause issues.

Anyway, good catch.

I can almost guarantee that the local police (municipality) and DA's office wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft. pole. Too gray.

 

[jsinon]

My son, also a multiple drone owner just like me, is a police officer. He just told me that last night, he also had a call from a citizen complaining about a neighbor flying a drone and was concerned about this neighbor filming his kids. My son talked to all involved and determined that the pilot was simply flying over to return home from a short mission. He told the complaining party that it was no different than a car driving by with the occupants having cell phone camera's. It seemed the complaining party was bent on keeping the guy from flying, period. Fortunately, the pilot agreed to fly elsewhere.

Someone's misguided paranoia is not my problem. As long as I'm flying legally, I'm not going out of my way to placate their irrational fears. Unless there is a legal reason that requires the OP to stop flying from his back yard, I'd first tell the complaining neighbors what I'm doing, and that I have zero interest in spying on them, and if that's not good enough, then well, too bad for them.

 

[jsinon]

This is not true, they must be in violation of a law or ordinance.

I was thinking the same thing! How in the world could you be charged with any kind of crime if you're not breaking any laws. The guys "loud music" analogy was a pretty poor one too, since most towns have noise ordinances.