Would someone please settle this..can a landowner shoot down our drones or not?

[Robbyg]

But did you read the article?



That's actually false, because anyone that's done the reading knows that the FAA's jurisdiction starts 1 micron off the ground. Point being, there is no "500ft" law that is so often quoted in these discussions.

Yes I read it, did you read it?
This 500ft rule has been beaten to death. the fact is that there are very few cases were the owner of a drone have won in a court of law when a drone was shot down on someones property. When these cases do arise it seems to be swayed more by the laws of the state as in regards to the use of a firearm in such a manor and not the fact that the drone was shot down.

We could argue this forever but from what I have read it seems you have a slim chance of winning a case in court if your drone is shot down on someones property and almost zero percent if it's shot down below 83ft. The Laws and the public opinion is not on the drone operators side and the FAA is not moving very fast to clear up this issue.

 

[Gumby]

Please see the attached... don't always base your facts on the way news reports something.. keep in mind that many of their "news reports" have an agenda behind them.

Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[AyeYo]

I haven't read all the court rulings but the most famous one that took place in Kentucky was about privacy. Meridith, the gun owner, was quoted as saying the drone was hovering while his daughter was sunbathing. He even said that if it was moving along, he would not have shot it.

A battlefield of drones and privacy in your backyard


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

Which is a truly absurd ruling, because you aren't allowed to shoot at cars parked in front of your house or people snooping around your house. Everything about that case is laughable and the judge should canned.

Here's a good reference, with many cases cited:

Ownership of Airspace Over Property – Aviation

An entry above the surface of the earth, in the air space in the possession of another, by a person who is traveling in an aircraft, is privileged if the flight is conducted[xi]:

• for the purpose of travel through the air space or for any other legitimate purpose,
• in a reasonable manner,
• at such a height as not to interfere unreasonably with the possessor’s enjoyment of the surface of the earth and the air space above it, and
• in conformity with such regulations of state and federal aeronautical authorities as are in force in a particular state.

Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land[xii]. Thus, a temporary invasion of airspace by aircraft over land of another is privileged so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with persons or property on the land[xiii].

Flight by aircraft in the airspace above the land of another is a trespass, only if[xiv]:

• entry into the immediate reaches of the airspace next to the land is involved, and
• entry interferes substantially with the owner’s actual use and enjoyment of his land.

 

[AyeYo]

Yes I read it, did you read it?
This 500ft rule has been beaten to death. the fact is that there are very few cases were the owner of a drone have won in a court of law when a drone was shot down on someones property. When these cases do arise it seems to be swayed more by the laws of the state as in regards to the use of a firearm in such a manor and not the fact that the drone was shot down.

We could argue this forever but from what I have read it seems you have a slim chance of winning a case in court if your drone is shot down on someones property and almost zero percent if it's shot down below 83ft. The Laws and the public opinion is not on the drone operators side and the FAA is not moving very fast to clear up this issue.

The fact that people are drone scared and you're unlikely to win a case because of it does not change what the laws actually say and the fact that with a competent lawyer and a judge that interprets laws rather than tries to create them, you would win. There is no "500ft" rule. There is no precedent for it being ok to shoot down a drone at any height for any reason other than it shooting at you.

 

[DJ Kim]

Just had a big debate with my engineer that says he could shoot down my drone if I flew it over his house. I said really can you shoot down a helicopter flying over your house too? He didn't know how to answer that.

So then he brings up that he talked to a lawyer and they looked it up and said that people own the air space above their house(which I am not sure even that is true) but then I said even if that is true that doesn't give you the right to shoot down a drone flying over your property temporarily.

So can I have a definitive answer on this subject please?

It's interesting how this topic always get mixed up with privacy, trespassing or ownership legality.
it's really simple to answer your question: shooting an aircraft for whatever reason is illegal.

There are a bunch of other legal issues that may or may not have a laws clearly defined:
who owns the airspace? at what altitude? the law is unclear and FAA/state/local governments are trying to define it.
that decision will define the trespassing issue.
invasion of privacy is completely another matter. you don't have to be on someone's property to violate the reasonable expectation of privacy.
discharging a firearm from your house is completely another matter. state, county, city laws are different. aircraft, vehicle or into a mound of dirt, you may or may not be able to discharge the weapon.

the bottomline to answer your question is simple: shooting at an aircraft is simple and clearly illegal federally.

 

[oldtrapper]

Just had a big debate with my engineer that says he could shoot down my drone if I flew it over his house. I said really can you shoot down a helicopter flying over your house too? He didn't know how to answer that.

So then he brings up that he talked to a lawyer and they looked it up and said that people own the air space above their house(which I am not sure even that is true) but then I said even if that is true that doesn't give you the right to shoot down a drone flying over your property temporarily.

So can I have a definitive answer on this subject please?

Nope, he is not entitled to. There is a recent courtcase with final decision. The judge avoided to talk about airspace since FAA states that government owns everthing from 1 inch above your grass ... which is not yet settled. Instead the judge said that the shooter endangers anyone being hurt by the falling drone. Above the ground is by far more wind than on the flat ground and noone can predict where the uav burns in. Endangering other person is against the law and your are not allowed to shoot at a drone no matter whether it's above your ground or on public or neighbours premises.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

You are ignoring the fact that it is a felony to harm or interfere with the flight of ANY aircraft, including an unmanned one. As of the decision FAA vs. Pirker, the FAA defines all uavs, model or otherwise, to be aircraft.

 

[theOz24]

Googled "can I shoot a drone" and found this. oldtrapper answered the question but linking a reference.

According to the FAA “regardless of the situation, shooting at any aircraft — including unmanned aircraft — poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. ”
To reach this justification, the FAA turned to 18 U.S.C. 32, a law that in part expands “United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.” The FAA, as the part of government that oversees that sky, could have made an exception when applying this law to small, uncrewed aircraft. That it didn’t fits into a larger pattern: whenever the FAA is given the opportunity to treat drones as regular aircraft, it chooses to do so. That means pilot’s licenses for drone business operators, and it means that when the FAA bans aircraft for miles around the Super Bowl, that ban applies to drones too.

It Is A Federal Crime To Shoot Down A Drone, Says FAA

So that does indeed answers the OP's question. An emphatic "no".


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

Interesting that nobody has mentioned the inherent danger of firing a weapon into the air. Jimbobjo shoots at little Johnny's Mavvie flying over his house and the bullet lands some miles away and kills someone. THAT is the real problem with anyone 'fixin' to blow someone's drone out of the air.

I don't have to worry about that because I only shoot drones down with a shotgun!

 

[PropPilot]

So you must use that ammunition where the pellets from the shells dissolve while they travel through the air. I had heard about those ;-)

 

[gixxerbill]

Interesting that nobody has mentioned the inherent danger of firing a weapon into the air. Jimbobjo shoots at little Johnny's Mavvie flying over his house and the bullet lands some miles away and kills someone. THAT is the real problem with anyone 'fixin' to blow someone's drone out of the air.

dude if someone uses a shotgun its not going to hurt anyone on the ground.

 

[gixxerbill]

So you must use that ammunition where the pellets from the shells dissolve while they travel through the air. I had heard about those ;-)

doesnt need to. shotgun pellets coming back down do not hurt(they have no force) I have been peppered numberous times bird hunting and it did nothing to me.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Can: file a tresspassing report if below some number of feet (88?).
Can not: shoot it down.

That said,

Interesting that nobody has mentioned the inherent danger of firing a weapon into the air. Jimbobjo shoots at little Johnny's Mavvie flying over his house and the bullet lands some miles away and kills someone. THAT is the real problem with anyone 'fixin' to blow someone's drone out of the air.

Most people shooting at a drone will use a shotgun. Shotgun pellets just don't carry very far, nor do they land with much force after being shot upward.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Can: file a tresspassing report if below some number of feet (88?).
Can not: shoot it down.

That said,


Most people shooting at a drone will use a shotgun. Shotgun pellets just don't carry very far, nor do they land with much force after being shot upward.

How far does a shotgun reach?

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Just had a big debate with my engineer that says he could shoot down my drone if I flew it over his house. I said really can you shoot down a helicopter flying over your house too? He didn't know how to answer that.

So then he brings up that he talked to a lawyer and they looked it up and said that people own the air space above their house(which I am not sure even that is true) but then I said even if that is true that doesn't give you the right to shoot down a drone flying over your property temporarily.

So can I have a definitive answer on this subject please?

Definitive? Surely you jest!

One answer that makes sense: No more than you can shoot Billy for crossing your lawn on his way to school.

One can file charges of trespassing. Whether that goes up to 83 feet (Causby), or 365 feet (Causby), or 500 feet (FAA minimum enroute AGL in unpopulated areas) is hard to say (in the US). The courts have _yet_ to settle this where drones are concerned.

One can file charges of "peepingtomery" (invasion of privacy). I'd suggest he have counter surveillance of the drone to press that. If the drone is just "passing", that's one thing; if the drone is loitering, then that is something else.

Old law (pre-aviation) held that a land owner (US) owned his land from the depths of hell (centre of the earth), its surface and to the ends of heaven. (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos). Which would make us all gazzillionaires if you think of all the galaxies that fall into your personal pyramid of space. Want a new 'benz for the kid? Just borrow it against the mineral rights of whatever dozens of galaxies you own.

That all ended with commercial aviation. That effectively capped ownership air rights to 500' AGL in most places (not near airports). That zone from surface to 500' is ambiguous. The FAA has set a 100' buffer zone between "legal" drone opps and legal aircraft ops which normally preclude flight below 500' (unpopulated areas) except for landing/takeoff and in sparsely settled areas and over open water.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

How far does a shotgun reach?

Depends what's loaded but lethal (take down a deer) with heavy shot (00) is usually less than 50 yards. (Not talking about slugs). Fire it up at a drone (good chance of hitting it) but the shot that misses is losing steam quick - more so if lighter shot is used.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Depends what's loaded but lethal (take down a deer) with heavy shot (00) is usually less than 50 yards. (Not talking about slugs). Fire it up at a drone (good chance of hitting it) but the shot that misses is losing steam quick - more so if lighter shot is used.

I usually fly at 400'. So that shouldn't be an issue then for me.

 

[Flying Irish]

The laws are now very vague but using the old standard you can shoot down a drone that is flying 500ft or less over your property. The FAA has challenged that because a conflicting law says that the FAA has the right to govern all airspace from ground up. The FAA wants the legal limit to be changed but they have so far made no moves to do it.
So yes if someone shoots down a drone that is less than 500 ft over their property it is legal.

Rob

That would mean my 400ft ceiling, or even less in area "D" with a legal ceiling of 200 ft

 

[Wombat55]

OK, I think the current state of laws concerning drones and aircraft overflying someone's land has been pretty much laid out here. So let me bring up the issue from a practical perspective: If you're hovering your drone 20 or 30 feet from the ground in your neighbor's property then, sure, he's going to feel that that's an invasion of privacy I don't blame him. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that any homeowner is going to angry over the fact an aircraft flew over his property at 15,000 to 45,000 feet. Obviously, there's some altitude at which most all homeowners will accept that overflights do not constitute an invasion of privacy.

You can fly the Mavic at an altitude of over 300 feet (or 100 meters). At such altitudes it can be difficult to quickly spot the Mavic visually. Hard to believe that most homeowners would object to a flight over their land at that altitude based on invasion of privacy (and even if they did, it probably wouldn't be easy to shoot down a moving Mavic at that altitude).

 

[tcope]

There is no precedent for it being ok to shoot down a drone at any height for any reason other than it shooting at you.

Unfortunately there _is_ legal precedent for this. It's not correct... but there is a court ruling (KY). Its a well known fact that judges rule all of the time based on their feelings about an issue and not the law.