Why does almost everyone hate drones?

<blockquote>

<p>It's really simple. Destroying a drone that does not belong to you is not legal. There's no more to it than that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. But Andy is suggesting that he'd like to pursue some sort of local law to make it legal. Can't happen. He'd have to get the federal laws changed, which is NOT going to happen. The feds may be about to make it absurdly more difficult for some realtor to fly a 3-pound, $150 toy up to 30 feet for some quick snapshots of a landscaping job ... but they're never going to make it easier for Andy to destroy somebody else's equipment in the air. Even the <em>hint</em> that there are circumstances in which that would be acceptable would produce all sorts of consequences among people who are far less thoughtful than Andy is on the subject. </p>

Matt, clearly we disagree. More likely than not this will get tested soon, but I'm very confident that something along the

lines of what I'm thinking of - a legal way to exclude drones from private property - is possible. It is of course true that a

property owner has a right to exclude others from property and that this includes some amount of air space. This is a

separate issue from the legality of operating a drone in a general sense. The FAA regulates aircraft but that doesn't mean

states don't also regulate aircraft and individuals don't regulate them on private property. The right to fly over a property at

transit altitude is an exception to the traditional rule that extended a property owner's rights upward infinitely. It does not

apply at low altitude. For example, there is no general right to fly a helicopter low over a celebrity's back yard to

photograph them. You also don't have a right to throw rocks over my house or suspend a chair over my lawn. The fact

that a small aircraft is used instead of a helicopter, rock or a crane with a chair attached does not make the trespass

lawful. Those are all state law matters and these drone problems are also going to need state law solutions.

 

It may be that allowing destruction of drones on private property never becomes practical enough to actually allow, so a

better alternative that would serve the same function might be making flying a drone over private property below some

reasonable level explicitly a civil trespass with statutory damages. If that level were, say, 400 feet, there would still be the

opportunity to go past a private property by flying between 400 and 500, while also preventing unreasonable intrusions.

<p>>>> What this entire area needs is more education. Somewhat more for the users (especially the newbies), and a LOT more for the general public who seem to get most of their information from incredibly bad sensationalist journalism.</p>

<p>I think that should be reversed. Much too easy to reflexively blame the public and the media as so often happens in other situations. From the 650 plus encounters reported to the FAA this year through August 9 and projected to reach 1,000 by the end of the year, there is a serious problem with respect to operator education. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/faa-records-detail-hundreds-of-close-calls-between-airplanes-and-drones/2015/08/20/5ef812ae-4737-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html">Here's another recent story.</a></p>

<p>Just a few days ago there was a near collision with a life-flight medical helicopter in Florida. Similar life-flight encounters have occurred in California (within a few yards) and Ohio. And the interference with wildfire firefighter and air tanker interference mentioned above.</p>

<p>Clearly "somewhat more" education for drone operators is not enough. Fortunately, lawmakers as well as the FAA do listen to the concerns of the public and commercial pilots, and will act accordingly with expanded regulations and laws. The Air Line Pilots Association is weighing in on for-pay commercial use of drones including certifying operators and equipment to the same levels as general aviation and commercial aircraft. That's a good start, but much more is needed to address irresponsible hobbyist usage.</p>

<p>Of course it's an operator problem. Just like kiddy porn is not a camera problem. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the shotgun approach (JK, sort of). Sure it has it's difficulties. But consider what the other solutions require. These puppies are selling by the thousands. From simple relatively cheap consumer/hobbyist models to big, expensive professional models. </p>

<p>How do you intend/expect to identify the operator of a drone that is "trespassing?" It flies in, does it's thing, flies away. Register them and apply common sense drone controls and background checks on the owners? Require waiting periods? Drone operators will learn to be responsible just like the papparazzi are in following celebrities? Seriously? </p>

<p>OTOH, shotgunning them. as satisfying as it might be, isn't going to be that easy. They'll fly higher and faster and do a little jinking and get away anyways.</p>

<p>Do you really want your neighbor to be shooting at drones buzzing their property so close to your house and kids? I suppose he could claim he thought it was a UFO with little green men. But no one's going to accept that it's OK to put other people in his dangerous sights because some drone was trespassing. That's more reckless than the original infraction. </p>

Blood brings about change in aviation. It always has. One of these days a drone is going to get tangled up in a jet

engine compressor and shut down an engine. We know that a small number of geese did this and shut down both

engines on an airplane that wound up in the Hudson River. A fat goose weighs about 11 pounds or so pounds, I

think. A single goose will usually will not cause an accident unless it causes a fire or a compressor to shed blades.

Four of five geese are a different story. Until there is a collision that draws blood there won't be much accelerated

action. This is not a unique scenario. Aviation licensing standards came about as aircraft became more complex

and air traffic grew and people died in accidents. This partially regulated UAV operation is growing. I was looking at

drones in Best Buy the other day. They are small and light for the most part. They weigh less than a fat goose

although today they are allowed to weigh 55 pounds. I will guarantee that just about 55 pounds of anything will

damage any airplane large or small moving at approach speeds. There are specific questions that need to be

answered. They include what is the real accident rate between UAVs and other aircraft. There have been no known

accidents as of yet although the near miss data shows increasing exposure. Manufacturers are beginning to install

safeguards like airport data bases that can lead to a drone landing if one gets too near an airport, altitude limiters,

and a rudimentary collision avoidance system. Airlines have collision avoidance systems installed that warn and

dictate avoidance maneuvers. Something similar using simple sensors could be installed on UAVs. I wonder if a

twenty pound UAV would set off an airline collision avoidance system. There should be testing for knowledge of

UAV rules for all drone operators, IMO. Use of mini drones under four pounds should probably be exempt as their

potential for causing damage is low but we should remember that birds don't weigh much either. We are in a growth

period where many questions cannot yet be answered. We need to wait and see until we get a blood driven set of

priorities. However this begs the question about what we do about the drone operations now and as they expand as

the development of permanent regulations seems slow. There are interim regs now that allow waivers for

commercial use and licensing. There are a significant number of unlicensed commercial operations already

underway. As for shooting at drones that cure is worse than the problem it tries to solve. As I remember from my

hunting days the kill range of a shotgun is only about 45 yards and trying to hit a moving drone with a rifle is difficult

and would scatter spent bullets. What I fear is that the time will come when we are overcome by events as

unstoppable UAV usage grows. But then again, if drones are strictly operated in defined areas by careful operators

the problem may not be that large. However, that may not be reality as unauthorized use is already a problem. Today we have technology undreamed of a few short years ago. Drone manufacturers are adopting it. It may ameliorate a significant portion of the now perceived risk.

<p>>>> Blood brings about change in aviation.</p>

<p>I hope it doesn't come come to that with the abundance of data that has been collected, and the continuing extraordinary growth seen in the drone industry,</p>

<p>I wonder if it would be too far-fetched to consider active transponders in drones over a certain weight/size, say five pounds. That would at least help in identification allowing traffic controllers to communicate with aircraft pilots about nearby unauthorized drone activity. I suspect there are cases where pilots might not even be aware of nearby too-close drones, and also not seen by traffic controller radar due to their size.</p>

<p>Hopefully it doesn't take engine shutdowns or damaged windshields to cause lawmakers/regulators to act. That does make me wonder why the FAA so far, has not disclosed details of drone-aircraft encounters, as reported in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/faa-records-detail-hundreds-of-close-calls-between-airplanes-and-drones/2015/08/20/5ef812ae-4737-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html">Washington Post story.</a></p>

<p>The issue is always going to be an "operator" issue. Operators are going to have to learn what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Laws and regulations and common sense will only go so far. Part of the problem is that this does run from the sub $1K hobbiest models down to cheap toys and up through serious purpose made remote controlled UAVs. One size federal regulation won't work well.</p>

<p>And I think we all really know how well "people" do in a regulated environment. The prisons are full of people who can't or won't adjust to social norms. </p>

Helicopters from an Army Air Field near my community used to fly MEDEVAC patients to a trauma center and fly over the housing area. This brought a lot of complaints and required a constant PR effort by the Army to quiet the anger. Getting back to photography, I can see the value of drones for a lot of those powerful aerials. I can think of the famous shot of the Atlanta train yards filled with bodies in Gone With the Wind. It took a powerful mighty crane to get up that high. LIkely a powerful mighty crew and some negotiation with the county as well. The aerial opening shot of West Side Story. As well as the aforementioned mountain vista opening the film Soud of Music. Some TV productions like Poldark show the West Coast of Britain in its sweeping panorama. If drones eliminate the need for a chopper in videography I do not hate the technology. Even as I do not hate the eye in the sky sattelites that snoop on weapons installations ( and maybe my backyard sun baths too :-)). I guess the noise pollution and the accident possibilities in commercial aviation must be brought to heel. This is a subject for negotiation and licensing,not hate or finger pointing. This is the point of limits on height, noise level, and location of aircraft. And these are not cranes but aircraft. Come to think of it there are municipal laws and licensing relating to crane safety, right?