It's going to be a great time when the crows, raccoons, and other semi-intelligent wildlife discover that these drones have food in them at seemingly random reward schedules.
Sure, you can give the drones little tasers to keep the animals away, depending on your locality. But knowing what I know about bears and crows, almost nothing is going to stop them. Especially when some influencer jerk tries tempting a bunch of them with a box just oozing honey or some other high value food.
aeternum 20 hours ago [-]
>almost nothing is going to stop them
Except for those 4-8 prop blades spinning at high rpm. Then multiple layers of packaging to get the item. It'll be interesting to see if it actually happens, my prediction is that trash bags will still be preferable risk/reward.
wiether 15 hours ago [-]
According to the company's own video, there's a lot of attack surface outside of the blades.
And birds incidents with actual planes show that it's not the same reasoning as human warfare : inflicting damage to the enemy while taking none.
For delivery companies it won't matter if the birds got out safely or died in the process of destroying their $$$$ drones.
I would argue it would be worse for the company if the birds died because once that gets all over the Internet I have a feeling that demand for any service that kills birds would drop significantly.
mystified5016 8 hours ago [-]
Counterpoint: lots of people are still actively advocating for more coal power plants
aeternum 8 hours ago [-]
And more wind turbines which actually do frequently kill birds.
Solar + Nuclear plz
IAmBroom 7 hours ago [-]
Coal kills birds AND humans.
It just doesn't do so directly, so we ignore the number of children who die from pulmonary issues.
sigio 7 hours ago [-]
No more then glass buildings...
collingreen 5 hours ago [-]
Or the food industry
bigiain 1 days ago [-]
Crows are smart, and seem to for relationship with "friendly" humans, and are "trainable".
I wonder how long it'd take to befriend a few crows, and teach them there's valuable stuff in delivery drones?
kelseyfrog 1 days ago [-]
Unfortunately it runs afoul of the same laws against training apes to steal[1] or pickpocket[2].
1. Dunston Checks In (1996)
2. Monkey Trouble (1994)
DaSHacka 1 days ago [-]
I somehow doubt the crows will cough up the perps name when interrogated....
georgemcbay 23 hours ago [-]
They definitely won't, crows are very loyal and they abhor snitches.
stavros 17 hours ago [-]
That's why they get away with their murder.
fuzztester 17 hours ago [-]
crows are know to eat crow.
fuzztester 21 hours ago [-]
then they are traitors
fuzztester 17 hours ago [-]
looks like some people didn't get the word play.
perps + traitors ... :)
or alternatively, which some of us know, HNers don't like humor by some people, but like it by others. seen many examples of that in the past.
dambi0 17 hours ago [-]
Or alternatively the word play wasn’t very good.
bn-l 23 hours ago [-]
I need to review those references.
defrost 23 hours ago [-]
Given the referenced items exist the GP comment has already exceeded the trustworthiness thresholds of current US Federal Govt. reports.
IncRnd 21 hours ago [-]
Verified with the US AI Stamp of Approval
Mistletoe 22 hours ago [-]
These are the kinds of references I’d love to see more of on HN.
throw101010 15 hours ago [-]
It just made me realize how the animal-and-kid genre of movies completely disappeared after the 90s... I guess animated films are much more profitable and less complicated to create.
anitil 23 hours ago [-]
A friend of mine suggested that being able to stop eagles attacking his drones used for land surveying would be worth a lot of money, they often come back with scratches and damage. I'm not sure if he's lost any drones (yet).
hippari2 23 hours ago [-]
I wonder what's stopping them from erecting random wire mesh that will damage drone flying through them.
IAmBroom 9 hours ago [-]
Vertical towers require permits and provably safe design.
3 hours ago [-]
m463 21 hours ago [-]
actually, I've been thinking that with the encroachment of man, birds are up off the ground and are the survivors that coexist with us.
But now I wonder if we will "silent spring" them too.
dzhiurgis 20 hours ago [-]
Have they learned same happens when car delivers food?
I can definitely see a future time when small autonomous air vehicles start to have problems with the local wildlife, either from the thick flocks of grackles in winter or from the more mischievous neighborhood corvids.
seanthemon 1 days ago [-]
They'll have protecto-drones and decoy drones following them until it's so expensive we go back to good ol' launching packages by trebuchet
adolph 12 hours ago [-]
The advantage of the trebuchet or other indirect fires is that the package need not contain and carry a large energy source. For so long as it has enough kinetic energy to maintain maneuverability, soft landing in a yard or porch could be done maybe.
I live in a pretty quiet neighborhood, and I’m not thrilled about the idea of drones flying over my backyard all the time. There’s something really jarring about sitting outside and suddenly hearing that loud buzzing overhead. I don’t think anyone’s really asked regular people how they feel about this kind of thing.
eclipticplane 23 hours ago [-]
The NYPD drones buzz my neighborhood repeatedly during the summer months, and they are relatively small drones. Incredibly loud and distracting. I'm not looking forward to deliveries via heavier, louder drones.
GJim 17 hours ago [-]
That is rather dystopian. I'm surprised the locals let it fly (no pun intended).
mrguyorama 8 hours ago [-]
Fucking with a Cop's toys is a reliably way to suddenly have a lot of trouble with the cops. It doesn't matter what the law says either, because unless you can find a prior case that specifically covers that law, a cop is not required to respect the law.
benced 22 hours ago [-]
Delivery drones are larger and therefore quieter (larger propellor = more pleasant tone and lower RPM) and fly higher than the consumer drones you’re probably familiar with.
IAmBroom 9 hours ago [-]
The assertion that larger drones are quieter than small ones is amusing.
"As you can hear for yourself, this Apache helicopter is nearly unnoticeable next to this handheld drone."
foxyv 9 hours ago [-]
Sounds is a funny thing. My physics professor once had us calculate the energy in the sound of an entire stadium and it wasn't enough to heat a cup of coffee. Sound just doesn't have that much energy. For a few hundred watts you can make an entire neighborhood miserable as any car audio enthusiast can demonstrate.
I routinely have Apache helicopters fly over my house and I prefer them to most of the tiny drones. The helicopters typically have lower frequencies and fly way higher. They also don't have that insect flying by your head buzz that makes my ears hurt.
Aziell 21 hours ago [-]
I still find it pretty distracting. I'm just sitting there trying to chill, and there's this constant buzzing above. Not a fan.
egorfine 15 hours ago [-]
> Not a fan
Are you looking forward to jet-propelled delivery drones?
jamiek88 18 hours ago [-]
>Not a fan.
Well, they are, technically…
daniel-grigg 22 hours ago [-]
Until they drop down to deliver and take off again?
fuzztester 21 hours ago [-]
yes. and how long before they start injuring or killing people because of software bugs or running out of petrol or other fuel?
SoftTalker 1 days ago [-]
In my neighborhood (rural) a drone hovering over someone's property would be likely used as target practice.
If delivery drones become commonplace, there are going to have to be regulations about which air corridors they can use (altitude and routes) or it will be chaos.
tjohns 1 days ago [-]
For what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously. Drones also have cameras.
thih9 1 days ago [-]
The question is so common that it has its own section in the FAA’s drone FAQ
> Can you shoot down drones above your property?
> It’s illegal under federal law to shoot at an aircraft. A private citizen 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. Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in a civil penalty from the FAA and/or criminal charges from federal, state or local law enforcement.
At what height above your property does that come into effect though? According to US v. Causby the FAA only holds jurisdiction above the "minimum safe altitude". Anything below that is your private property.
Naturally the FAA wouldn't be inclined to advertise such lines of thought.
thih9 12 hours ago [-]
Wikipedia says: "Currently, some aircraft, such as helicopters, balloons, and ultralights have no minimum safe altitudes."[1]. I don't know if drone counts as one of them, but I'm not aware of a specific number being listed as a minimum safe altitude for a drone either.
Right but presumably that's a hole in the existing precedent that the court needs to address. I'm reasonably certain that if my neighbor intentionally maneuvers a cherry picker 5 feet over my roof they are trespassing. I can't imagine that changing from a bucket on an arm to a balloon will change that (assuming there's intent).
So at what point does it change from "my property" to "public airspace above my property"? 5 ft? 20 ft? 100 ft? AFAIK we don't currently have a definitive answer. Personally I lean towards the effective range of a 12 gauge.
IAmBroom 9 hours ago [-]
The FAA doesn't rule on cherry pickers, so that isn't a valid analogy.
Drone regulations are solidly established. The law isn't determined by uninformed commenters on a web forum. And "the effective range of a 12 gauge" will result in jail time. I worked for an autonomous drone company that had a price point around $30,000; destroying one of those could be felony-level vandalism.
fc417fc802 51 minutes ago [-]
Then you entirely missed the point of that analogy. The cherry picker is relevant because the courts are unlikely to rule in favor of my neighbor in that case. Based on that, I strongly suspect they would not rule in the FAA's favor either.
The law, including the bounds of FAA jurisdiction, is determined by the courts. The question is under what conditions navigable airspace supersedes private property rights. This isn't a matter of what regulations the FAA has or hasn't published up until now but rather a question of where either the courts or the legislature determine the FAA's jurisdiction begins.
It also rubs up against state's rights since the FAA is a federal entity. I don't think anyone takes too much issue with the federal government regulating activities 30,000 feet up. Many trees in city parks exceed 100 feet though. By the time you're immediately outside the window of a 2 story house I think it's fairly obvious that the federal government doesn't get any say in the matter.
> destroying one of those could be felony-level vandalism.
Presumably the operator of such would have the presence of mind not to intentionally hover one over my lawn, outside the window of my house, within range of a 12 gauge. If they don't, well, honestly I might chance the courts. It would certainly depend on the circumstances though. Related, I've seen a few videos from the drone's perspective of the fire department shooting it down with water when the operator flew too close to an active house fire.
12 hours ago [-]
3 hours ago [-]
potbelly83 10 hours ago [-]
Yeah, yeah, this is what every single drone hobbyist parrots on about when asked this question. However, when was the last time someone was actually charged and convicted (criminal not civil) for shooting down a drone flying over their property.
snypher 35 minutes ago [-]
That guy in Florida is doing 4 years in the fed for shooting down a police drone last year.
Tadpole9181 6 hours ago [-]
When the drones destroyed go from $200 to $20,000 or when the falling drone kills someone, damages a vehicle, or causes a fire, an example will be set.
Right now it's uncommon and largely handled by civil courts.
zelphirkalt 1 days ago [-]
Well,not my country, but I think it is quite a silly and too general rule:
What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_?
So the actual rules need to be more nuanced than this, to prevent people doing crazy shit with their tech gadgets hurting others. They cannot be given free reign in that matter.
Volundr 1 days ago [-]
> What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_?
Are you under the impression that either of these things is legal, and that gunplay is your only recourse?
lmm 24 hours ago [-]
> gunplay is your only recourse?
Having tried to get the authorities to deal with a harassing neighbour even in a big city, that sounds extremely plausible.
john-h-k 1 days ago [-]
The legal system is when you get to shoot at things that break the law
harimau777 24 hours ago [-]
What's the other recourse? Unless you are rich, cops don't care.
happyopossum 22 hours ago [-]
Elect new leaders in your city who will change that. It’s not like that everywhere, and you’re playing in to the hand of the corrupt to pretend otherwise.
HaZeust 20 hours ago [-]
Playing in the hands of the corrupt to remind others of their innate, individualist rights to firearms to protect their lives and property when police aren't a trusted recourse?
Playing in the hands of the corrupt is to shame others for not relying on a fundamentally unreliable police force, in fact.
Tadpole9181 6 hours ago [-]
Guess we can all look forward to the first few cases of people dying from bullets falling after missing an Amazon drone. It's your right to fatally endanger everyone in a 2 mile radius of your house for a minor inconvenience after all.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7?
What if your neighbours climb on your roof and start banging on your windows at night?
anigbrowl 22 hours ago [-]
In many jurisdictions, GP would be within their rights to shoot at them in that case.
Re the FAA rules, there's a clear difference between planes or helicopters going overhead at safe and relatively high altitudes* and drones flying at much lower ones. Occasional passes from hobby or semi-pro drones used by photographers are a minor irritation, but if drone delivery became a regular thing I can see how frequent low altitude flybys would quickly become maddening. relying on existing law for new circumstances generally yields poor results.
* I live quite near a hospital with a helipad so about once a month I have to deal with a helicopter coming under 100 feet (~35m) and making the walls shake.
2 hours ago [-]
fc417fc802 19 hours ago [-]
> relying on existing law for new circumstances generally yields poor results.
I imagine it will remain ambiguous until a sufficiently public stunt forces the issue all the way up to SCOTUS and they determine a concrete minimum distance that must be maintained from structures.
zelphirkalt 1 days ago [-]
If you followed the other comments on this post, you will probably realize, that this is about the airspace above ones house. So a neighbor climbing onto my roof is a completely different matter.
bdangubic 1 days ago [-]
what if neighbour is hovering 1 foot above the roof in a small homemade hot air balloon? :)
incompatible 22 hours ago [-]
Sounds tricky, but they could use a cherry-picker parked in their yard, and swing the boom out over your house. It's only an air-space violation.
fuzztester 21 hours ago [-]
kindly don't airsplit.
metaphor 23 hours ago [-]
> What if your neighbours climb on your roof and start banging on your windows at night?
Worth noting that in the US, castle law[1] is ardently defended and not something to be tested by FAFO.
Parent's point is that you should not apply that methodology in order to test the applicability of castle law in the US, since you might end up dead.
s1artibartfast 1 days ago [-]
I'm not categorically opposed to the idea of shooting them.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
And I'd argue they deserved it. (I'd also expect you to get charged.)
flir 1 days ago [-]
Well.... maybe just one.
Pour encourager les autres and all that.
ryandrake 7 hours ago [-]
> What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof
There are more appropriate legal avenues one can use to curtail harassment, besides blasting away with a firearm.
> What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_?
You can step away and avoid it, or swat it away with a baseball bat, and/or if it hits you, you can sue them for property damage and injury. None of these scenarios require you to fire a deadly weapon into the air.
Honestly, this thread is scary--it reads like a bunch of people yearning to shoot their guns at something and trying desperately to find a wild scenario to justify it.
1 days ago [-]
softg 1 days ago [-]
at that point you could just buy cheap drones yourself and ram those into your neighbor's (oops)
zelphirkalt 1 days ago [-]
Doesn't really sound like a viable solution, as the 10 neighbors have on average 10 times the amount of cash to throw at it.
incompatible 22 hours ago [-]
I really think this is only a small step from neighbors firebombing each other's homes, and all ending up homeless or in prison.
rz2k 1 days ago [-]
They likely know their neighborhood. In my semi-rural neighborhood even discharging a firearm might lead to someone calling the Sheriff. In other neighborhoods armed gangs can apparently confront FEMA without any repercussions. In yet others, they can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences.
ty6853 7 hours ago [-]
>can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences.
... until you realize ~ a dozen of the Malheur were informants, and the 'boat ramp' live fire exercises they touted were orchestrated by a self described "psyops" 20 year swiss military veteran (Fabio Minoggio) on the payroll of the FBI who took on a "supervisory" role. Then the FBI refused to identify the informants during trial, so we don't even know which of the 'armed standoff' members were actual just the government fighting themselves and instigating others along with it.
The more you look into the case the more you find out why the jury acquitted ammon. It looks as if the jury decided the government had a standoff with itself.
mulmen 1 days ago [-]
> In yet others, they can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences.
What situation are you referencing here? First one that comes to mind is Malheur but one of them was killed and 7 went to prison.
anonymars 1 days ago [-]
I imagine they're thinking of the Bundy standoff (which was federal BLM land but not a national park)
To wit:
> The Bundy standoff’s most significant legacy may be the precedent it established: that armed resistance against federal authorities could succeed without serious legal consequences for participants. This outcome has had a profound impact on antigovernment extremist movements, creating what experts describe as “a straight line” connecting Bunkerville to the Capitol riot.
The Obama administration's decision to do nothing in that case is one of several extremely risk averse decisions that seemed questionable at the time and turned out to be quite bad in hindsight. Shrugging off Russia's invasion of Ukraine being another. It shouldn't have been a surprise that letting armed militias break federal law with little to no consequence would encourage further bad behavior.
ty6853 9 hours ago [-]
Lol the Obama administration did not 'do nothing.'
They offered a plea agreement to the Hammonds (cause d'etre of the whole thing), who were then sentenced for a wildland fire under dubious circumstances.
After the sentencing it was a done deal, it was over. Then Obama's DOJ had to stoke the flames and reneg on it -- IIRC after the sentenced had already been served!
It shouldn't have been a surprise what unfolded after the government reneging, in a way that was so egregious that they (the people that were the cause d'etre for the Malheur occupation) were pardoned with the following remarks during the pardon:
"The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most (sic) of the charges." According to his spokesperson Sarah Sanders, who read the statement, "The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison"
So you can see the Malheur occupation was a response to a federal government who engaged in such tyrannical behavior as inducing a plea bargain that gave up right to appeal, then themselves hypocritically appealing the sentence and changing it after the fact to one that was found to violate the 8th amendment by Judge Michael Hogan. The Malheur occupation was a response to this, if Obama had 'done nothing' in the case of the Hammonds or just respected the judge's sentence none of it would have happened. In my estimation Bundy et al was the only thing that brought the Hammonds the visibility to get the justice of a pardon under these circumstances and a restoration of their 8th amendment rights.
mulmen 7 hours ago [-]
I always thought that hesitation was an over-correction after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
ty6853 7 hours ago [-]
The hesitation was likely because something like a dozen of their own guys were in there (which they refused to identify at trial, so we only know the ID of one that was discovered), and the guy leading the live fire exercises, Fabio Minoggio, was a paid FBI informant (now cop) who was "psyops" trained 20 year veteran of the swiss military.
No real need to address the standoff, when the standoff is yourself vs yourself, and your own guy is by his own admission providing a "supervisory" role of the live fire.
mulmen 1 days ago [-]
Interesting. Malheur was led by the same Amon Bundy.
anonymars 23 hours ago [-]
Close! The 2014 standoff was led by Clive Bundy, Ammon's father
ty6853 23 hours ago [-]
Amon Bundy was tried on many charges and his case was closed with prejudice.
The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury.
mulmen 23 hours ago [-]
> The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury.
This is technically correct but is a misleading characterization of the events according to Wikipedia [1].
> The first criminal case resulting from the standoff, against six Bundy supporters, was declared a mistrial by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on April 24, 2017.
> The mistrial was declared hours after the jury convicted two men of some of the 10 counts in the indictment.
The case was declared a mistrial with prejudice due to prosecutorial "misjudgement" that prevented a fair trial of the Bundys.
The Bunkerville trial of Ammon was declared a mistrial with prejudice.
For Malheur he was found 'not guilty' on all charges 'according to wikipedia',
>On October 27, 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty on all counts.[87][88]
Unless you are thinking of another trial of Amon, I think you are mixing up someone else (6 others?) or another event. I admit it is easy to mix it up with Ammon, because the government tried to pin felony charges on him so many time and always hopelessly failed just in multiple ways.
Of course sometimes a criminal just gets away with it, but when the government tries so many felony charges and fails each time, that is when I decided to investigate 'the other side of the coin' and quickly found the portrait portrayed by the media of Ammon is in my estimation highly distorted.
While it will do nothing to convince one way or another of his guilt, I highly recommend listening to some of his interviews and videos and actually trying to understand him, and I think you will be surprised. His ideas and speech were not at all what I expected based on the media portrayal.
Are we reading the same Wikipedia page? Maybe I’ll save a full perusal of his statements for another day, but based on Wikipedia… yes, he has said some surprisingly liberal things about Trump, immigration policy, the Republican party, and Black Lives Matter. On the other hand, he put some hospitals through lockdown, threats of violence, accusations of pedophilia conspiracy, and protesting outside of hospital workers’ homes, all because the hospital put his buddy’s infant grandson into protective care because it was about to die of malnourishment. That’s about what I expect based on his portrayal.
I don’t know exactly how he’s escaped consequences, but I don’t think it’s because he’s actually reasonable and correct.
ty6853 4 hours ago [-]
Take a look at the bodycam regarding the baby taken away:
"Not medically necessary." The baby was not about to die, in fact the doctor admits in the bodycam to manufacturing a story to take Cyrus away via a transfer for cover for removal to foster care. The baby was stable. The hospital then defamed Mr Bundy by lying about the circumstances.
>about to die of malnourishment
Why would a child be discharged straight to CPS foster care with a transfer only to obfuscate that, if the child were about to die? The child is stable, ready for foster care but simultaneously about to die? These are not simultaneously compatible in this context, someone is lying. And I think the end result thankfully bears this out, as the CPS case was ultimately cleared and charges dropped against the mother.
zzrrt 2 hours ago [-]
Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar...
The doctor was saying the baby was stable enough to transport to another hospital, which doesn't contradict the assessment that the baby needed prompt medical care that his caretakers were unjustifiably fighting against. (The baby may have received some immediate treatment that made him safe enough to transport, but not ready to leave hospital care.)
I believe the references to CPS foster parents by the doctor were about the transportation and stay in the hospital, not to immediately discharging from the hospital into a foster home. So the child was stable enough for transportation, under the watch of CPS and also medical professionals, and there was reasonable concern that the child would not get the treatment it needed if discharged to the parents right away. I don't believe there's any contradiction here, in the actual statements, rather than the distorted versions from Bundy.
The baby was returned to its family after approximately a week. That doesn't prove it was totally healthy all along and the parents did nothing wrong. It suggests CPS didn't have a strong case the parents would endanger the baby in the future. Maybe the employees didn't want Bundy followers stalking them at their house, like they did to hospital workers.
ty6853 2 hours ago [-]
>Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall."
No this is the defamatory statement the hospital misleadingly made against Bundy, but in the video she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family and that the transport wasn't even medically necessary but rather was cover. The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family.
Lol you have the video cam right in front of you that contradicts the materially false and malicious defamatory statements against Bundy in this newspaper. I choose to believe the direct recordings of what happened over what an editor says happened, or the testimony the doctor said after the fact when she had months to rehearse with hospital lawyers.
zzrrt 1 hours ago [-]
> she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family
She mentioned a foster mom, not that the purpose of the transfer was to get the baby to the foster mom. And why would it be anyway? You think the state couldn't have released the baby from the first hospital directly to a foster parent? The only thing stopping them was the protesters' presence and knowledge of which locked doors the baby was behind? The baby was already forcibly taken by the state at this point, right? So why does it matter whether it's police, social workers, or foster parents that currently have the baby? The deception made a safe transfer easier perhaps, but it didn't directly enable the transfer.
> The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family.
Sure, she did say the transfer wasn't medically necessary. She said it was to get away from the protesters. Sneaky, probably not illegal. I believe she later said it was a higher standard of care too, but I'll admit that may been said to better justify it as you allude to.
Other things she said in the Idaho Statesman video: "Failure to thrive", lost 0.75lbs since last checkup. Not signs of a baby that was perfectly healthy at home, not something that surprises parents in a matter of hours, completely at odds with Bundy's attempts to say it was healthy. The state was going to move the baby from a hospital to foster care on the diagnosis and data alone, regardless of sneaky hospital transfers to try to defuse the protesters.
ty6853 22 minutes ago [-]
She said verbatim in the bodycam "some time tomorrow, when they don't know, get the baby out with CPS to the foster parents."
There are lots of reasons a baby might lose weight, many of which are not abuse or neglect. Losing a lot of weight does not mean abuse or neglect is involved, it can be some sort of disease or illness unrelated to parental malfeasance. In fact, the baby was initially brought to doctors voluntarily.
This kind of behavior doesn't help kids. It just makes people stop seeking health care and then they avoid any 'mandatory reporter' so their children won't be taken away. Doctors have also recently lead to many children being removed due to unexplained broken bones when really the child had 'broken bone disease'.
>The state was going to move the baby from a hospital to foster care on the diagnosis and data alone, regardless of sneaky hospital transfers to try to defuse the protesters.
That a 'diagnosis and data (of losing weight) alone' (plus, IIRC the baby was having checkups but missed one on a day when the mother was sick) would result in this kind of trickery by a doctor and collusion to take away the child is exactly why Bundy has this kind of support. We're seeing this at scale with other diseases and Bundy is a case of someone actually doing something for justice for the kids to take them back out of a cash-for-kids foster system that has incredibly high rates of abuse, neglect, and loss of children.
ty6853 22 hours ago [-]
The one that was killed was only done so away from Malheur, when the men with badges suddenly became brave again when they had one man and his family out in a bumfuck rural road.
mulmen 17 hours ago [-]
The men with badges didn't "suddenly become brave". This was a planned operation to capture the leaders of the Malheur standoff. I can find no evidence or even claim that the passengers in LaVoy Finicum's truck were his family. He was transporting Ryan Bundy along with Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Payne. Ammon Bundy was in a trailing Jeep. Ammon surrendered in the initial stop but Finicum fled.
After crashing his truck avoiding a roadblock during the high speed pursuit Finicum got out and attempted to draw on officers. He was literally yelling "shoot me" as they shot him.
It appears you are correct about the other members of the truck (though I'm unsure to what extent they were leaders). I had seen the video before but thought them in his family as he raised lots of foster children who may look quite unlike him.
The rest still stands, and the following interesting facts
>An Oregon State Police SWAT member, identified in the trial of FBI agent Astarita as "Officer 1", fired three shots with an AR-15, into Finicum's truck as it approached the roadblock.[144]
>While Finicum was leaving his truck, an FBI Hostage Rescue Team member allegedly fired two shots[146] one of which entered the truck and ricocheted, inflicting the minor shrapnel wound on Ryan Bundy.[32]
... and then apparently after all this, then he 'attempted' (lol) to draw after police shot at him multiple times (which would be wholly inappropriate after someone tried to kill him with an ar-15), except I can't find evidence he actually did draw.
In the aftermath, the police had to lie about the event:
> They later determined that an FBI Hostage Rescue Team member fired twice at Finicum, missed him but injured a second militant in the process. The agent, whose identity was withheld, was under investigation, along with four other FBI agents who were suspected of attempting to conceal evidence of the gunshots. They reportedly told investigators that none of them fired a shot during the incident.[40][41]
So they initiated fire, seemingly had a guilty enough conscious about initiating fire that they lied about it, isolated one old man who didn't draw and executed him. Clap, clap, brave men!
> He was literally yelling "shoot me" as they shot him.
... he was yelling shoot me, I am going to see the sheriff -- after actually being shot at. I realize your theory is that anyone who puts their hand near their pocket who is pocket carrying on a cold day is 'attempting' to draw, of course no matter if you actually tried that defense as anyone but the enforcer class you would lose horribly and have years in jail to think about it. You have a murderous interpretation of self defense here.
7 hours ago [-]
mistrial9 1 days ago [-]
go to any large metro with large poor districts in the USA on New Year's Eve.. also 4th of July.. try and count the firearms.. People have figured out very well how to hide in a crowd. Some of the other circumstances mentioned sound ill-informed TBH
wiether 15 hours ago [-]
What if I'm playing with a kite on my property and a drone collide with it?
gigel82 1 days ago [-]
If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.
op00to 1 days ago [-]
Most localities have laws against invading someone’s privacy. There don’t need to be special laws for every specific type of surveillance.
gigel82 1 days ago [-]
I think more legal clarifications are needed here. If someone comes into your property to mount a trail cam or spy device, I believe you're allowed to remove it (even in a destructive manner). Not sure why the FAA insists a spy device that happens to hover a couple feet above is entitled to more protections...
Brian_K_White 24 hours ago [-]
Because projectiles don't stop at any particular distance and can reach vehicles with humans which are flying over other humans, all of which were innocent of any spying, and most people are complete shit at judging size and distance when looking at objects in the air. (lots of great examples of this with the mystery drones in nj a while back)
I would like to shoot them down too but then I became 12 and a half years old instead of just 12.
As a policy that has to just apply across the board by default, of course the rule has to simply be be that you can not shoot at things in the air. I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons.
Now a tazer or a net or harpoon, all with physically limited tethers... Well there can be no safety argument about whacking something with a baseball bat, and anything with a tether that isn't rocket powered with 1000 feet of range is basically as safe for legit aircraft as a kid with a bat. IE it doesn't matter how inept the yahoo is, their capacity for harm to others is limited to a few people physically very near them, which is the same danger evrryone is to everyone else all the time.
ty6853 23 hours ago [-]
>I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons.
Bird hunting is handled with #8+ bird shot, which at 45+ degree angle it is essentially at terminal velocity by the time it comes down, considering they are basically BBs it is mildly unsafe coming down (as in you'd have to be incredibly unlucky) anywhere within maybe a couple hundred yards at worst and essentially completely safe beyond that.
1 days ago [-]
zdragnar 1 days ago [-]
It generally is. How else do you think Google gets all those satellite pictures for maps?
rurban 20 hours ago [-]
Google has no satellites, the state has. They got those photos for free, probably in exchange for better software.
Blapzr 17 hours ago [-]
There's companies with imaging satellites that sell their data to Google and Microsoft. Also a lot of the imagery on maps and Co is not satellite at all but aerial photography which they buy from various private companies who do do aerial surveying.
1 days ago [-]
pilingual 1 days ago [-]
What if you have a pellet with wings you are doing experiments with above your house and the drone fails to maneuver around it?
if a drone is close enough to be hit with a rock, its operating ilegally.
CobrastanJorji 21 hours ago [-]
Which law? Is there an FAA rule concerning minimum drone height over someone's property? I understand there's generally a maximum of 400 feet for drones, but I don't know about any rules for minimum height.
Wow, these rules are incredibly poorly defined. I'll take the bit that says "20-30 feet high with propeller guards over a small family gathering in the park wouldn’t necessarily require any additional documentation" to mean that flying 30 feet in the air over people is legal. And people can definitely throw a rock 30 feet high.
rolph 7 hours ago [-]
yes its all very weaselly, the wieght class of the drone, and the participation of those people in the drone usage is considered as well.
this allows you to film your own family & friends enjoying a picnic, but not endanger, harass, annoy or intimidate some other group, from enjoying thier lives
in context this is about ireland and private property so to be purist about -on topic, we need to look at EU rules regarding flights over homes and yards.
1 days ago [-]
rolph 1 days ago [-]
discharging projectile is not quite legal, but a catty shot is nowhere near as severe as a firearm. you do have recourse if such a short distance is taken, you would however have to identify the operator to the satisfaction of authorities.
1 days ago [-]
beefnugs 19 hours ago [-]
If it is legal for them to fly anywhere they want, then your drone with a giant net dangling under it is just as legal, that is their fault for flying through your net ridden airspace
gosub100 1 days ago [-]
whats sad is that in many jurisdictions, it's perfectly legal to shoot animals on your property, including other peoples' pets. In my home state, there was recently an issue where a neighbors dog dug under the fence or otherwise got into the back yard, in a residential suburban neighborhood. The property owner blasted it (with a gun) and there was nothing the DA could do. It made the news due to the outrageous use of force, but no charges were filed.
What a time to be alive: mess with Uncle Bezos' trillion-dollar empire for appropriating your property? arrested with federal charges. kill a family pet? nothing we can do.
tjohns 1 days ago [-]
The reason why it's illegal to shoot at airplanes has nothing to do with "Bezos's trillion-dollar empire", it's because it's categorically unsafe and you're likely to kill people by doing it, eiter in the sky or on the ground. It's just a really dumb idea.
As for killing animals that wander onto your property... that's been controversial for at least the last 160 years, when a similar incident almost started a war between the US and the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)
gosub100 12 hours ago [-]
I didn't say shoot at an airplane, and invoking disputes that happened 160 years ago is hardly relevant to the point I made.
Follow the money
throw933884 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
jlund-molfese 1 days ago [-]
This is dangerous and untrue advice. Drones are considered aircraft in the US, and there is no altitude limit or license requirement for something to be considered an aircraft. See 49 U.S. Code § 40102 [0] and explicit FAA regulation of airspace under 400 feet [1]
They absolutely are aircraft and governed by the FAA. They call them Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's). FAA also has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US starting at ground level. There's plenty of reference material on the subject you can read.
SoftTalker 1 days ago [-]
When do you differentiate between a toy and a UAV?
tjohns 1 days ago [-]
The FAA has lighter regulation for drones under 250g, for this reason. But even then, small toy drones of any size are still regulated by the FAA.
biomcgary 1 days ago [-]
Sometimes (often?) technical legal definitions considered without context lead to absurd conclusions that don't manifest in practice.
Does the FAA have jurisdiction over paper planes? What about the airspace in my house and does it matter if the doors are open?
On the other hand, I don't think government agencies have much incentive to preemptively limit the scope of their authority, but would be happy to hear of counter-examples.
1 days ago [-]
thebitstick 1 days ago [-]
Me when I lie
esseph 1 days ago [-]
This is blatantly incorrect.
See above.
Sanzig 1 days ago [-]
That could easily be grounds for prosecution in Canada for negligent discharge of a firearm. You'd be lucky if the court didn't take your firearms license away for life.
rolph 1 days ago [-]
pellet rifles are not firearms, although, they are usually considered dangerous instruments, big world of difference if you lose it and do something, not recommended [discharging projectiles].
zelphirkalt 1 days ago [-]
What if you got a firearm, that is made to catch drones with a net of some sort? No stray bullets flying anywhere.
Sanzig 1 days ago [-]
A net launcher wouldn't be considered a firearm under Canadian law, so it wouldn't be illegal under firearms rules.
theodric 1 days ago [-]
That's nice.
It's also illegal in the USA, btw.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> there are going to have to be regulations about which air corridors they can use (altitude and routes) or it will be chaos
Agree. But a good way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have folks shooting at drones.
Pet_Ant 1 days ago [-]
Bullets fall down and can be deadly, so anyone doing so should at least be prosecuted for reckless endangerment if not assault with a deadly weapon.
At least one Florida man is out there plinking Walmart drones at 400 feet with a 9mm. Saw another who took one down from a boat also with a pistol (probably 9mm also), but can't find the video now.
The Venn diagram of "shoots at drones" and "concerned with other people's safety" is two separate circles.
esseph 1 days ago [-]
There's a lot of idiots and a lot of small arms
bryanlarsen 1 days ago [-]
Shotguns are only good for about 100 feet, most delivery drones transit higher than that.
fc417fc802 19 hours ago [-]
If it's out of range of a shotgun you are almost certainly breaking federal law by shooting at it. Conversely if it's within range of a shotgun you might get dragged through court by the FAA but I think you could likely win if you have the resources to burn.
But anyway if you aren't rich enough to laugh off half a decade of court costs then you probably shouldn't shoot at them at all.
DaSHacka 1 days ago [-]
I'd think people would get progressively more interested in shooting them the lower they're flying anyway
bryanlarsen 11 hours ago [-]
Yeah, the article is talking about delivery drones which will be over 100 feet unless it's delivering to you or your neighbor. Ones under 100 feet are much more likely to be toy or spy drones which are much more likely to be a nuisance or worse.
1 days ago [-]
FireBeyond 1 days ago [-]
Too many people think they're some Scout Sniper for it to be a non-issue.
catigula 1 days ago [-]
I highly doubt people are shooting at drones. Shooting at any aircraft is incredibly illegal & dangerous. I'd assume people have better self-preservation instincts than that.
SoftTalker 1 days ago [-]
People shoot at cars (road rage) which is way worse. I don't think such people have self-preservation instincts, or at least they aren't developed against threats such as "this might lead to an investigation and possible criminal charges some time in the future"
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> People shoot at cars (road rage) which is way worse
Most people don’t have dashcams. Drones, on the other hand, would have evidence of both the crime and criminal intent.
sneak 23 hours ago [-]
People very very rarely (almost never) shoot at cars due to road rage.
sib 1 days ago [-]
You know what they say about assuming...
dole 1 days ago [-]
it makes an ass of u and massad ayoob
1 days ago [-]
esseph 1 days ago [-]
You would be incorrect. It happens frequently and gets prosecuted.
catigula 1 days ago [-]
The word "frequently" is doing a lot of heavy-lifting here.
esseph 1 days ago [-]
Completely up to what that word means to you.
Just do a search for "charged with shooting at drone".
catigula 1 days ago [-]
I had AI do a collation of news events and the general conclusion was
> Civilian shootings at drones occur at a rate likely below 15 incidents per year in the U.S., compared to over one million registered drones.
I'm going to have to conclude that this strains and breaks the bounds of the term 'frequently' and the initial term 'incorrect'.
esseph 1 days ago [-]
So more than once a month an idiot is in the news for shooting at a drone.
Depending on where you live, they might even be neighbors of yours.
Something showing up every month is pretty damn frequent, especially when it leaks into national news and always grabs headlines, yet idiots still do it.
I mean if a plane fell out of the sky once a month, is that frequently?
What about if your bank blocked access to your account once a month when you needed it?
Larrikin 1 days ago [-]
Your strained analogy would actually be if any bank blocked one account from all bank accounts once a month.
esseph 1 days ago [-]
I guess some of us count life in web requests.
Larrikin 21 hours ago [-]
Can you write up a blog post about how many months of the year you are being blocked from banking?
esseph 20 hours ago [-]
How much "frequent" means to you is entirely what I posted immediately as a response.
I frankly don't give a shit to spend time on this with you anymore.
It's pointless to debate our personal definitions.
Have fun
Larrikin 11 hours ago [-]
Don't be pedantic on the internet and then double down and get mad when called out on it. Just argue in good faith and admit when you're wrong.
erkt 22 hours ago [-]
I would hope so. The temptation to strap unknown sensors to map and analyze the customers they fly over will be impossible for them to ignore. Let the drone hunting season commence.
fc417fc802 18 hours ago [-]
Just, please use birdshot and shoot vertically instead of horizontally.
tedunangst 1 days ago [-]
Why would the drone be hovering over a property where it's not making a delivery?
Lio 1 days ago [-]
I guess it could be to film your house and garden for advertising tracking purposes.
If you’ve got a new car or your kids are wearing new clothes could be important data points.
Sadly, I’m only half joking.
Whatever you can think of some fucker will be willing to try.
threecheese 1 days ago [-]
My municipality (US) does this for property tax purposes already, using commercial datasets. Stands to reason that this is next.
_DeadFred_ 24 hours ago [-]
Add homeowners insurance companies as well.
dietr1ch 1 days ago [-]
Why would a Waymo be stuck next to my property if it isn't dropping off someone?
Things can go wrong
adolph 1 days ago [-]
> a drone hovering over someone's property would be likely used as target practice
A long time ago I got to spend some time doing this and it was trickier than one might think. You have to lead over 3 dimensions instead of 2 and the vehicle speed is more variable than most things.
op00to 1 days ago [-]
There are regulations about what air corridors they can use in the US.
IAmBroom 9 hours ago [-]
More accurately, there are regulations about what air corridors they cannot use in the US.
KennyBlanken 1 days ago [-]
In the US, shooting a drone is the same as shooting an aircraft and that means federal law enforcement attention, especially when the drone is owned by one of the largest, richest companies in the world, with lots of data and video footage.
mingus88 1 days ago [-]
I’d be interested to see how that changes if you launch a net
Any drone I would be able to pick off with a firearm would have to be low and slow enough for me to capture it with less violent means.
Then I’m not shooting anything. I’m seizing property that shouldnt be here like I would a kids frisbee or a an abandoned vehicle. They’re free to ask nicely for it to be returned
mikestew 1 days ago [-]
I’d be interested to see how that changes if you launch a net
Again, it is an aircraft. Ask yourself that same question, only substitute “Cessna” for “drone”.
Aloisius 1 days ago [-]
Nothing changes.
It's a felony to attempt to damage, destroy, disable or wreck any aircraft. How you do it doesn't matter.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1 days ago [-]
> shouldnt be here
You'll want to examine this a bit more closely: is the aircraft in a location it should not be? Above your house is likely to be a valid place for a drone, whether you like it or not. Exceptions are for things like airports (other air traffic) and sporting events (large crowds).
So when you use a net to capture the drone out of the sky, you are not collecting it from its location of abandonment on your property, you are stealing it. (That's assuming more lax rules on disabling drones vs. other aircraft, per the sibling comment.)
tshaddox 1 days ago [-]
Surely that must depend on the altitude the drone is flying at. Surely I can use a net to capture a drone flying 8 feet above the ground in my backyard.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1 days ago [-]
Well, I assume it’s not “abandoned”, as such, while it’s in operation so I wouldn’t think it’s free to claim. If it’s being flown recklessly I might try to capture it with the justification that it threatened the personal safety of myself and those around me. I do not know if that justification would fly (heh) and I’m pretty sure I’d be on the hook for proving it.
But that’s really all assuming; I’m not a lawyer, just a layman with an interest in logical systems.
Edit:
I should add that I generally think about the regulations for small drones (<.55 pounds and some other things) rather than the <55-pound ones because I have looked into flying one. I still think it’s maybe not the best idea to net a 30+ pound piece of flying machinery but the pilot certainly has more things to worry about.
p_l 22 hours ago [-]
Actively trying to take it down would be in legal gray area, but you'd be probably in the clear if in court it was proven it was there intentionally and not in distress.
If it fell in "aircraft in distress" case you're fucked because it was operating legally.
FireBeyond 1 days ago [-]
Any delivery drone flying at 8 feet above the ground in your backyard is delivering to you, and would be probably implicitly considered to have your consent.
gamblor956 19 hours ago [-]
Good luck securing a conviction.
There's not a jury in the world that would convict someone of shooting a drone flying over there own backyard.
ryandrake 7 hours ago [-]
If I knew I had a yahoo neighbor blasting away with their guns, with my children playing in the backyard next door to them, I'd volunteer for that jury, just to have a chance to convict the guy. This is not how civilized people behave.
ncr100 18 hours ago [-]
If another drone shot the offending drone, would that be okay?
reaperducer 1 days ago [-]
In my neighborhood (rural) a drone hovering over someone's property would be likely used as target practice.
Just yesterday, I told a drone operator that it was illegal to fly where he was.
He told me that because he clicked "I agree" on some setup software that made it legal.
rolph 1 days ago [-]
he told you the first lie that came into his head
latchkey 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
beau_g 1 days ago [-]
Hopefully people are responsible/safety conscious when shooting down drones and use birdshot
fuckyou69 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
Always42 1 days ago [-]
Imagine shooting down a helicopter above your house, people r crazy
patrickmay 1 days ago [-]
Helicopters typically contain people, drones do not.
neepi 1 days ago [-]
Clearly the solution is to obtain anti delivery drone drones and bag all the free stuff that falls out of the sky into your property.
dyauspitr 1 days ago [-]
With all the money behind it that’s probably going to a criminally punished similar to hijacking a goods truck n the highway.
elevatedastalt 1 days ago [-]
And it should be. Vandalism doesn't become OK just because it's being done to drones.
MarcelOlsz 1 days ago [-]
Drones should have a "piñata radius" so if you're flying it close enough where I can hit it with a bat I should be able to. Like when I was at a skatepark and this drone nerd was pissing everyone off. The drone ended up in the lake pretty quickly.
giantg2 1 days ago [-]
Pinata radius might actually be legally allowable. Drone operators must maintain the safety of those in the area. Flying that close to a person with spinning blades arguably constituents an imminent threat to safety and it might be ruled justified to knock it out of the sky.
timewizard 1 days ago [-]
Capitalism doesn't remain OK just because you've only added drones.
neuroelectron 1 days ago [-]
Yes but not yet
gosub100 1 days ago [-]
if a mere mortal reports vandalism, they get told by their local PD: "we don't respond to property crimes. Fill out a police report online and we'll get back to you".
bilbo0s 1 days ago [-]
What will be legal is to simply sue the owner of the drone for breaking your window when your neighbor shot it down. Let the owner and the neighbor sort it out if the owner can prove the neighbor shot it down. But until that proof is forthcoming, the owner is liable. Same as any plane crash. Oh, and Heaven help the owner if any humans or pets in the house are injured.
After a while, that will get so expensive that either they will stop using drones to deliver, or drone design will improve to the point that they become almost impossible to bring down.
Either way, hey, gets rid of the problem of drones dropping on your property.
gosub100 1 days ago [-]
that's a good fantasy. but here's how I think it would play-out in reality:
* your new window was $1800, so even with treble damages, it's still under $10k, which means it is a small claims issue.
* sue AMZN (or some subcontractor/"third party") in small claims, they don't show up. you get a default judgement
* good luck collecting. the moment you do, they start denying it on technical grounds. Oh you were a prime member in 2018, remember when you agreed to settle all disputes in mediation? well, we remember.
* Go to mediation, they find that your neighbor is culpable for the accident, rules 100% against you. Or better yet, they refuse to engage with you because your neighbor won't agree to be bound by the arbitration.
bilbo0s 17 hours ago [-]
Which is why you never join prime.
And if you think damages are less than 10k from some kid getting hit in the head by a drone crashing through his/her window, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. In the US, healthcare alone is not that cheap.
Finally, you suing AMZN is not how things work in the US. In the US, the relevant insurance companies work it out with each other. What I mean by that is, it is AmFam suing AMZN. And believe me, AmFam is gonna get every penny it's owed.
You're the one living in fantasy land if you think homeowners sue liable parties for money in the US rather than filing claims with their home insurance company.
If everyone just keeps that full coverage, it will work itself out. AMZN will be paying those claims. Or rather, AMZN's insurers will be paying those claims.
gosub100 12 hours ago [-]
> AmFam suing AMZN. And believe me, AmFam is gonna get every penny it's owed.
More like amfam buys you a new window and raises your premium.
bilbo0s 10 hours ago [-]
That's why insurance is so profitable.
Because AmFam does both!
AmFam, State Farm, et al. suing AMZN for these claims nationally literally makes AmFam money over time. While costing AMZN money. That's what will move AMZN to either cease the practice, or design drones that are resilient to nearly any kind of attack.
Havoc 13 hours ago [-]
I'd much prefer a sensible regulated approach over straight to nimby.
Legislating low noise propellers etc.
Drones make a lot of sense versus having a 2 ton truck drive around to hand you a package. Much better if we figure out a workable solution here
Sohcahtoa82 8 hours ago [-]
My question is...why would you want to?
Throughout the comments, it sounds like people are expecting these drones to only be ~50 feet above the ground, buzzing right over houses, or being a noisy nuisance hovering in place endlessly.
Maybe it's because I live in an area with lots of tall trees, but I'd expect these drones to be flying at least 200 feet up. At that height, it becomes difficult to hear the drone unless you're in an incredibly quiet rural area.
And it's not like a drone is going to hang around. It'll deliver its package and then head back to base to charge and/or pick up another package.
aigen01 7 hours ago [-]
I read an article about the folks in College Station who live close to the amazon warehouse that was testing out drone deliveries. Drones would pass by their houses about once every three minutes at low ~50-150 feet above ground and people complained about how loud and frequent they were.
scoofy 7 hours ago [-]
Drones are surprisingly loud. I’ve been at some golf events where they were doing drone photography and it was a constant distraction from the tranquility.
jbattle 22 hours ago [-]
I dread the idea. The leaf blowers running nonstop 10 months a year are noisy enough.
Maybe I can convince all my neighbors to fly barrage balloons in all the back yards.
Brian_K_White 1 days ago [-]
The current ambiguity will magically find itself disambiguated pretty soon after we have our own drones camp out over politician's own homes, in numbers.
Yep, but it will backfire as they just write laws to protect their own interests; drone companies’ donations can’t protect them from annoying politicians but probably can for everyone else.
_carbyau_ 1 days ago [-]
My concern is less the occasional drone and more when Google decides that all their delivery drones - already carrying cameras/radar/lidar for navigational purposes - can be used to update google maps in near realtime.
The sheer Big Brother possibilities are insane.
The future: "saferoom is where the pants aren't"
nozzlegear 20 hours ago [-]
I live in Iowa where the governor just signed a bill that outlaws drone surveillance of private farms and farmland. I haven't read the full bill yet, so it's possible that it also outlaws surveillance of homes that aren't on farmland, but would at least be illegal to do what you're describing if you own a farm in Iowa.
scarab92 22 hours ago [-]
I’ll never understand people who oppose new technology because it could hypothetically be used a negative way. These people just seem to have a chronically cynical outlook on everything.
The logical thing to do is to regulate things when they become a problem, not speculatively.
anigbrowl 21 hours ago [-]
The history (and tort law) books are full of examples of problems that were identified ahead of time but ignored by policymakers and tortfeasors until they had fatal consequences.
djsjajah 22 hours ago [-]
If we didn't have people like that, then they would be right.
isuricnamqodn 22 hours ago [-]
they’ve probably read more history than your average bear
monkaiju 22 hours ago [-]
Idk how you can think this is the reasonable take given any familiarity with history...
deepsun 1 days ago [-]
Discuss it with your city/county council. If it annoys enough people, you might introduce regulations, aka making agreement with the drone operators.
mike_d 1 days ago [-]
This article is from Ireland, but at least here in the US local governments cannot create laws governing anything that is airborne.
deepsun 23 hours ago [-]
Yes, FAA is federal, so the municipal councils would figure that out. My point is that there's a working democratic process for solving problems like that, besides internet frustration.
E.g. buzzing someone's home on an airplane is already a real FAA regulations violation, can be even a criminal offense.
eclipticplane 23 hours ago [-]
Ban any facility that operates delivery drones, then. Or tax them into non-existence.
Spivak 21 hours ago [-]
No but I see no reason they can't pass noise ordinances irrespective of the means employed. They can't regulate drones but they can fine you for making noise that happens to be a drone.
Can you imagine if concert venues could get around noise ordinances by lifting the speakers with drones? Absurd.
mike_d 21 hours ago [-]
The FAA has "field preemption" from Congress. Meaning any state or local law that conflicts with the FAA's stated purpose is automatically rendered moot and unenforceable. The FAAs mandate is the efficient operation of aircraft within the airspace.
So a law that bans a drone from using a massive speaker to violate a noise ordnance could be enforced, but a law against the operational noise of an aircraft could not. A city could ban a drone operator from flying over a crime scene low enough to disturb evidence, but could not ban a drone from passing over a crime scene.
deepsun 11 hours ago [-]
Just buzzing someone's home by flying low (no speakers) is already pretty strong violation, can be criminal (harassing, stalking) per FAA. It's not new, been there since planes became popular.
Joker_vD 19 hours ago [-]
waves his hands right before your nose "The air is common! I am not touching you!"
Well, it's still obnoxious. Either fly over the roads, or fly high enough (50 m? 100?) to be unreachable.
potbelly83 10 hours ago [-]
Exactly! The majority of drone enthusiasts are insufferable, repeating the old mantra, "FAA allows to do what we like". I can't wait for some of these cases to hit the supreme court where they can put a stop to applying laws that were meant to govern manned aircraft applying to someone with a drone.
victorbjorklund 16 hours ago [-]
I just dont understand why we are doing this. Delievery within a city is a solved issue. Wanna get rid of humans? self-driving cars.
pmarreck 22 hours ago [-]
Pretty soon they will be using more silent rotors, which already exist and for some-odd reason aren't yet used in the drone space
fifticon 1 days ago [-]
well, if you are russian, it appears not.
paulddraper 1 days ago [-]
Has a very easy answer in the US: No.
You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace.
You can build a tall structure (subject to local laws). But anything above that is outside your control.
---
This article, however, is about Ireland.
tjohns 1 days ago [-]
> Has a very easy answer in the US: No.
While you're not wrong in practice, it's actually a surprisingly complicated area of law.
The FAA doesn't "own" the airspace, it's a public right-of-way and every citizen has the right to transit it. See 49 USC §40103: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace".
The FAA gets to set policy on how to ensure safety, just like the Coast Guard sets rules for the safe navigation of public waterways (but neither "owns" the air/water): "the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace."
Now, where it gets complicated is the definition of "navigable airspace". A common definition is either 360 feet or 500 feet above the tallest structure on a parcel of land, but the case law isn't consistent on this - especially when you consider that some aircraft (like helicopters) can legally navigate lower than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States
paulddraper 1 days ago [-]
While citizens have a right to transit through navigable airspace, the FAA controls more than that. The FAA controls ALL airspace (but delegating control over some areas such as military airspace).
For example, a drone weighing over 250 grams must be registered with the FAA, no matter what height it is flown. Even if it's your own backyard at eye level.
This is a little weird, but factual.
throwawee 1 days ago [-]
>You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace.
Makes sense. If castle doctrine applied to the skies, people could take potshots at low flying aircraft above their house. I guess that's one way to prevent becoming a flyover state...
pixxel 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
RankingMember 1 days ago [-]
In Ireland?
sizzzzlerz 24 hours ago [-]
Not quite. The height of a structure, antenna, tower, etc., can be limited by the FAA based upon the distance of the structure from a nearby airport. Beyond a certain distance, the height is no longer an FAA issue.
paulddraper 8 hours ago [-]
The FAA has no direct authority over structures.
It will evaluate such structures for their effect on air traffic, and local authorities will almost universally follow their findings when approving construction.
That's not true for helicopters and UAVs within sight of their controllers, but I feel sorry for the people who bought a house not near and airport, and now have to deal with a buzzing swarm overhead.
adolph 1 days ago [-]
> You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace.
This kinda begs the question of what is meant by "airspace." If the term means a geometric volume that is generally occupied by materials in a gaseous state, then does the FAA own the airspace within one's home? Does the FAA control how cars drive down the airspace of a road? No, that is absurd.
The common use of aircraft smaller than humans and capable of performing navigation faster than humans is expanding a previously relatively stable boundary of what Federal law and rules call "navigable airspace." Thus, I think it is incorrect to say "The FAA owns your airspace." since the FAA explicitly does not control airspace below a certain altitude over most people's houses.
paulddraper 9 hours ago [-]
The FAA requires registration of any drone >250g, no matter where altitude you fly it at.
So there’s that.
3cats-in-a-coat 1 days ago [-]
So who pays your medical bills when one of those falls on your head. FAA or the delivery company?
connicpu 1 days ago [-]
This is basically why regulations exist requiring operators of machinery/vehicles to carry insurance, so there's someone who can pay up if people get hurt.
tjohns 1 days ago [-]
You actually don't need insurance to fly a plane (in the US).
That said, I don't know of any aircraft operator who doesn't have some form of insurance. If nothing else because the banks demand it.
paulddraper 9 hours ago [-]
Who pays your medical bills when one of those cars jump the curb and hits you?
The state transport authority or the automobile driver?
3cats-in-a-coat 5 hours ago [-]
If some authority unilaterally decides my roof is a highway, I'd say both.
rolph 1 days ago [-]
drones have minimum distance and altitude regulations as well as restrictions from operating above people.
also, stock up on fishing line
IAmBroom 7 hours ago [-]
> drones have minimum distance and altitude regulations as well as restrictions from operating above people.
1. What does "minimum distance... regulations" even mean?
2. Drones do not have minimum altitude regulations, except in cases where ALL air traffic is limited.
3. Drones have a few restrictions from operating above people, but hardly enough to prevent interactions. See FAA's Operations Over People rule.
bn-l 23 hours ago [-]
I like the fishing line idea a lot but wouldn’t that get birds as well
rolph 22 hours ago [-]
perhaps, but birds dont like drone frequented areas either, your thickets/coppice will clear out under requent drone traffic.
you dont need nets just single dangling lines
friendlyprezz 1 days ago [-]
There sure is one way to stop em
Palmer lucky made another way too, an EMP that looks like a portable speaker
mediumsmart 19 hours ago [-]
Probably, but what are you going to do with all the stuff?
Yeul 1 days ago [-]
How is drone delivery economically feasible? The carry weight is negligible, the range is paltry and they still require operators- whom I'm sure earn more than your average white van man.
Aloisius 1 days ago [-]
A Wing delivery drones can lift 5 lbs and travel upwards of 12 miles at up to 70 mph.
If a single operator can pilot 20 drones simultaneously, delivering say 50+ packages/hour, then it starts to make sense.
beAbU 8 hours ago [-]
How the hell can a single operator pilot 20 at the same time. These aren't uavs, let alone uavs with the ability to navigate congested airspace!
masswerk 23 hours ago [-]
Well, as this is about Ireland, EU regulations state that a drone operator may control just a single drone at a time. (So, no simultaneous control.)
*) UAS.STS-01.040 Responsibilities of the remote pilot:
"(d) shall operate only one unmanned aircraft at a time"
there are niches in places where the roads are bad/congested/otherwise and the cargo is particularly high value. I remember reading about a delivery use case for blood bags in the African countryside.
IAmBroom 7 hours ago [-]
Military and aid drops in civil war areas, as well.
Yeul 10 hours ago [-]
Hmmm yeah I suppose it makes sense to drop off something in the middle of nowhere. Not expecting to see them buzzing around the Netherlands. We have roads.
mingus88 1 days ago [-]
Not sure how profitable they are today but I think it’s obvious that the long term play is to eliminate the contract workers entirely
porridgeraisin 22 hours ago [-]
The drone operator need not be in the location you're delivering in. If you put on the hat of an executive, the job can even be outsourced to mexico :-)
GuestFAUniverse 1 days ago [-]
Don't overthink it: get a permission for one or many flag poles ;-)
monkaiju 1 days ago [-]
I really hope this type of delivery never catches on... I live in a fairly urban location and still get to do great birdwatching in my backyard.
Woodpeckers, hummingbirds, geese and ducks flying over between the various lakes. Losing out on that just so Amazon can make more money (not to mention potentially spy on us even more effectively) would be tragic
libraryatnight 1 days ago [-]
I'm also not thrilled about the added strain on wildlife and nature, and also scared of what it means to have drones operated by the companies who just can't seem to consume enough data. Amazon drones would be like the Skeksis Crystal Bats from the Dark Crystal, creepy evil little bastards that you shouldn't let spot you :P
Bluescreenbuddy 1 days ago [-]
Not in the US. Property owners do not own the airspace above their property.
LeoPanthera 1 days ago [-]
The article isn't about the US.
However, even the US, that isn't entirely true.
United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet.
The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over "navigable airspace", which is considered a public highway. This navigable airspace generally begins at 500 feet above the surface in uncongested areas and 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas. Aircraft flying within this navigable airspace are generally not considered to be trespassing.
There is a "gray area" between the immediate airspace controlled by the landowner and the federally controlled navigable airspace. While the FAA asserts its authority to regulate all airspace, including this lower stratum, the exact delineation of private airspace rights within this zone, particularly concerning new technologies like drones, is not clear.
mike_d 1 days ago [-]
> United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet.
Probably one of the most misunderstood cases ever. Causby's complaint was that his chickens were dying as a result of the stress from low altitude military flights over his property. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights because the government was taking something from him (chickens) without compensation.
83 feet was simply the lowest recorded flight. People took that to be some sort of magical barrier, but would only be relevant if your issue was also with chicken deaths.
Even if you take it to apply to drones, it would only apply to government drones that in some way cause you real and demonstrable financial loss.
jcims 1 days ago [-]
There's a medflight helicopter pad not far from my place out in the country. It's just a small concrete pad on a lot and when it is dispatched it ascends straight up to what I'd guessed was 300' but could easily be 500' before taking off towards its destination. Landings are similar.
I always thought it looked weird but now I wonder if it's because it's largely surrounded by private property.
anigbrowl 21 hours ago [-]
I am near a hospital in a city and while they usually do the same thing sometimes the pilots seem intent on testing the limits of their craft/FAA regulations.
p_l 22 hours ago [-]
Quite probably it's more to avoid dealing with possible collision dangers.
jcims 18 hours ago [-]
Very possible but we're out in the middle of absolute nowhere. The ascent in particular looks robotic in its precision, takes maybe 30 seconds. It's really quite cool to see.
p_l 12 hours ago [-]
High vertical ascent/descent is very, very dangerous[1] method of takeoff/landing for helicopters, so especially in case of medical transport I would expect it to be due to safety factors more than anything.
[1] been decades since I've read the textbook on it, but IIRC it involves higher load on rotor and engines than "running" methods that utilize ground effect and provide horizontal momentum against wind gusts.
jcims 11 hours ago [-]
I have the same recollection which I think is why it stood out to me the first time I saw it. It's frankly kind of bizarre looking, like it's getting hoisted by a crane.
giantg2 1 days ago [-]
Not entirely true. I believe there are laws determining how high you own. I believe it's 100' for my state.
simplesimon890 22 hours ago [-]
I live in the path of the drones mentioned in the article and it's an incredibly frustrating experience to be outside and have them fly over the property. they are noisy, intrusive, and increasingly more frequent ( maybe a pass nearby every half hour on a busy day )
Living in an urban environment always will entail some unwanted sounds, dogs barking, passing cars, the occasional helicopter or whatever, but to have a drone passing over your neighborhood to deliver someone coffee or a parcel feels like exploiting every possible avenue to make money, regardless of how disruptive it is to the local population.
However bad they are now, it will be 10x the number of drones in a few years. It's a depressing thought.... but hey, at least someone gets their shitty coffee and adds a few euro to the profit of some company so it'll all be worth it in the end.
nucleative 13 hours ago [-]
I empathize with this, at the moment it seems pretty obnoxious.
I hope the current strategy is to prove demand and when it's time lean into efficiency and hopefully non-obtrusiveness. If they don't, the volume of complaints is a threat to the whole business model. A drone delivering lunch potentially takes a combustion engine off the road for dozens of minutes and leaves more room on congested streets for other traffic. If the tech can be optimized to sound like a bird (essentially inaudible), we've probably gained something overall.
scarab92 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomhow 21 hours ago [-]
> Re the anti-capitalist nonsense, can we please keep those immature rants to places like Reddit and Bluesky?
Please edit out ideological and inflammatory swipes like this.
Can we please keep name calling to Reddit/Bluesky?
Just because they aren't mowing down kids, doesn't mean they don't have negative consequences to neighborhoods or that the cumulative consequences are less than delivery vans. Typically in housing estates, vehicle sound is low due to reduced speeds and vans aren't flying over your house across the airspace of your garden so yes, they are noiser. Plus the amount of weight these drones can carry is low meaning they require compared to a ( large ) van, it would take hundreds of drones to deliver the equivalent weight of one Ford Transit van.
isuricnamqodn 22 hours ago [-]
there is feedback pressure with regards to land based delivery — traffic, cost, road infrastructure. Removing those constraints will lead to (more) people ordering a coffee rather than walking to the kitchen to make one. That’s fine you may argue, but that coffee creates a negative externality to neighbourhoods that won’t be priced in via capitalism. That’s reality, not a childish dig at capitalism
1 days ago [-]
paulcole 23 hours ago [-]
This is one of the very best examples of a situation where you can exercise and improve your ability to just let it go and move on with your life.
antithesizer 1 days ago [-]
my advice on this question is the same as my advice on most questions: befriend the crows.
not_a_bot_4sho 21 hours ago [-]
"Hear me out, we need more murders"
renewiltord 23 hours ago [-]
One of the things I find incredibly annoying is that delivery drivers will drive by my home even when they're not delivering to me. Did they even ask for my consent? Once they have self-driving cargo vans, I'm just going to shoot out their tires so they can't spy on me.
Or that's what I would sound like if I was a looneybin.
monkaiju 22 hours ago [-]
The looney part is you pretending a van driving in front of your house is nearly as invasive as drone flying over your yard...
CaptainFever 15 hours ago [-]
That's just because people got used to motor vehicles in their neighbourhoods.
monkaiju 2 hours ago [-]
No it's not, vans are quieter and don't give a overhead view of your entire property. Also, I don't love delivery vans zipping around the neighborhood in a rush and clogging the street either.
juliusluna879 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
486sx33 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
ihsw 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
Fairburn 1 days ago [-]
I hear that a focused low power EMP zot can do wonders .. /s
threecheese 1 days ago [-]
I semi-interested in drones, and my social media algorithm repeatedly shows me both EMP devices and drone jamming countermeasures. Aliexpress style vendors, factory assembly videos. I would guess that both of these are illegal in the US.
genewitch 15 hours ago [-]
Hey, I'm legally allowed to put 1500 watts into a yagi array with near 30dbd of gain. It isn't my fault that a drone flew in the beam while I was sending cw at 500cpm.
Greta4Gaza 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
thrill 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
cameronh90 1 days ago [-]
That would be very relevant, were the article not about Ireland.
thrill 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
mig39 21 hours ago [-]
You reply that the FAA is clear. Someone points out the article is about Ireland. You reply about the UK. You know the UK and Ireland aren't the same, right?
Maybe read the article, as it discusses the ambiguity in Irish law about airspace. The word "reasonable" occurs.
In practice, that's what I do when I fly my drones in my Canadian neighbourhood. Sure, the airspace above someone's property isn't theirs, but that doesn't mean I want to annoy my neighbours. So I tend to fly high enough that they don't even see or hear my drones at all. I try and be "reasonable" like my Irish cousins.
Here's my latest drone photo. I doubt any of my neighbours saw or heard this flight:
Despite your quick dismissals, the article actually explains quite well why the law is ambiguous - namely, that the height to which the property owner owns the air is only defined by what is "reasonable", but doesn't give an actual meter height that the property owner owns. And the article recommends that regulation defining this height is something that would benefit all parties.
hansvm 1 days ago [-]
The FAA isn't the only relevant authority, even if it were you'd still find low-altitude flights often illegal, even if legal you'd still find some activities like trapping the drone with a net situationally legal, and none of your comment or mine applies anyway because we're talking about the wrong continent.
mike_d 1 days ago [-]
> even if it were you'd still find low-altitude flights often illegal
Low altitude flights are illegal for a number of reasons, but part of it is separation from drones.
Generally the ground to 400 ft is drones, 500-1000 is helicopters, 1000-60k is aircraft, and 60k+ is UFOs.
hansvm 1 days ago [-]
It's often not legal for drones to fly too close to the ground too though (e.g., <200ft). Details are decided largely through case law.
mike_d 1 days ago [-]
Again this is specific to the US, but there is no law that specifies a minimum altitude for drones as long as it is not touching the ground.
Correct. Part 91 applies to aircraft (which includes drones). However part 107 more specifically regulates UAS and their operational altitudes.
hansvm 24 hours ago [-]
It's currently quite popular for various drone resources to claim that, but it's blatantly false as a general statement. Federally there are fuzzy (court-interpreted) altitude restrictions basically any place where a person might be concerned about a drone. Many states, counties, and cities have similar policies, often with better wording, either explicitly or implicitly (e.g., via avoiding people and structures) giving an altitude limit. All that aside, the fact that many of the issues fall back to property ownership gives a wealth of common law on the topic, and that law is not in favor of the drone performing low-altitude passes over private property unless it's particularly unobtrusive (and often not even then).
Yes, there isn't a blanket minimum in the US for drones. The issue is murkier than you're stating though, and it usually falls much closer to the side of "drones can't do anything to upset property owners" than to the side of "drones can hover a foot off your lawn and can't be touched." Here's a smattering of examples, but there are thousands of other such laws or cases if you want to give your favorite intern something interesting to study.
- There are safety considerations prohibiting most delivery drones from, e.g., flying too close to a backyard barbeque [0]
- There is case law regarding the ability to use the airspace immediately above your property [1]
- There's more case law to that effect, interpreting the drone's actions as trespass [2]
- When interpreted as trespass, often there would still be no consequences (since you've only suffered negligible harm), but states frequently have privacy laws [3] giving the matter more teeth, and in that case explicitly calling out aircraft.
- Other states have such laws too, with Florida's applying to individuals but focusing on government overreach [4].
I remember growing up in the rural midwest, people with bitch about Ultra light aircraft. It’s just a glider with an engine strapped to it. They’re super noisy and fly low to the ground (relatively speaking), so they annoy people who like the peace and quiet of the countryside. They’ve been around for a lot longer than drones
giantg2 1 days ago [-]
Ultralights are pretty rare compared to drones. From a safety standpoint, they have a little more skin in the game than a drone operator.
juliusluna879 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
deepsun 1 days ago [-]
Noise abatement restrictions are very real near airports.
It's solved through normal democratic process, I mean discuss with your city/country council, introduce regulations. Not by shooting an aircraft.
theandrewbailey 23 hours ago [-]
I bought my house years ago, and as such, need to do things like replace the roof and windows every few decades. I recently had a quote done, which involved the salesman flying a drone up to look at my roof... or would have, because his app disabled the launch, because I live in restricted airspace (which I was unaware of despite living here for many years). That neatly explains why I haven't seen a single drone in my neighborhood.
timewizard 1 days ago [-]
The law is divorced from the new reality. The law is intended to protect lives and the commercial airline industry. It did not envision such simple automated nuisances arising from licensed operations. The FAA has also shown itself quite willing to disrupt or alter aircraft operations in order to reduce the amount of noise around an airport.
I would not expect the federally charged drone free for all to last very long once this activity picks up in earnest.
harimau777 24 hours ago [-]
So basically: Screw you peasants, your corporate lords can do whatever they please. That's about par for the course now.
dylan604 23 hours ago [-]
i like how you dropped a please in there
Rendered at 00:49:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
It's going to be a great time when the crows, raccoons, and other semi-intelligent wildlife discover that these drones have food in them at seemingly random reward schedules.
Sure, you can give the drones little tasers to keep the animals away, depending on your locality. But knowing what I know about bears and crows, almost nothing is going to stop them. Especially when some influencer jerk tries tempting a bunch of them with a box just oozing honey or some other high value food.
Except for those 4-8 prop blades spinning at high rpm. Then multiple layers of packaging to get the item. It'll be interesting to see if it actually happens, my prediction is that trash bags will still be preferable risk/reward.
And birds incidents with actual planes show that it's not the same reasoning as human warfare : inflicting damage to the enemy while taking none. For delivery companies it won't matter if the birds got out safely or died in the process of destroying their $$$$ drones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW5LbZMx6Wo
Solar + Nuclear plz
It just doesn't do so directly, so we ignore the number of children who die from pulmonary issues.
I wonder how long it'd take to befriend a few crows, and teach them there's valuable stuff in delivery drones?
1. Dunston Checks In (1996)
2. Monkey Trouble (1994)
perps + traitors ... :)
or alternatively, which some of us know, HNers don't like humor by some people, but like it by others. seen many examples of that in the past.
But now I wonder if we will "silent spring" them too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Precision_Airdrop_System
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc
"As you can hear for yourself, this Apache helicopter is nearly unnoticeable next to this handheld drone."
I routinely have Apache helicopters fly over my house and I prefer them to most of the tiny drones. The helicopters typically have lower frequencies and fly way higher. They also don't have that insect flying by your head buzz that makes my ears hurt.
Are you looking forward to jet-propelled delivery drones?
Well, they are, technically…
If delivery drones become commonplace, there are going to have to be regulations about which air corridors they can use (altitude and routes) or it will be chaos.
> Can you shoot down drones above your property?
> It’s illegal under federal law to shoot at an aircraft. A private citizen 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. Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in a civil penalty from the FAA and/or criminal charges from federal, state or local law enforcement.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/what-know-about-drones
Naturally the FAA wouldn't be inclined to advertise such lines of thought.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
So at what point does it change from "my property" to "public airspace above my property"? 5 ft? 20 ft? 100 ft? AFAIK we don't currently have a definitive answer. Personally I lean towards the effective range of a 12 gauge.
Drone regulations are solidly established. The law isn't determined by uninformed commenters on a web forum. And "the effective range of a 12 gauge" will result in jail time. I worked for an autonomous drone company that had a price point around $30,000; destroying one of those could be felony-level vandalism.
The law, including the bounds of FAA jurisdiction, is determined by the courts. The question is under what conditions navigable airspace supersedes private property rights. This isn't a matter of what regulations the FAA has or hasn't published up until now but rather a question of where either the courts or the legislature determine the FAA's jurisdiction begins.
It also rubs up against state's rights since the FAA is a federal entity. I don't think anyone takes too much issue with the federal government regulating activities 30,000 feet up. Many trees in city parks exceed 100 feet though. By the time you're immediately outside the window of a 2 story house I think it's fairly obvious that the federal government doesn't get any say in the matter.
> destroying one of those could be felony-level vandalism.
Presumably the operator of such would have the presence of mind not to intentionally hover one over my lawn, outside the window of my house, within range of a 12 gauge. If they don't, well, honestly I might chance the courts. It would certainly depend on the circumstances though. Related, I've seen a few videos from the drone's perspective of the fire department shooting it down with water when the operator flew too close to an active house fire.
Right now it's uncommon and largely handled by civil courts.
What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_? So the actual rules need to be more nuanced than this, to prevent people doing crazy shit with their tech gadgets hurting others. They cannot be given free reign in that matter.
Are you under the impression that either of these things is legal, and that gunplay is your only recourse?
Having tried to get the authorities to deal with a harassing neighbour even in a big city, that sounds extremely plausible.
Playing in the hands of the corrupt is to shame others for not relying on a fundamentally unreliable police force, in fact.
What if your neighbours climb on your roof and start banging on your windows at night?
Re the FAA rules, there's a clear difference between planes or helicopters going overhead at safe and relatively high altitudes* and drones flying at much lower ones. Occasional passes from hobby or semi-pro drones used by photographers are a minor irritation, but if drone delivery became a regular thing I can see how frequent low altitude flybys would quickly become maddening. relying on existing law for new circumstances generally yields poor results.
* I live quite near a hospital with a helipad so about once a month I have to deal with a helicopter coming under 100 feet (~35m) and making the walls shake.
I imagine it will remain ambiguous until a sufficiently public stunt forces the issue all the way up to SCOTUS and they determine a concrete minimum distance that must be maintained from structures.
Worth noting that in the US, castle law[1] is ardently defended and not something to be tested by FAFO.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Parent's point is that you should not apply that methodology in order to test the applicability of castle law in the US, since you might end up dead.
Pour encourager les autres and all that.
There are more appropriate legal avenues one can use to curtail harassment, besides blasting away with a firearm.
> What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_?
You can step away and avoid it, or swat it away with a baseball bat, and/or if it hits you, you can sue them for property damage and injury. None of these scenarios require you to fire a deadly weapon into the air.
Honestly, this thread is scary--it reads like a bunch of people yearning to shoot their guns at something and trying desperately to find a wild scenario to justify it.
... until you realize ~ a dozen of the Malheur were informants, and the 'boat ramp' live fire exercises they touted were orchestrated by a self described "psyops" 20 year swiss military veteran (Fabio Minoggio) on the payroll of the FBI who took on a "supervisory" role. Then the FBI refused to identify the informants during trial, so we don't even know which of the 'armed standoff' members were actual just the government fighting themselves and instigating others along with it.
The more you look into the case the more you find out why the jury acquitted ammon. It looks as if the jury decided the government had a standoff with itself.
What situation are you referencing here? First one that comes to mind is Malheur but one of them was killed and 7 went to prison.
To wit:
> The Bundy standoff’s most significant legacy may be the precedent it established: that armed resistance against federal authorities could succeed without serious legal consequences for participants. This outcome has had a profound impact on antigovernment extremist movements, creating what experts describe as “a straight line” connecting Bunkerville to the Capitol riot.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/apr/13/a-decade-of-defianc...
They offered a plea agreement to the Hammonds (cause d'etre of the whole thing), who were then sentenced for a wildland fire under dubious circumstances.
After the sentencing it was a done deal, it was over. Then Obama's DOJ had to stoke the flames and reneg on it -- IIRC after the sentenced had already been served!
It shouldn't have been a surprise what unfolded after the government reneging, in a way that was so egregious that they (the people that were the cause d'etre for the Malheur occupation) were pardoned with the following remarks during the pardon:
"The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most (sic) of the charges." According to his spokesperson Sarah Sanders, who read the statement, "The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison"
So you can see the Malheur occupation was a response to a federal government who engaged in such tyrannical behavior as inducing a plea bargain that gave up right to appeal, then themselves hypocritically appealing the sentence and changing it after the fact to one that was found to violate the 8th amendment by Judge Michael Hogan. The Malheur occupation was a response to this, if Obama had 'done nothing' in the case of the Hammonds or just respected the judge's sentence none of it would have happened. In my estimation Bundy et al was the only thing that brought the Hammonds the visibility to get the justice of a pardon under these circumstances and a restoration of their 8th amendment rights.
No real need to address the standoff, when the standoff is yourself vs yourself, and your own guy is by his own admission providing a "supervisory" role of the live fire.
The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury.
This is technically correct but is a misleading characterization of the events according to Wikipedia [1].
> The first criminal case resulting from the standoff, against six Bundy supporters, was declared a mistrial by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on April 24, 2017.
> The mistrial was declared hours after the jury convicted two men of some of the 10 counts in the indictment.
The case was declared a mistrial with prejudice due to prosecutorial "misjudgement" that prevented a fair trial of the Bundys.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Prosecutions_of...
For Malheur he was found 'not guilty' on all charges 'according to wikipedia',
>On October 27, 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty on all counts.[87][88]
Unless you are thinking of another trial of Amon, I think you are mixing up someone else (6 others?) or another event. I admit it is easy to mix it up with Ammon, because the government tried to pin felony charges on him so many time and always hopelessly failed just in multiple ways.
Of course sometimes a criminal just gets away with it, but when the government tries so many felony charges and fails each time, that is when I decided to investigate 'the other side of the coin' and quickly found the portrait portrayed by the media of Ammon is in my estimation highly distorted.
While it will do nothing to convince one way or another of his guilt, I highly recommend listening to some of his interviews and videos and actually trying to understand him, and I think you will be surprised. His ideas and speech were not at all what I expected based on the media portrayal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy
I don’t know exactly how he’s escaped consequences, but I don’t think it’s because he’s actually reasonable and correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I
"Not medically necessary." The baby was not about to die, in fact the doctor admits in the bodycam to manufacturing a story to take Cyrus away via a transfer for cover for removal to foster care. The baby was stable. The hospital then defamed Mr Bundy by lying about the circumstances.
>about to die of malnourishment
Why would a child be discharged straight to CPS foster care with a transfer only to obfuscate that, if the child were about to die? The child is stable, ready for foster care but simultaneously about to die? These are not simultaneously compatible in this context, someone is lying. And I think the end result thankfully bears this out, as the CPS case was ultimately cleared and charges dropped against the mother.
The doctor was saying the baby was stable enough to transport to another hospital, which doesn't contradict the assessment that the baby needed prompt medical care that his caretakers were unjustifiably fighting against. (The baby may have received some immediate treatment that made him safe enough to transport, but not ready to leave hospital care.)
I believe the references to CPS foster parents by the doctor were about the transportation and stay in the hospital, not to immediately discharging from the hospital into a foster home. So the child was stable enough for transportation, under the watch of CPS and also medical professionals, and there was reasonable concern that the child would not get the treatment it needed if discharged to the parents right away. I don't believe there's any contradiction here, in the actual statements, rather than the distorted versions from Bundy.
The baby was returned to its family after approximately a week. That doesn't prove it was totally healthy all along and the parents did nothing wrong. It suggests CPS didn't have a strong case the parents would endanger the baby in the future. Maybe the employees didn't want Bundy followers stalking them at their house, like they did to hospital workers.
No this is the defamatory statement the hospital misleadingly made against Bundy, but in the video she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family and that the transport wasn't even medically necessary but rather was cover. The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family.
>https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar...
Lol you have the video cam right in front of you that contradicts the materially false and malicious defamatory statements against Bundy in this newspaper. I choose to believe the direct recordings of what happened over what an editor says happened, or the testimony the doctor said after the fact when she had months to rehearse with hospital lawyers.
She mentioned a foster mom, not that the purpose of the transfer was to get the baby to the foster mom. And why would it be anyway? You think the state couldn't have released the baby from the first hospital directly to a foster parent? The only thing stopping them was the protesters' presence and knowledge of which locked doors the baby was behind? The baby was already forcibly taken by the state at this point, right? So why does it matter whether it's police, social workers, or foster parents that currently have the baby? The deception made a safe transfer easier perhaps, but it didn't directly enable the transfer.
> The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family.
Sure, she did say the transfer wasn't medically necessary. She said it was to get away from the protesters. Sneaky, probably not illegal. I believe she later said it was a higher standard of care too, but I'll admit that may been said to better justify it as you allude to.
Other things she said in the Idaho Statesman video: "Failure to thrive", lost 0.75lbs since last checkup. Not signs of a baby that was perfectly healthy at home, not something that surprises parents in a matter of hours, completely at odds with Bundy's attempts to say it was healthy. The state was going to move the baby from a hospital to foster care on the diagnosis and data alone, regardless of sneaky hospital transfers to try to defuse the protesters.
There are lots of reasons a baby might lose weight, many of which are not abuse or neglect. Losing a lot of weight does not mean abuse or neglect is involved, it can be some sort of disease or illness unrelated to parental malfeasance. In fact, the baby was initially brought to doctors voluntarily.
This kind of behavior doesn't help kids. It just makes people stop seeking health care and then they avoid any 'mandatory reporter' so their children won't be taken away. Doctors have also recently lead to many children being removed due to unexplained broken bones when really the child had 'broken bone disease'.
>The state was going to move the baby from a hospital to foster care on the diagnosis and data alone, regardless of sneaky hospital transfers to try to defuse the protesters.
That a 'diagnosis and data (of losing weight) alone' (plus, IIRC the baby was having checkups but missed one on a day when the mother was sick) would result in this kind of trickery by a doctor and collusion to take away the child is exactly why Bundy has this kind of support. We're seeing this at scale with other diseases and Bundy is a case of someone actually doing something for justice for the kids to take them back out of a cash-for-kids foster system that has incredibly high rates of abuse, neglect, and loss of children.
After crashing his truck avoiding a roadblock during the high speed pursuit Finicum got out and attempted to draw on officers. He was literally yelling "shoot me" as they shot him.
There's video from the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWX3Tz1tQI
And inside his truck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_Nati...
The rest still stands, and the following interesting facts
>An Oregon State Police SWAT member, identified in the trial of FBI agent Astarita as "Officer 1", fired three shots with an AR-15, into Finicum's truck as it approached the roadblock.[144]
>While Finicum was leaving his truck, an FBI Hostage Rescue Team member allegedly fired two shots[146] one of which entered the truck and ricocheted, inflicting the minor shrapnel wound on Ryan Bundy.[32]
... and then apparently after all this, then he 'attempted' (lol) to draw after police shot at him multiple times (which would be wholly inappropriate after someone tried to kill him with an ar-15), except I can't find evidence he actually did draw.
In the aftermath, the police had to lie about the event:
> They later determined that an FBI Hostage Rescue Team member fired twice at Finicum, missed him but injured a second militant in the process. The agent, whose identity was withheld, was under investigation, along with four other FBI agents who were suspected of attempting to conceal evidence of the gunshots. They reportedly told investigators that none of them fired a shot during the incident.[40][41]
So they initiated fire, seemingly had a guilty enough conscious about initiating fire that they lied about it, isolated one old man who didn't draw and executed him. Clap, clap, brave men!
> He was literally yelling "shoot me" as they shot him.
... he was yelling shoot me, I am going to see the sheriff -- after actually being shot at. I realize your theory is that anyone who puts their hand near their pocket who is pocket carrying on a cold day is 'attempting' to draw, of course no matter if you actually tried that defense as anyone but the enforcer class you would lose horribly and have years in jail to think about it. You have a murderous interpretation of self defense here.
I would like to shoot them down too but then I became 12 and a half years old instead of just 12.
As a policy that has to just apply across the board by default, of course the rule has to simply be be that you can not shoot at things in the air. I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons.
Now a tazer or a net or harpoon, all with physically limited tethers... Well there can be no safety argument about whacking something with a baseball bat, and anything with a tether that isn't rocket powered with 1000 feet of range is basically as safe for legit aircraft as a kid with a bat. IE it doesn't matter how inept the yahoo is, their capacity for harm to others is limited to a few people physically very near them, which is the same danger evrryone is to everyone else all the time.
Bird hunting is handled with #8+ bird shot, which at 45+ degree angle it is essentially at terminal velocity by the time it comes down, considering they are basically BBs it is mildly unsafe coming down (as in you'd have to be incredibly unlucky) anywhere within maybe a couple hundred yards at worst and essentially completely safe beyond that.
(This may or may not be a Simpsons reference.)
https://ageagle.com/blog/european-union-drone-regulations-ex...
https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/kb/can-i-fly-my-drone...
https://nexttools.net/how-close-can-you-fly-a-drone-to-a-per...
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/flying-drones-clo...
https://www.dronelaw.pro/faa-rules-say-you-cant-fly-your-dro...
https://dspalliance.org/new-rules-for-ops-over-people-rid/
this allows you to film your own family & friends enjoying a picnic, but not endanger, harass, annoy or intimidate some other group, from enjoying thier lives
in context this is about ireland and private property so to be purist about -on topic, we need to look at EU rules regarding flights over homes and yards.
What a time to be alive: mess with Uncle Bezos' trillion-dollar empire for appropriating your property? arrested with federal charges. kill a family pet? nothing we can do.
As for killing animals that wander onto your property... that's been controversial for at least the last 160 years, when a similar incident almost started a war between the US and the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)
Follow the money
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40102
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/laanc
False, at least according to this FAA Fact Sheet:
“The FAA has exclusive authority to regulate airspace efficiency for UAS at low altitudes”
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/public_safety_go...
Does the FAA have jurisdiction over paper planes? What about the airspace in my house and does it matter if the doors are open?
On the other hand, I don't think government agencies have much incentive to preemptively limit the scope of their authority, but would be happy to hear of counter-examples.
See above.
It's also illegal in the USA, btw.
Agree. But a good way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have folks shooting at drones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
At least one Florida man is out there plinking Walmart drones at 400 feet with a 9mm. Saw another who took one down from a boat also with a pistol (probably 9mm also), but can't find the video now.
The Venn diagram of "shoots at drones" and "concerned with other people's safety" is two separate circles.
But anyway if you aren't rich enough to laugh off half a decade of court costs then you probably shouldn't shoot at them at all.
Most people don’t have dashcams. Drones, on the other hand, would have evidence of both the crime and criminal intent.
Just do a search for "charged with shooting at drone".
> Civilian shootings at drones occur at a rate likely below 15 incidents per year in the U.S., compared to over one million registered drones.
I'm going to have to conclude that this strains and breaks the bounds of the term 'frequently' and the initial term 'incorrect'.
Depending on where you live, they might even be neighbors of yours.
Something showing up every month is pretty damn frequent, especially when it leaks into national news and always grabs headlines, yet idiots still do it.
I mean if a plane fell out of the sky once a month, is that frequently?
What about if your bank blocked access to your account once a month when you needed it?
I frankly don't give a shit to spend time on this with you anymore.
It's pointless to debate our personal definitions.
Have fun
If you’ve got a new car or your kids are wearing new clothes could be important data points.
Sadly, I’m only half joking.
Whatever you can think of some fucker will be willing to try.
Things can go wrong
A long time ago I got to spend some time doing this and it was trickier than one might think. You have to lead over 3 dimensions instead of 2 and the vehicle speed is more variable than most things.
Any drone I would be able to pick off with a firearm would have to be low and slow enough for me to capture it with less violent means.
Then I’m not shooting anything. I’m seizing property that shouldnt be here like I would a kids frisbee or a an abandoned vehicle. They’re free to ask nicely for it to be returned
Again, it is an aircraft. Ask yourself that same question, only substitute “Cessna” for “drone”.
It's a felony to attempt to damage, destroy, disable or wreck any aircraft. How you do it doesn't matter.
You'll want to examine this a bit more closely: is the aircraft in a location it should not be? Above your house is likely to be a valid place for a drone, whether you like it or not. Exceptions are for things like airports (other air traffic) and sporting events (large crowds).
So when you use a net to capture the drone out of the sky, you are not collecting it from its location of abandonment on your property, you are stealing it. (That's assuming more lax rules on disabling drones vs. other aircraft, per the sibling comment.)
But that’s really all assuming; I’m not a lawyer, just a layman with an interest in logical systems.
Edit:
I should add that I generally think about the regulations for small drones (<.55 pounds and some other things) rather than the <55-pound ones because I have looked into flying one. I still think it’s maybe not the best idea to net a 30+ pound piece of flying machinery but the pilot certainly has more things to worry about.
If it fell in "aircraft in distress" case you're fucked because it was operating legally.
There's not a jury in the world that would convict someone of shooting a drone flying over there own backyard.
Just yesterday, I told a drone operator that it was illegal to fly where he was.
He told me that because he clicked "I agree" on some setup software that made it legal.
After a while, that will get so expensive that either they will stop using drones to deliver, or drone design will improve to the point that they become almost impossible to bring down.
Either way, hey, gets rid of the problem of drones dropping on your property.
* your new window was $1800, so even with treble damages, it's still under $10k, which means it is a small claims issue.
* sue AMZN (or some subcontractor/"third party") in small claims, they don't show up. you get a default judgement
* good luck collecting. the moment you do, they start denying it on technical grounds. Oh you were a prime member in 2018, remember when you agreed to settle all disputes in mediation? well, we remember.
* Go to mediation, they find that your neighbor is culpable for the accident, rules 100% against you. Or better yet, they refuse to engage with you because your neighbor won't agree to be bound by the arbitration.
And if you think damages are less than 10k from some kid getting hit in the head by a drone crashing through his/her window, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. In the US, healthcare alone is not that cheap.
Finally, you suing AMZN is not how things work in the US. In the US, the relevant insurance companies work it out with each other. What I mean by that is, it is AmFam suing AMZN. And believe me, AmFam is gonna get every penny it's owed.
You're the one living in fantasy land if you think homeowners sue liable parties for money in the US rather than filing claims with their home insurance company.
If everyone just keeps that full coverage, it will work itself out. AMZN will be paying those claims. Or rather, AMZN's insurers will be paying those claims.
More like amfam buys you a new window and raises your premium.
Because AmFam does both!
AmFam, State Farm, et al. suing AMZN for these claims nationally literally makes AmFam money over time. While costing AMZN money. That's what will move AMZN to either cease the practice, or design drones that are resilient to nearly any kind of attack.
Legislating low noise propellers etc.
Drones make a lot of sense versus having a 2 ton truck drive around to hand you a package. Much better if we figure out a workable solution here
Throughout the comments, it sounds like people are expecting these drones to only be ~50 feet above the ground, buzzing right over houses, or being a noisy nuisance hovering in place endlessly.
Maybe it's because I live in an area with lots of tall trees, but I'd expect these drones to be flying at least 200 feet up. At that height, it becomes difficult to hear the drone unless you're in an incredibly quiet rural area.
And it's not like a drone is going to hang around. It'll deliver its package and then head back to base to charge and/or pick up another package.
Maybe I can convince all my neighbors to fly barrage balloons in all the back yards.
The sheer Big Brother possibilities are insane.
The future: "saferoom is where the pants aren't"
The logical thing to do is to regulate things when they become a problem, not speculatively.
E.g. buzzing someone's home on an airplane is already a real FAA regulations violation, can be even a criminal offense.
Can you imagine if concert venues could get around noise ordinances by lifting the speakers with drones? Absurd.
So a law that bans a drone from using a massive speaker to violate a noise ordnance could be enforced, but a law against the operational noise of an aircraft could not. A city could ban a drone operator from flying over a crime scene low enough to disturb evidence, but could not ban a drone from passing over a crime scene.
Well, it's still obnoxious. Either fly over the roads, or fly high enough (50 m? 100?) to be unreachable.
You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace.
You can build a tall structure (subject to local laws). But anything above that is outside your control.
---
This article, however, is about Ireland.
While you're not wrong in practice, it's actually a surprisingly complicated area of law.
The FAA doesn't "own" the airspace, it's a public right-of-way and every citizen has the right to transit it. See 49 USC §40103: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace".
The FAA gets to set policy on how to ensure safety, just like the Coast Guard sets rules for the safe navigation of public waterways (but neither "owns" the air/water): "the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace."
Now, where it gets complicated is the definition of "navigable airspace". A common definition is either 360 feet or 500 feet above the tallest structure on a parcel of land, but the case law isn't consistent on this - especially when you consider that some aircraft (like helicopters) can legally navigate lower than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States
For example, a drone weighing over 250 grams must be registered with the FAA, no matter what height it is flown. Even if it's your own backyard at eye level.
This is a little weird, but factual.
Makes sense. If castle doctrine applied to the skies, people could take potshots at low flying aircraft above their house. I guess that's one way to prevent becoming a flyover state...
It will evaluate such structures for their effect on air traffic, and local authorities will almost universally follow their findings when approving construction.
That's not true for helicopters and UAVs within sight of their controllers, but I feel sorry for the people who bought a house not near and airport, and now have to deal with a buzzing swarm overhead.
This kinda begs the question of what is meant by "airspace." If the term means a geometric volume that is generally occupied by materials in a gaseous state, then does the FAA own the airspace within one's home? Does the FAA control how cars drive down the airspace of a road? No, that is absurd.
The common use of aircraft smaller than humans and capable of performing navigation faster than humans is expanding a previously relatively stable boundary of what Federal law and rules call "navigable airspace." Thus, I think it is incorrect to say "The FAA owns your airspace." since the FAA explicitly does not control airspace below a certain altitude over most people's houses.
So there’s that.
That said, I don't know of any aircraft operator who doesn't have some form of insurance. If nothing else because the banks demand it.
The state transport authority or the automobile driver?
also, stock up on fishing line
1. What does "minimum distance... regulations" even mean?
2. Drones do not have minimum altitude regulations, except in cases where ALL air traffic is limited.
3. Drones have a few restrictions from operating above people, but hardly enough to prevent interactions. See FAA's Operations Over People rule.
you dont need nets just single dangling lines
Palmer lucky made another way too, an EMP that looks like a portable speaker
If a single operator can pilot 20 drones simultaneously, delivering say 50+ packages/hour, then it starts to make sense.
*) UAS.STS-01.040 Responsibilities of the remote pilot: "(d) shall operate only one unmanned aircraft at a time"
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-r...
Woodpeckers, hummingbirds, geese and ducks flying over between the various lakes. Losing out on that just so Amazon can make more money (not to mention potentially spy on us even more effectively) would be tragic
However, even the US, that isn't entirely true.
United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet.
The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over "navigable airspace", which is considered a public highway. This navigable airspace generally begins at 500 feet above the surface in uncongested areas and 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas. Aircraft flying within this navigable airspace are generally not considered to be trespassing.
There is a "gray area" between the immediate airspace controlled by the landowner and the federally controlled navigable airspace. While the FAA asserts its authority to regulate all airspace, including this lower stratum, the exact delineation of private airspace rights within this zone, particularly concerning new technologies like drones, is not clear.
Probably one of the most misunderstood cases ever. Causby's complaint was that his chickens were dying as a result of the stress from low altitude military flights over his property. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights because the government was taking something from him (chickens) without compensation.
83 feet was simply the lowest recorded flight. People took that to be some sort of magical barrier, but would only be relevant if your issue was also with chicken deaths.
Even if you take it to apply to drones, it would only apply to government drones that in some way cause you real and demonstrable financial loss.
I always thought it looked weird but now I wonder if it's because it's largely surrounded by private property.
[1] been decades since I've read the textbook on it, but IIRC it involves higher load on rotor and engines than "running" methods that utilize ground effect and provide horizontal momentum against wind gusts.
Living in an urban environment always will entail some unwanted sounds, dogs barking, passing cars, the occasional helicopter or whatever, but to have a drone passing over your neighborhood to deliver someone coffee or a parcel feels like exploiting every possible avenue to make money, regardless of how disruptive it is to the local population.
However bad they are now, it will be 10x the number of drones in a few years. It's a depressing thought.... but hey, at least someone gets their shitty coffee and adds a few euro to the profit of some company so it'll all be worth it in the end.
I hope the current strategy is to prove demand and when it's time lean into efficiency and hopefully non-obtrusiveness. If they don't, the volume of complaints is a threat to the whole business model. A drone delivering lunch potentially takes a combustion engine off the road for dozens of minutes and leaves more room on congested streets for other traffic. If the tech can be optimized to sound like a bird (essentially inaudible), we've probably gained something overall.
Please edit out ideological and inflammatory swipes like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Just because they aren't mowing down kids, doesn't mean they don't have negative consequences to neighborhoods or that the cumulative consequences are less than delivery vans. Typically in housing estates, vehicle sound is low due to reduced speeds and vans aren't flying over your house across the airspace of your garden so yes, they are noiser. Plus the amount of weight these drones can carry is low meaning they require compared to a ( large ) van, it would take hundreds of drones to deliver the equivalent weight of one Ford Transit van.
Or that's what I would sound like if I was a looneybin.
Maybe read the article, as it discusses the ambiguity in Irish law about airspace. The word "reasonable" occurs.
In practice, that's what I do when I fly my drones in my Canadian neighbourhood. Sure, the airspace above someone's property isn't theirs, but that doesn't mean I want to annoy my neighbours. So I tend to fly high enough that they don't even see or hear my drones at all. I try and be "reasonable" like my Irish cousins.
Here's my latest drone photo. I doubt any of my neighbours saw or heard this flight:
https://360.menino.com/panorama/the-view-from-eagle-ridge
Despite your quick dismissals, the article actually explains quite well why the law is ambiguous - namely, that the height to which the property owner owns the air is only defined by what is "reasonable", but doesn't give an actual meter height that the property owner owns. And the article recommends that regulation defining this height is something that would benefit all parties.
Low altitude flights are illegal for a number of reasons, but part of it is separation from drones.
Generally the ground to 400 ft is drones, 500-1000 is helicopters, 1000-60k is aircraft, and 60k+ is UFOs.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
Yes, there isn't a blanket minimum in the US for drones. The issue is murkier than you're stating though, and it usually falls much closer to the side of "drones can't do anything to upset property owners" than to the side of "drones can hover a foot off your lawn and can't be touched." Here's a smattering of examples, but there are thousands of other such laws or cases if you want to give your favorite intern something interesting to study.
- There are safety considerations prohibiting most delivery drones from, e.g., flying too close to a backyard barbeque [0]
- There is case law regarding the ability to use the airspace immediately above your property [1]
- There's more case law to that effect, interpreting the drone's actions as trespass [2]
- When interpreted as trespass, often there would still be no consequences (since you've only suffered negligible harm), but states frequently have privacy laws [3] giving the matter more teeth, and in that case explicitly calling out aircraft.
- Other states have such laws too, with Florida's applying to individuals but focusing on government overreach [4].
[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-107.39
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/
[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentuck...
[3] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
[4] https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/934.50
It's solved through normal democratic process, I mean discuss with your city/country council, introduce regulations. Not by shooting an aircraft.
I would not expect the federally charged drone free for all to last very long once this activity picks up in earnest.