|
|
Post by atsfan on Oct 14, 2014 17:17:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Oct 14, 2014 17:20:12 GMT -8
1) Unauthorized flying of any drone or RC plane with camera over someone else's property is considered in most states as an invasion of privacy and/or trespassing 2) Many localities are writing and enforcing new laws on drones because of their terrorism threat (it doesn't take much of a terrorist imagination to think of payload, and the potential to disperse over crowd, if not directly at one specific individual) 3) The first idiot dumb enough to try to fly one over 1600 Penn Ave (or any other high ranking political official home) and get caught is going to pretty much be an end to RC and drones as the current hobbyists know it... Goodbye $10K toy. We are talking railfan use not the White House? You are completely false to say flying over someone's property is trespassing . Please show cites from most states that say that as a fact please. Facts please |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 6:41:03 GMT -8
1) Unauthorized flying of any drone or RC plane with camera over someone else's property is considered in most states as an invasion of privacy and/or trespassing 2) Many localities are writing and enforcing new laws on drones because of their terrorism threat (it doesn't take much of a terrorist imagination to think of payload, and the potential to disperse over crowd, if not directly at one specific individual) 3) The first idiot dumb enough to try to fly one over 1600 Penn Ave (or any other high ranking political official home) and get caught is going to pretty much be an end to RC and drones as the current hobbyists know it... Goodbye $10K toy. We are talking railfan use not the White House? You are completely false to say flying over someone's property is trespassing . Please show cites from most states that say that as a fact please. Facts please In California flying a drone/RC aircraft over someone else's real property without the property owner's permission is trespassing. This has come up with with RE brokers making sales videos, pro & amateur filmakers, map makers, etc. They need permission. Railroads are almost certainly going to defend their ownership rights. The law makes exception for passenger & freight aircraft doing what they do- I don't know where that is in the Code, or if it's federal. Your state may (will) vary and this is all subject to change. I've got my land use planner & licenced CA real estate salesperson hat on. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 654-663 www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=654-663654. The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others. In this Code, the thing of which there may be ownership is called property. 657. Property is either: l. Real or immovable; or... 658. Real or immovable property consists of: l. Land;... 659. Land is the material of the earth, whatever may be the ingredients of which it is composed, whether soil, rock, or other substance, and includes free or occupied space for an indefinite distance upwards as well as downwards, subject to limitations upon the use of airspace imposed, and rights in the use of airspace granted, by law. |
|
|
|
Post by bigb6flyer on Oct 15, 2014 18:53:08 GMT -8
The FAA is deep into rules regarding how unmanned drones will be allowed to interact in the manned, national airspace system. Everything from rules for hobbyists to package delivery to military and civilian applications are being decided.
Surprisingly, as a land owner, you own very little of the airspace above your house. Most municipalities prohibit nuisance activity and would probably recognize whatever distance an individual could reasonably expect to have a drone be away from a dwelling and not be a nuisance as a safe, fair distance or would enforce whatever distance the faa sets as a minimum.
What is that distance for an unmanned drone? That's where the faa comes in and must decide. For manned airplanes, it is a minimum of 1000 ft altitude over populated areas and 500 ft altitude overly sparsely populated areas, unless the airplane is at takeoff or approaching to land.
The mandate set by Congress for the faa to set the rules and integrate unmanned drones into the national airspace system is rapidly approaching in 2015. Most aviation experts fully expect the faa to miss the deadline by long ways, much as the RR industry will miss congressionally mandated ptc integration. There is a great deal at stake and at risk, way more than the average citizen has considered.
Brad
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 15, 2014 19:33:01 GMT -8
More trouble with drones...
The Serbians and Albanians were playing a soccer match. A drone carrying an Albanian banner flew into the stadium, leading to a fight on the field between the teams leading to the match being ended. Both teams now face sanctions from the European soccer authorities.
Hey, at least they're not shooting at each other anymore, just drones and fists...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2014 7:05:00 GMT -8
...Surprisingly, as a land owner, you own very little of the airspace above your house... Brad Citations please, because that is not true in California (and probably most other states). I posted portions of California Civil Code Section 654-663 in an earlier post. Ownership of land "includes free or occupied space for an indefinite distance upwards..." This is subject to restrictions, but the air space is still owned by the land owner. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Oct 16, 2014 12:06:22 GMT -8
...Surprisingly, as a land owner, you own very little of the airspace above your house... Brad Citations please, because that is not true in California (and probably most other states). I posted portions of California Civil Code Section 654-663 in an earlier post. Ownership of land "includes free or occupied space for an indefinite distance upwards..." This is subject to restrictions, but the air space is still owned by the land owner. You are crossing references |
|
|
|
Post by bigb6flyer on Oct 17, 2014 7:42:54 GMT -8
California's laws (nor NYs or Flas) are not indicative of most US state's laws. Property law is among the most revered and oldest laws we have in the US; it dates back to colonial times.
Again, you do not own much of the airspace above your property. If you did, every airliner or airplane that flew near or by or over your property would be calling you for permission, not the FAA/ATC. In 25+ years of flying, I've never once asked a property owner if I can fly over their property. There are no citations to cite in regards to how much of the airspace you technically own and that is the heart of the problem. The closest thing I can site to you is the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) which states that pilots are expected to overfly a populated area by at least 1000 ft and a sparsely populated area by 500ft unless you are taking off or landing, presumably from an airport or private strip. Anything else is open to a civil violation and certificate action. This is for manned airplanes.
The new frontier we are entering is what is the relationship between property rights and unmanned UAVs and what are the rules that govern their operation in the National Airspace System.
Brad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 9:32:17 GMT -8
Citations please, because that is not true in California (and probably most other states). I posted portions of California Civil Code Section 654-663 in an earlier post. Ownership of land "includes free or occupied space for an indefinite distance upwards..." This is subject to restrictions, but the air space is still owned by the land owner. You are crossing references What does that mean, "crossing references"? You own the air space above when you own property in California. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 9:42:02 GMT -8
California's laws (nor NYs or Flas) are not indicative of most US state's laws. Property law is among the most revered and oldest laws we have in the US; it dates back to colonial times. Again, you do not own much of the airspace above your property. If you did, every airliner or airplane that flew near or by or over your property would be calling you for permission, not the FAA/ATC. In 25+ years of flying, I've never once asked a property owner if I can fly over their property. There are no citations to cite in regards to how much of the airspace you technically own and that is the heart of the problem. The closest thing I can site to you is the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) which states that pilots are expected to overfly a populated area by at least 1000 ft and a sparsely populated area by 500ft unless you are taking off or landing, presumably from an airport or private strip. Anything else is open to a civil violation and certificate action. This is for manned airplanes. The new frontier we are entering is what is the relationship between property rights and unmanned UAVs and what are the rules that govern their operation in the National Airspace System. Brad Yes, property laws differ across states. I noted that. But as a land owner in California, you do own the air space above "...for an indefinite distance upwards....". There are resrtictions on the ownership, but those restrictions don't negate ownership as defined by law... There are many restrictions on property ownership, this is just one. So you are wrong to make a blanket statement like "you do not own much of the airspace above your property". Much? Where is the limit defined? In CA, there is no upward distance limit. I've hold a CA real estate salesperson license and am a transportation & land use planner, this isn't new to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 12:10:41 GMT -8
By definition your property goes from top to bottom. In most cases you own the air above your property in infinity and own everything under your property to in infinity. There are exceptions and some may be part of your land deed.
I was born in southern Illinois, across the river and up the hill from St.Louis. The lot that my parents house sat on specifically stated they owned everything under the soil, except the coal. The coal was owned by a mining company and the coal company's claim on the coal dated to the 1800's.
That area of Belleville, Illinois had been mined. In the woods by the house there were shafts to the old mines.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 17, 2014 19:54:08 GMT -8
By definition your property goes from top to bottom. In most cases you own the air above your property in infinity and own everything under your property to in infinity. There are exceptions and some may be part of your land deed. I was born in southern Illinois, across the river and up the hill from St.Louis. The lot that my parents house sat on specifically stated they owned everything under the soil, except the coal. The coal was owned by a mining company and the coal company's claim on the coal dated to the 1800's. That area of Belleville, Illinois had been mined. In the woods by the house there were shafts to the old mines. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect mineral rights are a bit more tangible than air rights. Going up, while there may be some sort of formal ownership rights on Earth and within its atmosphere, the folks on Alpha Centauri probably have their deeds, too. Maybe they think they own your property? Some intergalactic court will have to sort that out someday. But ownership is definitely not the same as control and that's what we're ultimately talking about here. You could ask the Russians about this. What they could shootdown in, they owned. Ike had been warned about the U-2's vulnerability to the rapidly improving first gen SAMs. And he actually got another two years worth of pics, samples, etc before that caught up with Francis Gary Powers. What does this have to do with air rights in the US? Well the Russians beta us into space and we didn't complain about them passing above the US. Why? Because Ike had been looking for a way to dodge the whole question of how far the Soviets owned into space. Air breathing aircraft definitely turned out to be the USSR's front yard -- "Get off my yard!" -- but space proved a different matter. In this sense, them sending up Sputnik first created a precedent for when the first Explorer satellites went up shortly afterwards. Space was far enough out that, even assuming an ownership interest existed, for all practical purposes it was whole 'nuther world. |
|
|
|
Post by bigb6flyer on Oct 17, 2014 20:25:54 GMT -8
The use of the airspace above your property and how that relates to unmanned drone use is the point of contention that the FAA and state and federal government must decide upon. That airspace's use and the interaction of UAVs with manned aircraft in the NAS (natl airspace system) is a major point of contention for many.
Brad
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 17, 2014 22:51:43 GMT -8
The use of the airspace above your property and how that relates to unmanned drone use is the point of contention that the FAA and state and federal government must decide upon. That airspace's use and the interaction of UAVs with manned aircraft in the NAS (natl airspace system) is a major point of contention for many. Brad Yeah, and that's where the 400 foot rule comes in I suspect. If the minimum altitude for aircraft is 500 feet (in non-urban areas) that provides 100 feet of separation between drone airspace -- as it's been defined in at least some cases now as no higher than 400 feet -- and the NAS. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 18, 2014 11:41:07 GMT -8
In the latest episode of our continuing national Drama of the Drone, the NTSB comes down firmly on the side of the FAA having the authority to regulate any drone as an aircraft by applying a very broad definition of aircraft to drones. The decision applies specifically to the operation of the drone in a reckless manner, but may end up being more widely applied. More in this AP story: bigstory.ap.org/article/21b7a5db4a0a435eb17850be6883e5a8/ntsb-govt-aircraft-regulations-apply-dronesI suspect pacing the cab of a UP steamer across Nevada might be construed as "reckless," depending on one's drone piloting finesse. If the crew was disturbed by it, I suspect the FAA would take a complaint seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Nov 18, 2014 19:15:23 GMT -8
In the latest episode of our continuing national Drama of the Drone, the NTSB comes down firmly on the side of the FAA having the authority to regulate any drone as an aircraft by applying a very broad definition of aircraft to drones. The decision applies specifically to the operation of the drone in a reckless manner, but may end up being more widely applied. More in this AP story: bigstory.ap.org/article/21b7a5db4a0a435eb17850be6883e5a8/ntsb-govt-aircraft-regulations-apply-dronesI suspect pacing the cab of a UP steamer across Nevada might be construed as "reckless," depending on one's drone piloting finesse. If the crew was disturbed by it, I suspect the FAA would take a complaint seriously. Big deal The NTSB is neither regulatory or enforcement of anything I used my camera last weekend and had a good time You are not going to stop that by randomly posting links to random articles. And nobody paces a trains with a camera drone in any manner such that a train crew would even know it is there. |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Nov 19, 2014 12:26:37 GMT -8
Hello Group,
Hopefully my comments will dovetail into this topic without going too far off topic.
With just about everyone moved to digital and video, are railfans digitizing and dumping their slide collections? The reason I ask is that I’ve noticed a ton of slides lately on eBay at cheap prices and was thinking of starting to collect them. Is it worth the effort or not? (Now the OT part) Does anyone still scan and print slides or are they just digitizing them and post the originals on eBay?
I guess at a buck or two investment per slide it's not a bank breaking venture, but I don't want to waste my money if they can't be easily made into digital or physical prints.
Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 19, 2014 22:54:43 GMT -8
I'd almost bet you're right. People are selling slides. Why now? The scan and save technologies at the consumer level are probably good enough to convince many with extensive collections that's the way to go. Once they're in digital format they're much easier to show, trade, or sell in some more attractive form-factor than the slide. I say this because one of my wife's office mates is a fairly professional rail photog who's been published in Trains and elsewhere. She asked him about what a good scanner to buy is, because the old one doesn't work on her updated Mac OS. He recommended a Canon that is several generations newer than our current one and mentioned it was good for scanning slides. Haven't looked into that yet, but I have some I'd like to do over now that we have some improved capability in the household. Dedicated slide scanners are pricey and probably not really necessary at this point. I can get you recs if you want them though. The new Canon scanner is a something or other 9600 IIRC and retails around $150, so hard to beat that if it works well. Of course, most new images are digital from the start, so those actively taking slides already have the infrastructure in place. Slides are neat, but they sure are bulky. Few people bother with just a handful; usually it's several trays. These and more all are pushing things to digital. Finally, the slide itself still has some value. But that's a moving target. Rare or particularly iconic images still tend to retain value, but even they are suffering as collectors die off and the installed base of users dwindles rapidly. I wouldn't buy slides for investment reasons, that's for sure. But they remain a great source of info. Projectors can often be found cheaply. A friend came across a local theatre that was selling some projectors cheap because they were going digital a few years back, so snagged me one, too, because he knew I wanted one. $50, IIRC. Theaters are all digital for the most part now, but those projectors are out there, just sitting. So long as they're slides that please use or serve a need for references, get them if you can afford them. This is a transitory phase. In 20 years, the cheap slides will be gone, people will still find them desirable, maybe like vinyl records, and the values may improve. Right now is a buyers market from what I've seen. Too bad my budget only covers trains  |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Nov 20, 2014 6:51:46 GMT -8
Thanks for the reply Mike!
The only reason I (or anyone else I guess) would buy slides is to convert them to print or digital for either display or reference purposes. At $150, a quality scanner is probably money well spent “if” someone like me was buying trays of slides (like you said). But my purchases will likely be a couple at a time, so a scanner just won’t be an economical purchase for me at this time.
Mainly, I want the images for modeling purposes, but every now and then, a great image pops up on eBay that would be nice to print for framing.
Also, I think there is some significant loss to the modeling, railfan, and historical communities if these slide images aren’t preserved and shared. It’s also surprising that more train photo sites aren’t popping up on the internet. That may be due to lack of money for a quality website since I guess photo sites need a boat load of storage capacity (don’t know, tech is not my thing).
Thanks again, Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Nov 20, 2014 17:54:08 GMT -8
Hello Group,
Hopefully my comments will dovetail into this topic without going too far off topic.
With just about everyone moved to digital and video, are railfans digitizing and dumping their slide collections? The reason I ask is that I’ve noticed a ton of slides lately on eBay at cheap prices and was thinking of starting to collect them. Is it worth the effort or not? (Now the OT part) Does anyone still scan and print slides or are they just digitizing them and post the originals on eBay?
I guess at a buck or two investment per slide it's not a bank breaking venture, but I don't want to waste my money if they can't be easily made into digital or physical prints.
Thanks, Mark
People scan and save the image, then sell off the slide. Collect images you want of subjects you want. Otherwise don't bother. They will just sit in a box otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Nov 21, 2014 5:01:36 GMT -8
I wouldn't get rid of any slides. I don't want to be the guy five years or fifteen years from now kicking myself when some new generation of scanners comes out that completely blows away what we have now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 21, 2014 8:11:28 GMT -8
[/p] Also, I think there is some significant loss to the modeling, railfan, and historical communities if these slide images aren’t preserved and shared. It’s also surprising that more train photo sites aren’t popping up on the internet. That may be due to lack of money for a quality website since I guess photo sites need a boat load of storage capacity (don’t know, tech is not my thing).
Thanks again, Mark
[/quote] I agree, I hope slides don't just end up in the trash after people are gone -- or that the estate at least thinks to offer them for sale. Fallen Flags has done a pretty good job over the years, despite some ups and downs with the website. Here the worry is what happens after George passes? While the web is great for sharing, it's permanence is still an open question. Checked the new scanner my wife is raving about that was recommended by her railfan photographer colleague. It the Canon 9000 F Mark II. I asked her to ask more about the slide scanning capabilities that he uses, but you may be able to find online reviews more quickly. The price is definitely good at ~$150. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 26, 2014 22:15:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 13, 2015 0:32:42 GMT -8
The FAA has issued guidance for local law enforcement to use in investigating reports of drones behaving badly. www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=81244The FAA released guidance to the law enforcement community explaining the legal framework for the agency’s oversight of aviation safety in the U.S., including UAS operations. The guidance describes how UAS and model aircraft can be operated legally, and the options for legal enforcement actions against unauthorized or unsafe UAS operators. The document also discusses the law enforcement community’s vital role in deterring, detecting and investigating unsafe operations.Another useful FAA UAS link. www.faa.gov/uas/Dos and Don't of hobby UAS ops per the FAA www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/ |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jan 13, 2015 16:11:12 GMT -8
Yes, like any new technology, the regs often lag behind the availability.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Jan 26, 2015 9:37:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 26, 2015 13:57:11 GMT -8
Only if he's a gov't employee. Apparently, a gov't worked fessed up to being out flying it at 3am for "recreation" and then losing it. Uncertain whether that's a good story or not, but I bet he doesn't get the drone back. The LHS had one of these for $250 the other day. Live video streamed to your controller. I must resist... www.protoquad.com/protox-fpv.html |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jan 26, 2015 16:50:17 GMT -8
Nope. No trains running on the white house grounds that I know of. It was some inside employee messing around with it from reading the update. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jan 26, 2015 16:59:36 GMT -8
Only if he's a gov't employee. Apparently, a gov't worked fessed up to being out flying it at 3am for "recreation" and then losing it. Uncertain whether that's a good story or not, but I bet he doesn't get the drone back. The LHS had one of these for $250 the other day. Live video streamed to your controller. I must resist... www.protoquad.com/protox-fpv.htmlFor railfanning outside of a city, they are really cool. And no, I am not saying fly it into someone's bedroom for a flyby............ |
|
hhr
New Member
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 34 
|
Post by hhr on Jan 27, 2015 21:43:35 GMT -8
Allow me to weigh in on this as a professional pilot, drones and quadcopters have revolutionized railfanning, news gathering, surveillance, and aerial photography in general.
But, they need to be used with great care and intelligence. Twice in the last 18 months, I've had close calls involving drone incursions.
There is nothing quite like having to abort an approach when a drone passes within 100 feet of your aircraft. You might be thinking "what could a quadcopter do to a midsize jet", it could take the jet out for starters.
An impact with the cockpit windshield, engine, or a flight control surface/leading edge device during an approach or takeoff has the possibility of downing an aircraft during its most vulnerable phases of operation.
The recent incident at the White House is a textbook example of why the majority of professional pilots are pushing for regulations pertaining to the operation of drones. There are some regs, but their enforcement is laughable, unless you have someone honest enough to admit their stupidity as in the case of the "White House" buzzer.
|
|
