It's Friday and I'm bored

[rherold9]

My Mom just sent me this. JMU gets their own branded car @ BK Racing: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jmusports.com/news/2015/8/18/Athletics_0818151837.aspx">http://jmusports.com/news/2015/8/18/Ath ... 51837.aspx</a><!-- m -->

Edit: idk where to post this we need a random shit thread

[JPolen01]

Edit: idk where to post this we need a random shit thread

Lol wat

[rherold9]

Edit: idk where to post this we need a random shit thread

Lol wat

Is there a thread for things like that that are random, but kinda cool?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Evan]

Asshole fisherman catches drone mid air\

Not surprisingly my feelings about who the asshole is in this video are already covered in the comments...

Idunno man, public is public. If you do it in public, you can be recorded doing it in public. that drone in that video is getting some nice areial video of the coastline and peir. The jerk is the guy who thinks its all about him, and brings violence on somebodys $4k Inspire.

smartphone video is an order of magnitude more privacy invasive. its much closer, much more discreet and harder to spot and everyone has one. drone cameras are super wide angle, and actually invading your privacy in any quantifiable way from 100 feet in the air just isnt happening.

I get your point G and I don't go around drone videoing people, but wouldn't you be pissed enough to do something about it if some guy was flying a drone next to your property and filming your wife and baby in the backyard? Or what if it was flying over your property? I can see why these things get shot down

you could make the argument that your backyard is private. but even so, if something news worthy was happening in your backyard, you would have a news helicopter with its $500k broadcast gimble zooming in on the pimples on your face.

btw, if you shoot down a drone, you are deeep deeeep deeep shit with the law. in the eyes of the FAA its no different from shooting down a real aircraft.

[WRXtranceformed]

Is airspace over your property technically your property? I'm legitimately curious

[rherold9]

Is airspace over your property technically your property? I'm legitimately curious

Supposedly 500feet and below. Depends on your state though

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[CaptainHenreh]

Edit: idk where to post this we need a random shit thread

Lol wat

Is there a thread for things like that that are random, but kinda cool?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You're in one...

[JPolen01]

Is airspace over your property technically your property? I'm legitimately curious

Supposedly 500feet and below. Depends on your state though

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

No this is not how it works. Public airspace (classified as navigable airspace) is considered anything above 500ft. This is incase of engine failure the pilot has enough time safely coast to a landing. All airspace is governed by the FAA who has sole right to authority to control the skies - you can't own a piece of the sky. This is not a state responsibility.

[G.Irish]

Straight Outta Compton music video in GTA V
[youtube]gUnnf9KgbjM[/youtube]

[Ryan T]

Is airspace over your property technically your property? I'm legitimately curious

Supposedly 500feet and below. Depends on your state though

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

No this is not how it works. Public airspace (classified as navigable airspace) is considered anything above 500ft. This is incase of engine failure the pilot has enough time safely coast to a landing. All airspace is governed by the FAA who has sole right to authority to control the skies - you can't own a piece of the sky. This is not a state responsibility.

From what I can find you are somewhat right.

US v. Causby (1946) Justice Douglas wrote,""if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.

Basically a farmer sued the US because they flew a helicopter ~80ft above his farm causing his chickens to freak out and kill themselves. Copied from wikipeida: "The majority opinion cited the law (49 U.S.C. § 180) where Congress defined the "navigable airspace" in the public domain, as that above the "minimum safe altitude" which varies from 500 to 1000 feet depending on time of day, aircraft, and type of terrain. Since the aircraft passing over Causby's property were at 83 feet, the court determined the flight path was an easement, a form of property right. Because the government had taken the easement through private property"

Several other articles I've found seem to agree that the FAA only regulates "navigable airspace" above ~500ft.

[G.Irish]

Yeah I think the law is that you have the right to 500 ft of airspace on your property but that doesn't mean you're free to fly whatever contraption you want below 500 ft.

Even then that doesn't mean you could build a 500 ft tall building on your property if you had the means

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[WRXtranceformed]

So I could shoot down a drone hovering over my property ing that case

[JPolen01]

So I could shoot down a drone hovering over my property ing that case

I don't think that means this is ok. The FAA is still considering drones the same as other flying vehicles and you could get yourself into a world of trouble for shooting one down.

[WRXtranceformed]

I thought the FAA was contentious about drones, severely limiting their use in general...or maybe that was commercial use.

[.RJ]

So I could shoot down a drone hovering over my property ing that case

I don't think that means this is ok.

You forget Lee lives in the dirty south.

[rherold9]

No, it would be considered what charges that guy got. If you miss the drone who knows where those bullets could land? It's a dangerous thing. Too bad laws and regulations haven't caught up with use yet. Until then I really don't think they should be legal to fly around yet.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[G.Irish]

Yeah discharging a firearm in the air could get you in trouble, that's generally illegal. Depending on how strong laws authorizing force on your property are in NC, that might take precedence.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[WRXtranceformed]

If you live outside city limits and there are no local ordinances about it you absolutely can fire a gun in the air on your property. We hunt on my buddy's family's "farm" (it's like maybe 10 acres) that is within a stone's throw of town in NC. SC is even more liberal with gun laws. I agree about firing most firearms into the air but assuming you are aware of what's around your property I wouldn't be concerned about firing a shotgun into the air if I had some acreage (which is what I would be shooting a drone with, if I was inclined to shoot a drone). People shoot clays all the time in their backyards here.

Edit: One note I will say about that first sentence is that you are definitely LIABLE and responsible for any consequences that come from firing a weapon into the air. Some guys in this area got in trouble a while back when their AR accidentally discharged when they were about to clean it on their porch and it hit and killed two kids swimming in a pool like a mile away. Again though, shotgun pellets have a pretty limited ability to do damage beyond a relatively short distance..especially bird shot

[ScottyB]

so basically its OK if i use a harpoon gun or one of these?

[JPolen01]

Firing a gun in the air and firing at a flying object are two completely different things.