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.
m463 · 16m 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.
bigiain · 4h 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 · 4h 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 · 3h ago
I somehow doubt the crows will cough up the perps name when interrogated....
georgemcbay · 2h ago
They definitely won't, crows are very loyal and they abhor snitches.
fuzztester · 1h ago
then they are traitors
Mistletoe · 1h ago
These are the kinds of references I’d love to see more of on HN.
bn-l · 2h ago
I need to review those references.
defrost · 2h ago
Given the referenced items exist the GP comment has already exceeded the trustworthiness thresholds of current US Federal Govt. reports.
IncRnd · 1h ago
Verified with the US AI Stamp of Approval
anitil · 2h 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 · 2h ago
I wonder what's stopping them from erecting random wire mesh that will damage drone flying through them.
adolph · 5h ago
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 · 5h 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
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 · 2h 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.
benced · 1h 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.
Aziell · 31m 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.
daniel-grigg · 1h ago
Until they drop down to deliver and take off again?
fuzztester · 1h ago
yes. and how long before they start injuring or killing people because of software bugs or running out of petrol or other fuel?
jbattle · 2h 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.
SoftTalker · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 8h 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.
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 · 8h 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?
john-h-k · 5h ago
The legal system is when you get to shoot at things that break the law
harimau777 · 3h ago
What's the other recourse? Unless you are rich, cops don't care.
happyopossum · 2h 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.
lmm · 3h 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.
JumpCrisscross · 8h 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 · 1h 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.
zelphirkalt · 4h 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 · 4h ago
what if neighbour is hovering 1 foot above the roof in a small homemade hot air balloon? :)
incompatible · 2h 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 · 1h ago
kindly don't airsplit.
metaphor · 2h 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.
I'm not categorically opposed to the idea of shooting them.
JumpCrisscross · 7h ago
And I'd argue they deserved it. (I'd also expect you to get charged.)
flir · 5h ago
Well.... maybe just one.
Pour encourager les autres and all that.
softg · 8h ago
at that point you could just buy cheap drones yourself and ram those into your neighbor's (oops)
zelphirkalt · 5h 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 · 2h 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 · 8h 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.
mulmen · 6h 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 · 5h 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.
Interesting. Malheur was led by the same Amon Bundy.
anonymars · 2h ago
Close! The 2014 standoff was led by Clive Bundy, Ammon's father
ty6853 · 3h 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 · 2h 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.
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.
mistrial9 · 5h 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
gigel82 · 5h 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.
zdragnar · 5h ago
It generally is. How else do you think Google gets all those satellite pictures for maps?
op00to · 5h 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 · 5h 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 · 3h 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 · 2h 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.
pilingual · 8h 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 · 56m 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.
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 · 4h 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)
Sanzig · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 7h ago
A net launcher wouldn't be considered a firearm under Canadian law, so it wouldn't be illegal under firearms rules.
theodric · 8h ago
That's nice.
It's also illegal in the USA, btw.
erkt · 1h 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.
JumpCrisscross · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 8h ago
There's a lot of idiots and a lot of small arms
bryanlarsen · 8h ago
Shotguns are only good for about 100 feet, most delivery drones transit higher than that.
DaSHacka · 3h ago
I'd think people would get progressively more interested in shooting them the lower they're flying anyway
FireBeyond · 5h ago
Too many people think they're some Scout Sniper for it to be a non-issue.
catigula · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 2h ago
People very very rarely (almost never) shoot at cars due to road rage.
sib · 8h ago
You know what they say about assuming...
dole · 7h ago
it makes an ass of u and massad ayoob
No comments yet
esseph · 8h ago
You would be incorrect. It happens frequently and gets prosecuted.
catigula · 8h ago
The word "frequently" is doing a lot of heavy-lifting here.
esseph · 8h ago
Completely up to what that word means to you.
Just do a search for "charged with shooting at drone".
catigula · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 5h ago
Your strained analogy would actually be if any bank blocked one account from all bank accounts once a month.
esseph · 5h ago
I guess some of us count life in web requests.
Larrikin · 21m ago
Can you write up a blog post about how many months of the year you are being blocked from banking?
op00to · 5h ago
There are regulations about what air corridors they can use in the US.
tedunangst · 8h ago
Why would the drone be hovering over a property where it's not making a delivery?
Lio · 8h 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 · 6h ago
My municipality (US) does this for property tax purposes already, using commercial datasets. Stands to reason that this is next.
_DeadFred_ · 3h ago
Add homeowners insurance companies as well.
dietr1ch · 8h ago
Why would a Waymo be stuck next to my property if it isn't dropping off someone?
Things can go wrong
adolph · 5h 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.
KennyBlanken · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 4h 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 · 7h 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 · 7h 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 · 6h 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 · 5h 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 · 1h 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 · 5h 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.
reaperducer · 8h 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 · 8h ago
he told you the first lie that came into his head
Always42 · 8h ago
Imagine shooting down a helicopter above your house, people r crazy
patrickmay · 8h ago
Helicopters typically contain people, drones do not.
thrill · 5h ago
"The legal landscape surrounding the use of drones is currently far from clear..."
It is quite clear. The FAA considers drones aircraft. There are exceptions for how drones and RC aircraft operate regarding the restrictions that other aircraft operate. The Federal government is quite within its legal rights to fully prosecute anyone damaging an airborne drone for any reason other than a valid emergency. If the drone operator acts in an illegal or unsafe manner, and you sitting in your backyard bitching about them is not within that criteria, and you interfere with it, expect federal law to be used against you.
cameronh90 · 5h ago
That would be very relevant, were the article not about Ireland.
thrill · 5h ago
Fair enough. While it's been many years since I flew in UK and other European airspace, ICAO regulations had no carve outs allowing those on the ground to interfere with anything in flight.
mig39 · 57m 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 · 5h 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 · 4h 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 · 4h 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 · 4h 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.
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 · 4h 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.
deepsun · 5h 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 · 2h 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 · 4h 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 · 3h ago
So basically: Screw you peasants, your corporate lords can do whatever they please. That's about par for the course now.
dylan604 · 2h ago
i like how you dropped a please in there
Brian_K_White · 3h 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.
neepi · 8h 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 · 5h ago
With all the money behind it that’s probably going to a criminally punished similar to hijacking a goods truck n the highway.
neuroelectron · 5h ago
Yes but not yet
gosub100 · 4h 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 · 5h 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 · 4h 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.
elevatedastalt · 5h ago
And it should be. Vandalism doesn't become OK just because it's being done to drones.
MarcelOlsz · 5h 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 · 4h 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 · 4h ago
Capitalism doesn't remain OK just because you've only added drones.
_carbyau_ · 4h 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"
scarab92 · 1h 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 · 1h 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 · 1h ago
If we didn't have people like that, then they would be right.
isuricnamqodn · 1h ago
they’ve probably read more history than your average bear
monkaiju · 1h ago
Idk how you can think this is the reasonable take given any familiarity with history...
pmarreck · 1h 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
simplesimon890 · 1h 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.
scarab92 · 1h ago
[flagged]
tomhow · 50m 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 · 1h 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
deepsun · 5h 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 · 4h ago
This article is from Ireland, but at least here in the US local governments cannot create laws governing anything that is airborne.
deepsun · 2h 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 · 2h ago
Ban any facility that operates delivery drones, then. Or tax them into non-existence.
Spivak · 1h 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 · 17m 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.
Bluescreenbuddy · 4h ago
Not in the US. Property owners do not own the airspace above their property.
LeoPanthera · 4h 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 · 4h 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 · 4h 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 · 48m 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 · 1h ago
Quite probably it's more to avoid dealing with possible collision dangers.
giantg2 · 4h ago
Not entirely true. I believe there are laws determining how high you own. I believe it's 100' for my state.
paulddraper · 8h 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 · 8h 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 · 6h 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 · 8h 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...
No comments yet
sizzzzlerz · 3h 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.
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 · 5h 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.
3cats-in-a-coat · 8h ago
So who pays your medical bills when one of those falls on your head. FAA or the delivery company?
connicpu · 8h 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 · 8h 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.
rolph · 8h ago
drones have minimum distance and altitude regulations as well as restrictions from operating above people.
also, stock up on fishing line
bn-l · 2h ago
I like the fishing line idea a lot but wouldn’t that get birds as well
rolph · 1h 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
fifticon · 8h ago
well, if you are russian, it appears not.
GuestFAUniverse · 8h ago
Don't overthink it: get a permission for one or many flag poles ;-)
renewiltord · 2h 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 · 1h 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...
monkaiju · 5h 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 · 5h 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
paulcole · 2h 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.
friendlyprezz · 5h ago
There sure is one way to stop em
Palmer lucky made another way too, an EMP that looks like a portable speaker
Yeul · 8h 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 · 7h 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.
masswerk · 2h 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.
mingus88 · 8h 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 · 2h 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 :-)
antithesizer · 5h ago
my advice on this question is the same as my advice on most questions: befriend the crows.
not_a_bot_4sho · 31m ago
"Hear me out, we need more murders"
Fairburn · 8h ago
I hear that a focused low power EMP zot can do wonders .. /s
threecheese · 5h 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.
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.
But now I wonder if we will "silent spring" them too.
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)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc
Maybe I can convince all my neighbors to fly barrage balloons in all the back yards.
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
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.
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.
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
Pour encourager les autres and all that.
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...
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 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/
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)
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.
Most people don’t have dashcams. Drones, on the other hand, would have evidence of both the crime and criminal intent.
No comments yet
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?
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.
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.
It is quite clear. The FAA considers drones aircraft. There are exceptions for how drones and RC aircraft operate regarding the restrictions that other aircraft operate. The Federal government is quite within its legal rights to fully prosecute anyone damaging an airborne drone for any reason other than a valid emergency. If the drone operator acts in an illegal or unsafe manner, and you sitting in your backyard bitching about them is not within that criteria, and you interfere with it, expect federal law to be used against you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
No comments yet
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.
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.
also, stock up on fishing line
you dont need nets just single dangling lines
Or that's what I would sound like if I was a looneybin.
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
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...