UAV - Tresspass?

At the local RC club, show your certificate of liability insurance or do not fly.
The insurance cost $300.

good question. I have no idea what the answer is. I would GUESS that anything below the floor for aviation (which is 1000'? except for an airport glide path) would probably be in the domain of the surface owner. But that's purely speculation on my part.

Hunting club should use No. 3 buckshot, and shoot it about 10x, so that there is nothing left of it. And, possibly use a scanner, to know when it is flying.

IF they shoot enough of them down, then they will run out.... uemmmm he heh ehheheheheh

Naw, they use chinese parts, and maybe they will never run out.

well, They need a better rifle to shoot at them. They still can fly.

Pigeon shoots are as American as apple pie.

N

In light of Google Earth and other high resolution aerial photography that is publicly available I would venture a guess that producing proof of "tresspass" would burden the plantiff.

Can't remember the State that it happened in...but a person was prosecuted for 'public' nudity...in his own backyard. Glimpsed by the neighbors from time to time. If I remember correctly the courts ruled that 'outdoors', even on private property, can, at times, be seen in the eyes of the law as 'public'.

To me it's a grey area.

PS - What do you expect when violating a gun-club's air space? Dangerous place to be, for sure.;-)

There's a good, if non-technical, article on the subject on the Atlantic website. It's aimed at a general audience, but does discuss a couple of court cases. Its conclusion is that the matter has not yet been settled.

Barbra found out ............... http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html

> In light of Google Earth and other high resolution aerial photography that is publicly available I would venture a guess that producing proof of "tresspass" would burden the plantiff.
>
> Can't remember the State that it happened in...but a person was prosecuted for 'public' nudity...in his own backyard. Glimpsed by the neighbors from time to time. If I remember correctly the courts ruled that 'outdoors', even on private property, can, at times, be seen in the eyes of the law as 'public'.
>
> To me it's a grey area.
>
> PS - What do you expect when violating a gun-club's air space? Dangerous place to be, for sure.;-)

I did spell trespass wrong in the title. Thank you for catching that. I am a spelling fanatic as well (though, I am not a good speller). I would certainly be a "plantiff" in a spelling lawsuit. 🙂

Your PS is right on the money. And this wasn't about shooting stationary targets. It was about shooting birds. You would think that the person flying the UAV would have thought "hey I bet they can can shot my mobile aerial vehicle, since they have shotguns and are shooting pigeons."

I will take a look. Very interesting topic. What if I put my survey rod over your fence, but don't touch the ground, or set up the three legs of the tripod so they are on the adjoiners, but the optical plummet is over a rebar that is on your property? Or as an owner, in a downtown area with no side yard setback, if I have a security camera over the adjoiners property?

I complained about a crop duster flying just above the treetops above my house 7 days a week at sunup.

It fell on deaf ears.

I was told that it was a planned and approved flightpath with the proper paperwork.

I never heard or noticed when the plane made its return flight.

Something to do about payloads and fuel put him above my house ruining many needed zzzzs at the time.

If there had been no approved flight, I would have had a legal right take action against the pilot since it was not an isolated event.

o.O

On another note, what about using a prismless EDM to locate points on and adjoiner's property? Proving trespass would be a challenge for the layman.B-)

There have been surveyors sanctioned by the Oregon BOR for not notifying the adjacent land owner before occupying the monument common to their client, in one case, I think just holding the rod on the monument on the other side of the fence was a trespass, even though the fence obviously was NOT on the line.

Not saying I agree with that, BUT that is the reality here in Oregon.

SHG

Shooting A Rifle Into The Air Is Not A Safe Practice.

So I sent them an email cautioning their unsafe actions.

"Firing a rifle into the air is not a safe practice and may well be illegal. As a former NRA rifle instructor I suggest you discontinue the practice."

"However, air to air combat appears to be completely legal. A small cheap RC airplane should easily take out a helicopter should an accidental collision occur. As a bonus the heap of crap should then fall onto private property where it just might accidentally get run over by 4 wheel drive vehicles hastening to recover it. A cheap RC helicopter may require some steel armor plating to make it effective against the enemy rotors."

"Since you are a sporting association I believe you would enjoy the challenge."

Paul in PA

Hovering a helicopter over my head is not a safe practice.

>
> "Firing a rifle into the air is not a safe practice and may well be illegal. As a former NRA rifle instructor I suggest you discontinue the practice."
>
> A

A helicopter hovering over my head with it's spinning blades is not a safe practice either. There are instances where people have been killed by RC Aircraft crashes. If someone is using a RC Helicopter to spy on me while I am doing a legal activity (hunting), I would argue that I have a right to shoot it down. Plus, I bet it's lots of fun.

Shooting A Rifle Into The Air Is Not A Safe Practice.

That's along the lines of my thinking.

The RC Red Baron.

:angel:

Shooting A Rifle Into The Air Is Not A Safe Practice.

come on, Paul. no one shot a rifle at that thing. there were a lot of sportsmen with shotguns (seeing that it was a pigeon hunt). they shot it with a shotgun I'm sure. the media, and this activist, are just too stupid to know better.

Hovering a helicopter over my head is not a safe practice.

In my state we have some of the strongest hunter harassment laws.

Citation: LSA-R.S. 56:648 - 56:648.3

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=105486

Summary: This section comprises Louisiana's hunter harassment laws. Under R.S. 56:648.1, no person may engage in such activities as interfering with the lawful taking of wildlife, disturbing a wild animal or otherwise affecting its behavior with the intent to prevent or hinder lawful taking, disturb any hunter, trapper, or fisherman who is engaged in lawful taking, or enter or remain on state-managed lands/water or private lands/water with the intent to violate this section. Violation of the provisions of R.S. 56:648.1 constitutes a class two violation. The section allows the issuance of an injunction and recovery of actual damages by persons affected by such conduct.

I Was Thinking Of A P-51 Mustang Or An ME-109

Since they were hovering the helicopter it would be possible to use a rifle. I do not know however, I was not there.

Our local paper had photos and labeled it a shooting without specifying the firearm. State Police indicate the crime would be Criminal Mischief but have no suspects. How far up the priority list do you think Criminal Mischief is?

Paul in PA

Hovering a helicopter over my head is not a safe practice.

:good: :good: :good:

About 20 years ago more or less, I attended a seminar with Walt Robillard as one of the instructors. One case he discussed was a telephone link by microwave towers that started losing calls/signal over a period of several day and eventually lost all communication between the towers. I think it was somewhere in Georgia.

Upon investigation, the phone company found that a power plant was setting up a cooling tower that was blocking their signal. The phone company filed suit saying they had a prescriptive easement thru that air space. The power company won.

One possible outcome of the suit would have been for the phone company to have won. At that point, any future microwave towers that were built could have been required to get an air space easement from each and every landowner along that path.

Anyway, it was the opinion of that court that the landowner owned the ground and the airspace as high as he could control that airspace from the ground. If the landowner had 80 foot trees then he owned 80 foot of air space. If that same landowner built a 160 foot tower then he increased the airspace that he owned to 160 feet.

I don't think being able to shoot a bullet in the air 5000 feet would qualify. Putting a weight on a rope and slinging it in the air would as long as you held onto the other end of the rope. That part is just my opinion.

Obviously that is still subject to FAA regulations as far as lights on the structures and not invading flight paths.

A year or two after that seminar we had a helicopter in our area that was doing aerial searches for marijuana fields. I was told by a neighbor that the helicopter was hovering about 10 feet off the ground on some land I own and slowly going along the treeline looking for marijuana plants. I talked to the local DA about illegal search laws but she said since I didn't see it, it would be hard to prove. Translated, that meant she didn't want to get involved.

All this is from memory so don't quote me.

James