What Can We Do About Drones?!?

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by 2hullvenus

I'm at anchor. I have no way to know who owns it. It comes from shore daily, repeatedly.

I think I'll go get a casting net. Good idea. Was thinking a slingshot as well.

Wish my casting net wasn't in storage at this time....

Ah... You might drop by a Bass ProShop and pick up an inexpensive Bow Fishing rig. It could/would be useful on the yacht anyway and an easy shot to bring down (with the leader line) an intrusive drone. One could employ a catch and release technique considering that a dunk in the sea will take care of most drones...No?

[Canibul]

not mine, I built a waterproof one. But I still say shoot the offender down. Hit him where it hurts, right in the thousand dollar pocket.

Ruger 10-22 with a clip full of .22 rat shot?

[2hullvenus]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Are there other boats anchored nearby? Are there other liveaboards? Are you the only one getting visited?

Ha ha ha!

Catch and release is perfect!!

To answer this one, there is a regular liveaboard anchorage nearby. There is also another "remote anchorer" like myself here nearby. He hasn't been visited. The main anchorage hasn't been visited. Only me.

And... its not like a nice view type video. This thing flies out to my boat specifically, then hovers directly above it for 5 minutes before I shoo it away.

Then, it returns to the houses about 3/4 of a mile away.

[Matt Johnson]

I hate those things! I can't wait for the first politician to get filmed by one doing something stupid.... two weeks later they'll be banned everywhere.

Matt

[Tbrad]

Originally Posted by 2hullvenus

I have my 2nd amendment tool handy and it has a nice dispersion, but... that becomes "destruction of property" or something from what I've read.

Also, firing off in a big city is jusr ethically wrong, in my opinion, if not against the law.

I'm looking for something legal to do.

Pellet gun or wrist rocket slingshot. No noise and lotta fun!

[a64pilot]

Call the Law, at least get it on record that you are being harassed, I assume you can't find the operator?
If you decide to take matters in your own hands, I think a wrist rocket with two nuts and fishing line would be a whole lot more acceptable to Johnny Law than a shotgun, and may well be just as effective if not more.

[GordMay]

Your legal rights are "up in the air" (pun intended).

The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (FUSA)*, which took effect in Florida on July 1, 2015, prohibits a person, state agency or political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or those on the property – including an owner, occupant or invitee – with the intent to conduct surveillance. The law further requires that those using drone technology in such a manner must have written consent from the people on the property under surveillance if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
* ➥ http://laws.flrules.org/2015/26

Trespass, as defined under Florida law, is “invasion of someone’s personal property without their consent”. I’m not aware of any cases where courts have ruled on how the law of trespass and self-defense should apply to drones.

The Courts, In United States v. Causby (1946) have affirmed that "the air above the minimum safe altitude of flight ... is a public highway and part of the public domain."

However, modern drones will most likely fly at lower altitudes, potentially putting them in airspace that the courts may (I'm not aware of any specific rulings) consider to be the controlled by the owner of the property below it.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by 2hullvenus

Ha ha ha!

Catch and release is perfect!!

To answer this one, there is a regular liveaboard anchorage nearby. There is also another "remote anchorer" like myself here nearby. He hasn't been visited. The main anchorage hasn't been visited. Only me.

And... its not like a nice view type video. This thing flies out to my boat specifically, then hovers directly above it for 5 minutes before I shoo it away.

Then, it returns to the houses about 3/4 of a mile away.

Sounds like the guy is looking for his wife

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by 2hullvenus

Ha ha ha!

Catch and release is perfect!!

To answer this one, there is a regular liveaboard anchorage nearby. There is also another "remote anchorer" like myself here nearby. He hasn't been visited. The main anchorage hasn't been visited. Only me.

And... its not like a nice view type video. This thing flies out to my boat specifically, then hovers directly above it for 5 minutes before I shoo it away.

Then, it returns to the houses about 3/4 of a mile away.

That is downright strange.....the only person who might do something like that is an ex wife or creditor or DEA ...jilted girl friend?

[a64pilot]

An aircraft (there are exceptions, helicopters and part 137 aircraft for example) is not allowed to be operated within 500' of persons, property or things.
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...rt_91-119.html

One argument is of course are these things, aircraft, does the FAA have authority?
I don't think they do as they are not being operated by "Airmen", and the FAA I believe only has jurisdiction over Airmen.

Reason I would call the local cops as opposed to the FAA FSDO

On edit, I'm better than 99% sure an anchorage would be considered a congested area by the FAA, That FAR would be good to show the local cops

[TJ D]

Hey, I know what happened!

The drone owner is a CF reader and was reading about 2hull's extensive collection of nubile young hotties.

Can't blame the guy for wanting a look!!

[2hullvenus]

Originally Posted by TJ D

Hey, I know what happened!

The drone owner is a CF reader and was reading about 2hull's extensive collection of nubile young hotties.

Can't blame the guy for wanting a look!!

It's going to have to follow me ashore, then. Boat is a construction site inside. Not ready for entertaining quite yet...

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Your legal rights are "up in the air" (pun intended).

The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (FUSA)*, which took effect in Florida on July 1, 2015, prohibits a person, state agency or political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or those on the property – including an owner, occupant or invitee – with the intent to conduct surveillance. The law further requires that those using drone technology in such a manner must have written consent from the people on the property under surveillance if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
* ➥ http://laws.flrules.org/2015/26

Trespass, as defined under Florida law, is “invasion of someone’s personal property without their consent”. I’m not aware of any cases where courts have ruled on how the law of trespass and self-defense should apply to drones.

The Courts, In United States v. Causby (1946) have affirmed that "the air above the minimum safe altitude of flight ... is a public highway and part of the public domain."

However, modern drones will most likely fly at lower altitudes, potentially putting them in airspace that the courts may (I'm not aware of any specific rulings) consider to be the controlled by the owner of the property below it.

Good post Gord!



However, I bet some lawyer would argue that the rule on protected "property" would not protect an anchored boat on the water if the drone was flying above or beside the boat, but over water, which is probably considered public and navigatable space.

[exMaggieDrum]

I'm a non-violent person by nature but a drone might cause me to lose it. They definitely should not be allowed, especially the type of harassment you are having. Killing a drone is not killing a person. I wouldn't use something illegal in its own right though. In some towns slingshots are illegal too but I always carried one on the boat. Never had drones then though.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The Courts, In United States v. Causby (1946) have affirmed that "the air above the minimum safe altitude of flight ... is a public highway and part of the public domain."

I believe that FAR part 91 clearly establishes "minimum safe altitude" to be 500', or higher, or that would be my argument