For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1865355
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Interesting thread.

You own certain rights to the airspace over your property - I'm pretty certain that includes control over photography, but not (above 50m for drones and above 150m for aeroplanes) air navigation rights.

Given the law over visual line of sight, in theory at least if a drone is there, there should be a fighting chance of spotting its operator. If they are legal, which they may not be.

If I was suffering this as a regular nuisance, I think I'd start to explore radio jamming technologies. I'm pretty certain that's illegal as well, but it would be far less dangerous to my neighbours, and if I then handed it into the local police station after accidentally standing on it, as having crashed into my garden, I think it would likely reduce repeat incidents markedly without any come-back on me.

G


I'd take up fly fishing practice.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1865604
townleyc wrote:No chance of hitting it then


Oi! Don't be rude about the Bofors. It was a top bit of kit.

Six SP Bofors of 92nd (Loyals) Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery, landed with the British 3rd Infantry Division on Sword Beach on D-Day itself to protect the vital, recently captured bridges over the Caen Canal and Orne River (Pegasus Bridge etc ), shooting down seventeen Luftwaffe aircraft.


Rob P
kanga, townleyc liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1865623
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Interesting thread.

You own certain rights to the airspace over your property - I'm pretty certain that includes control over photography, but not (above 50m for drones and above 150m for aeroplanes) air navigation rights.

Given the law over visual line of sight, in theory at least if a drone is there, there should be a fighting chance of spotting its operator. If they are legal, which they may not be.

If I was suffering this as a regular nuisance, I think I'd start to explore radio jamming technologies. I'm pretty certain that's illegal as well, but it would be far less dangerous to my neighbours, and if I then handed it into the local police station after accidentally standing on it, as having crashed into my garden, I think it would likely reduce repeat incidents markedly without any come-back on me.

G

Are you sureGtE? My very ancient memory from property law lectures is that the principle of cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos applies insofar as the owner (or possibly occupier) can reasonably enjoy the sky above the ground, ownership and rights being two separate things. That's how minerals can be extracted from under a property with neither notice nor permission.

That allows aircraft to pass over 'my' land but not to scrape along it in the space that I can occupy and enjoy (Buccaneer drivers take note). To me, and in the absence of any research of precedence at all :D that means that a drone above the air that I can reasonably enjoy is quite legally there. That could be quite low in aviating terms.

As we all know, photographs taken in and of a public place are quite legal, and I might reasonably say that a highish level photograph of your property is well within my rights as a drone operator, which for these purposes is no different from images freely available on Google Earth or from any professional using drones for work.

I don't know much about privacy law but I suspect that there might be little privacy by right in a back garden, ie don't sunbathe naked if you don't want drones to take naked photos of you. There is probably an implied right to be able to enjoy your land without interference from a drone regularly buzzing you so it might have more legal protection on the interference and frequency than the act itself. I suppose we're in the hands of a judge to decide what's an unreasonable amount of buzzing.

Where's a proper lawyer when you need them ^^ that is probably cobblers. :lol:

... and shooting at aircraft covered by the ANO is a really bad idea.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1865675
Pretty sure. As I understand it, you technically own a cone defined by your land from the centre of the earth, out to the edge of the universe. This was deeply problematic in the past for both overflight and mineral deposit purposes, for which reason both require statute enabling exploitation by third parties either over or under. The overflight statutes are pretty much universal worldwide, the mineral exploitation rights are much more specific and if I find lithium under my back garden it's mine to mine, unless t'govm't passes a law changing that - but then if the lithium seam goes under my neighbour's back garden, I either need a legal agreement with him, or an act of parliament, to mine sideways and extract that as well.

I had to study this a bit in developing my professional understanding of ICAO overflight regulations, but the books are in my office which I rarely visit at the moment I'm afraid, so can't give you references.

G
eltonioni liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1865683
Assuming you have a legal firearm, weren't you just doing a bit of pigeon culling or target shooting? Obvs you need more practice, and hitting the drone was a dreadful shame...
User avatar
By Propwash
#1865711
Shooting any firearm, including airguns, beyond the boundary of your property is a criminal offence.

Shooting an overflying or hovering drone from your lawn would be an effective way of sacrificing your permit/licence for good but it would be much simpler to just surrender it and save the price of the round.

PW
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1865715
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Pretty sure. As I understand it, you technically own a cone defined by your land from the centre of the earth, out to the edge of the universe.


Wouldn't that overlap with your neighbour's cone?
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1865778
Propwash wrote:...it would be much simpler to just surrender it and save the price of the round.

Eh, and miss out on the satisfaction of reducing the world drone number by 1?
That satisfaction is worth the cost of anyone's roundeven both barrels, by my reckoning. :wink:

@Bill McCarthy do you have a link to a news article?
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1865799
@Genghis the Engineer cheers for the fulsome reply GtE. I don't think I disagree but I can't quite agree either. In the absence of actual proper legal opinion, I suspect this rests on the enjoyment of property. So, while a landowner owns from the centre of the earth (hell) to the ends of the universe (heaven), that falls away re aviation at a certain, undetermined height where a land occupier can reasonably expect no interference to their 'enjoyment' etc. Buccaneer drivers aside, there's probably some precedent establishing it although I doubt it would ever give license to shotgunning my little Mavic Mini drone over your back garden, even if you're enjoying nature to the full.