Guess we are going to see these stories for a while as the news media outlets around the world highlight people misusing drones.

First one from NZ. An alleged chinese tourist even after being told he was breaking some law, continued to fly his drone and eventually it crashed in a Hotel.

Second story is about a woman calling 911 in the USA because a drone crashed into her house.

Links Here:

NZ Story

US Story

Neither drone has been clained at the time of the press releasing these stories and both appear to be phantom drones.

eventually these idiots may run out of money?

We'll all be grounded by then.  Sadly, there seems to be no correlation between wealth and IQ.

LOL, you are absolutely correct Sir!

So how can the person in the 2nd story be liable for flying over a person's house at less than 400ft if the FAA says drones can't fly above 400ft?

JATO Posted at 2015-2-15 07:10
So how can the person in the 2nd story be liable for flying over a person's house at less than 400ft ...

How can I be liable if I am driving my car and the brakes fail (for whatever reason) and I rear end someone damaging their property hurting or killing them?  Same thing is it not?

Sorry that wasn't my point. Yes he is liable for the roof  if it has any damage. I am not disputing that.  My comment is in relation to how can there be a local ordinance that applies to a drone that says it can't fly over a house at less than 400ft if the FAA says it can't fly higher than 400ft? The local ordinance can't supercede the FAA. The local municipality does not control the airspace, the FAA has jurisdiction.   

Again if the roof has damage he should pay, but if the city tries to fine him for flying over the house at less than 400ft he should go to court and bring up the jurisdiction issue and the conflict in the rules.

JATO Posted at 2015-2-15 08:14
Sorry that wasn't my point. Yes he is liable for the roof  if it has any damage. I am not disputing  ...

Probably is confused on the FAA guidelines. However local authorities can always get you on invasion of privacy and public endangerment laws and probably a few more.

Capt. Bill Posted at 2015-2-15 08:21
Probably is confused on the FAA guidelines. However local authorities can always get you on invasi ...

OK so I am not advocating hoovering over someone house at low altitude and spying on them. But having said that I would fight any invasion of privacy charges levied in any local ordinance.   

The reason is laws on invasion of privacy generally state that pictures have to be taken from a public accessible place. If I stand on the sidewalk and take a picture of your house or your back yard that is legal. In the old days you might have to be on a person's property to obtain certain pictures. But with a drone that is not the case anymore and the air space is public space unless the FAA says certain areas are not.

The FAA states that drones should fly below 400 ft. and again the local municipality does not legally have jurisdiction of the air space. The local municipality would have a case if I was standing on that persons property and was flying my drone and photographed their backyard.The only issue here is the money required to go to court. I would then sue for the recovery of my legal cost.

Again I am not saying droners should spy on people but people should not allow illegal laws to be enforced without a fight. I don't care if those laws apply to drones or donkeys. The problem is the laws are specific and they don't keep pace with technology.

Bottom line is states and municipalities can always pass more restrictive laws if they feel it's in the public's best interest.  Example: it's not against any federal laws to sell beer, wine etc... but counties and cities have local ordinances  or restrictions on doing so.   Yes, you can challenge if you have and are willing to commit the $$$ to do so.  Bottom line is people pushing the limit and creating problems can cause laws to be enacted by multiple agencies restricting this hobby.

I have a big problem with the invasion of privacy angle people keep bringing up.  Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others have web sites where you can input my address and see pictures of my house from the street, from "bird's eye" level, etc.

If someone is parking their quad outside your window then it's a no-brainer... but if I pass over you at 200ft in the air I don't see how it's any different than what these companies do.  I'm not putting my pics/video online and making them searchable by address, at least.  There are some nuanced differences but to me it's fundamentally the same.