HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
From the department of "what did you think was going to happen" comes this video. Damn, so close!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shouldn't the fire fighter with the hose be more concerned with the burning house (even though it looks like a total loss) than a flying camera?
Within the first minute, I am thinking "Wouldn't this be a great tool for the firefighters? A safe, quick look at the fire from above."
From the department of "what did you think was going to happen" comes this video. Damn, so close!
The house was already totaled and in all likelihood they were there for at least half an hour before the drone took off. Once a house is that fucked up their purpose is to prevent the fire from spreading to the surrounding areas (after they ensure there are no more inhabitants in the house), not save as much of a totaled house as possible.For most of this 15 minute Video, about twenty Fire Fighters just Stood around and watched the home Burn to the Ground, even with a half a dozen "Charged Hoses", before putting any water into the already burnt out home!
As soon a the Hose man, up on the second floor, despite the danger of the burnt out roof falling on him, or the floor collapsing under him, immediately aimed his water stream at the drone, attempting to stop the video coverage, as soon as he noticed the drone above him.
Only thing the video taker missed was to capture the Fire Department information from the doors of the vehicles parked in the street!
Within the first minute, I am thinking "Wouldn't this be a great tool for the firefighters? A safe, quick look at the fire from above."
I wonder what kind of liability there would be if the drone had crashed on someone's head cause of the hose.
yea, it looked like the immediate danger was already over.
Also, according to the poster/pilot, he was standing next to a cop when flying this so...yea...there's that.
And if I recall, the DJH units have a "fly back to home" feature when batteries get low as well as a hover mode so one of the few ways for it to crash it would be to shoot it down with something...you know...like a fire hose.
Sure, perhaps he was too close; that's on him.
But that doesn't make what the obviously free and otherwise bored firefighters did right.
Also, didn't realize that the DJH were that resilient.
Yes, destruction of private property, since you don't own the airspace.Is there a law against shooting drones if you see them over your property?
You actually do have a right to enjoy your airspace which is why low flying aircrafts can be considered trespassing. That height isn't a hard number though.Yes, destruction of private property, since you don't own the airspace.
There is also zero possibility that the fire department could say that they INCREASED safety by spraying a high pressure hose at a distant flying object causing it to crash in an uncontrolled fashion with lithium batteries onboard.
They need to buy a new drone and give the firefighter a reprimand/punishment for misuse of equipment, public endangerment, a intentional damage of private property.
THISas and avid RC pilot
FUCK THESE PEOPLE FLYING QUADS LIKE THIS make the whole hobby look bad
You actually do have a right to enjoy your airspace which is why low flying aircrafts can be considered trespassing. That height isn't a hard number though.
In a 5-2 opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court concluded that the ancient common law doctrine "has no place in the modern world." Justice Douglas noted that, were the Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea." However, while the Court rejected the unlimited reach above and below the earth described in the common law doctrine, it also ruled that, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." Without defining a specific limit, the Court stated that flights over the land could be considered a violation of the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." Given the damage caused by the particularly low, frequent flights over his farm, the Court determined that the government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled to compensation...
Wrong and wrong, and no they cannot be considered trespassing ever. Period. Ever. Even if it is flying one inch above your property, its not trespassing. What it can be doing is interfering with the function or usage of your property, and there is caselaw for that with aircraft. Regardless, the firefighter wasn't the property owner to even make that case, he was likely just one of the many that hate "drones" due to privacy concerns and decided to destroy private property based on his opinion.You actually do have a right to enjoy your airspace which is why low flying aircrafts can be considered trespassing. That height isn't a hard number though.
That's not how the law works. Something isn't illegal until the government tells us otherwise, its the other way around. Its legal because there are no current laws that prohibit it. End of story.flenser said:I don't think it was legal for the drone to be flying there. The FAA regs and legislation that would allow this aren't final yet and the current rule would likely make this not legal.
That had nothing to do with the airspace though, that only had to do with their interference with the usage of the land, and would have applied to say a gang of guys on Harley motorcycles without mufflers driving by everyday. The fact that they were in the air was completely irrelevant.PsyKo[H];1041656991 said:True. "Real" aircraft have to fly at least 500ft above the tallest structure within a certain radius... and the supreme court once ruled in favor of a chicken farmer who sued because military aircraft were flying close enough to his property that it literally scared his chickens to death.
For most of this 15 minute Video, about twenty Fire Fighters just Stood around and watched the home Burn to the Ground, even with a half a dozen "Charged Hoses", before putting any water into the already burnt out home!
As soon a the Hose man, up on the second floor, despite the danger of the burnt out roof falling on him, or the floor collapsing under him, immediately aimed his water stream at the drone, attempting to stop the video coverage, as soon as he noticed the drone above him.
Only thing the video taker missed was to capture the Fire Department information from the doors of the vehicles parked in the street!
Wrong and wrong, and no they cannot be considered trespassing ever. Period. Ever. Even if it is flying one inch above your property, its not trespassing. What it can be doing is interfering with the function or usage of your property, and there is caselaw for that with aircraft. Regardless, the firefighter wasn't the property owner to even make that case, he was likely just one of the many that hate "drones" due to privacy concerns and decided to destroy private property based on his opinion.
Now there are PROPOSALS to allow low flying aircraft to be considered trespassing, but that has never passed, and the FAA merely has suggestions and no laws on the books.
And the thing that people generally seem to forget about the law is that how you FEEL about something means nothing. I don't FEEL that 60mph is a reasonably speed limit for HW59 in Houston, its much too low, but the law is the law. The law here is that the RC pilot did absolutely nothing illegal, but his private property was damaged.
That's not how the law works. Something isn't illegal until the government tells us otherwise, its the other way around. Its legal because there are no current laws that prohibit it. End of story.
1) Its not near an airport and most certainly not high enough to be covered by regulated airspace, and from the video its painfully obvious its in class G unregulated space.
2) There's no evidence the drone operator was doing this for commercial purposes, and in fact its extremely likely it was not. Non-commercial low altitude RC use is again unregulated.
3) Line of site to your RC aircraft is not a law, its a suggestion and carries no legal penalty.
The only way it can be illegal, is if a police officer comes and decides that you are disturbing the peace or something more broad reaching, and that is then upheld in court. In Texas, its still not even illegal unless you disobey a request to cease said activity first, and are given a reasonable opportunity to do so. So if this guy were disturbing the peace (unlikely), an officer would have to ask him to stop, and he would have to disobey that request, but even then a third party would have no legal right to destroy private property anymore than you can walk into your neighbors house that is playing music too loud and destroy his stereo with a sledge hammer. You're liable for the damages, and have committed a criminal offense.
We'll never get that 14 minutes back.