back to article Bloke sues dad who shot down his drone – and why it may decide who owns the skies

A lawsuit filed against a man who shot down his neighbor's drone might define for the first time who owns the skies in America. Back in June, 47-year-old William Merideth shot down the camera-carrying $1,800 quadrocopter with a shotgun while it was hovering over his house in Hillview, Kentucky, claiming that he feared it was …

Page:

      1. Dagg Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

        It is 250 grams! bugger primitive archaic non standard not useful measurements. Can someone please drag the US (and sometimes the UK) into the 21st century!

        1. Ole Juul
          Joke

          Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

          whichever is less

          1. Stoneshop

            Only approved units (Was: Re: "250 grams (1 pound)")

            $ units

            Currency exchange rates from www.timegenie.com on 2014-04-02

            2886 units, 109 prefixes, 79 nonlinear units

            You have: 250 g

            You want: jubs

            * 0.05952381

            / 16.8

            You have:

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

          "Can someone please drag the US (and sometimes the UK) into the 21st century!"

          Do you mean by using binary? Or maybe hex?

          1. Alien8n

            Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

            But what is it in Elephants? (Or do we measure in Mice given the smaller weights being used here?)

        3. Dan Paul

          Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

          Idiot, before you throw stones at others better get your facts straight!

          One pound is approximately 454 grams, one ounce is appx. 28 grams.

          Can someone cuff you in the ear and drag YOU back to grade school? You frikkin English invented the measurements and used them before you all became a bunch of metric wankers like the French.

          Metric is for wimps and surrender monkeys that can't do fractional math.

          1. Intractable Potsherd

            Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

            Unusually, I agree with Dan Paul. Base 10 is an awful way to run a measurement system. Base 12 can be divided by many more whole numbers (2, 3, 4, 6) to get sensible fractions, unlike base 10 (2, 5). Also, inches and feet are easily relatable units in sensible fractions - the gap between centimetre and metre is too big. Using them in language is not elegant either - much easier to ask for a foot of x than 30 centimetres.

            1. h4rm0ny
              Thumb Up

              Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

              >>"Unusually, I agree with Dan Paul. Base 10 is an awful way to run a measurement system. Base 12..."

              Finally! Other people who get this! The happenstance of evolution leaving most of us with ten fingers / ten toes is no basis for a system of mathematics. We were doing alright with this and then the bad at arithmetic mob ganged up and got decimalisation foisted upon us.

              1,000B = 1GB is the other one that drives me nuts. People to whom it made no difference at all what a 40GB drive meant so long as they could still say it was more GB for their £'s compared to a different HD they were considering, got whipped up by marketing departments to try and change definitions that didn't confuse a single soul who actually needed to work with these numbers and meant endless conversions whenever we did. Raise it and you get dogmatic waving of SI prefixes. Consistency - a tool to smart people and a crutch to stupid ones.

              1. Kevin Johnston

                Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

                Been saying this for soooo long now....

                We are engineers, a major ethos of engineering is 'Appropriate units/tolerances' and just as you would not measure the distance from Cardiff to Glasgow in millimetres/inches/angstroms, nor would you insist on a unit for fashion reasons.

                What are you measuring, what is you tolerance - that will indicate the most appropriate unit.

                Don't forget, a very large part of UK measurements are still done in Imperial because there is no real benefit to change it. Anyone want to guess how much it would cost to change all the road signs and car speedometer/odometers?

              2. Intractable Potsherd

                Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

                Thanks, H4rm0ny! My eyes were opened to this point by a young maths genius on TV some years ago. Just as Kevin says, the right units for the job are what is needed. A kilometre is too short a distance to measure big distances, a mile is about right. I'd be happy for leagues to come back for really big distances, to be honest.

                Out of interest, are any downvoters going to come back and explain their point of view?

  1. Rusty 1
    Happy

    "... Boggs is ..."

    Oh do please tell us that other parties were Bunce and Bean.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So now flying a kite...

    ... or even jumping a bit too high and a bit too long should fall under FAA rules? Pole vault athletes should ask for a take off clearance before jumping?

    Anyway, flying drones over inhabited areas (and roads) should needs some kind of regulation - there are safety and privacy issues to take into account.

    Even Dilbert thought about it... http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-17 <G>

    1. P. Lee

      Re: So now flying a kite...

      > flying drones over inhabited areas (and roads) should needs some kind of regulation

      Why drones and not a kite?

      Have we got here already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past

    2. Franklin

      Re: So now flying a kite...

      There are situations in which flying a kite can indeed get you in hot water with the FAA; I went to school with a fellow who landed in trouble when he flew a kite about a quarter mile from the runway of a local airport.

      The specific situation of being that close to an airport aside, yes, the FAA thinks it can, and occasionally does, get testy about kite-flying.

      1. Jos V

        Re: So now flying a kite...

        Out here where I reside, the major international airport has this problem all the time:

        NOTAM (Notice to Airman):

        007300000/1010302359

        CTN ADZ DUE TO MANY KITES IN VICINITY OF AD. ALL ACFT AFTER TKOF TO

        MAINTAIN RWY HEADING UNTIL PASSING

        3000FT OR AS INSTRUCTED BY ATC

        SFC UP TO 3000

        Kites are endemic here, and the authorities won't chase them out of the skies as the narrow streets around the airport are too hard to navigate through (this is Indonesia).

        I'd suspect the FAA and airport authorities in the US would hold a dim view to this kind of activity.

      2. DropBear
        Trollface

        Re: So now flying a kite...

        @Franklin: come on Ben, you of all people should know freedom to fly kites is integral to getting more kids interested in a properly sparky STEM education...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So now flying a kite...

        Flying anything nearby an airport is a different matter, and FAA may have good reasons for a tighter control around airports (where even static items may be a danger) within reasonable limits - but asserting it has jurisdiction over everything above ground may lead to absurd situations.

        Maybe I should start to ask the birds in my garden to follow proper FAA rules, or I'll stop feeding them in the Winter... and give the cat a FAA Inspector badge.

        That said, I know some kind of advanced kites may be a risk too - just like airplane or rockets models. Maybe the difference is just they rarely appeal to the average moron, and are rarely sold at the local electronics store.

  3. Scarsdale

    Of course, there's the small matter that $2000 in 1946 is over $26,000 today (source: http://www.in2013dollars.com/1946-dollars-in-2016?amount=2000 ).

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      ...and also the small matter that the current guy is claiming for an admittedly quite expensive toy as opposed to his business and livelihood.

      Although I do find it a little strange that $1500 will cover both his $1800 toy plus his court costs.

      1. Charles 9

        "Although I do find it a little strange that $1500 will cover both his $1800 toy plus his court costs."

        Depreciation. Thanks to Chinese knockoffs, drones are getting less expensive by the month. What cost $1800 then is only $1500 now.

        1. Eddy Ito

          I'd assume the damage to the drone was only actually a few hundred bucks, perhaps in the form of a new circuit board or a new motor. The balance of the cost being what the lawyer charged to file the paperwork. I'll go further and say the lawyer is also considering whether this gets tossed and he's done his bit or if it goes ahead and he's looking to become the next Cochran, Bailey, Dershowitz, or Kardashian and make a a fortune down the road.

      2. Dabooka

        I read it differently;

        I read it as "$1,500 plus court costs" meaning he wanted $1,500 and then, in addition, the cost of taking him to court? No?

  4. scrubber

    In dispute?

    While everyone is bickering over ownership the Chinese are busy building runways in the sky.

    1. Magani
      Black Helicopters

      Re: In dispute?

      "While everyone is bickering over ownership the Chinese are busy building runways in the sky."

      And on reclaimed land in the South China Sea...

      1. Stuart Elliott
        Facepalm

        Re: In dispute?

        Whoosh!

        1. DropBear

          Re: In dispute?

          "Whoosh!"

          Stop trolling, we know you're Randall's bot.

  5. martinusher Silver badge

    Its the camera, stupid.

    I'd expect exactly the same reaction from my neighbor if I attached a camera to a long pole and used that to look at his yard. (Maybe not exactly the same reaction -- not all Americans shoot stuff on sight.)(Also, not all of them think that everyone's a perv after their kids.) You have to use a bit of common sense when you're flying these things.

    Model aircraft are slightly different from quadcopters in that they're not purpose built camera platforms. You can mount cameras on them but you get the same sort of view you'd get from a low flying aircraft -- you can tell where you are but you're not able to pick out details. Despite this you still have to give assurances to homeowners that you're not carrying cameras ("Thank you, drone owners").

    Amazon's idea of using traffic space won't fly. They seem to think that model aircraft are toys that fly around in front of your face. Some are; a lot are more serious and need a lot more room to fly them. My interest is in gliders -- unpowered planes. These can be quite large -- 3 or 4 meter wingspan is typical but they're made larger -- and some specialist types can be flown quite fast ("but not near people") -- the current speed record for dynamic soaring is a little north of 500mph. People make them for all sorts of reasons, one is that they just like modelling but its also a useful research vehicle for testing out design concepts and construction techniques (no, we don't make them out of balsa....).

    1. ZSn

      Re: Its the camera, stupid.

      I used to fly manned gliders (the proper sail-plane variety), they normally maxed out at 130 knots, how on earth did they manage to get one up to 500 mph? Even straight down I doubt it would go over 150-200 knots. Was that in a thunderstorm?

      1. Richard Plinston

        Re: Its the camera, stupid.

        > how on earth did they manage to get one up to 500 mph?

        """ The highest speeds reported are by radio controlled gliders at 513 mph (826 km/h)"""

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_soaring

        Also see:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFPJ6DUAY10

    2. Eddy Ito

      Re: Its the camera, stupid.

      I'd expect exactly the same reaction from my neighbor if I attached a camera to a long pole and used that to look at his yard. (Maybe not exactly the same reaction -- not all Americans shoot stuff on sight.)(Also, not all of them think that everyone's a perv after their kids.) You have to use a bit of common sense when you're flying these things.

      Given my neighbor's size and temperament it's very likely that such a pole would wind up rather uncomfortably lodged in the lower anatomy or the original pole holder, camera and all. Given that, the drone pilot should consider himself lucky.

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

      " Overhanging branches of a neighbours trees [...]"

      To lop the higher branches you usually need access to the neighbour's property for a ladder. If they refuse you appear to be stymied. Tree surgeons refuse to get involved unless there is clear permission from the neighbour - even if they don't need to rest the ladder against the tree.

      Official local arbitration on hedge disputes apparently only applies if the tall hedge is composed of two or more evergreens. My neighbour's large ash, sycamore, and single holly therefore do not qualify.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

        A legitimate use for a chainsaw equipped drone, to cut off the overhang while staying entirely in your own yard.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

          "A legitimate use for a chainsaw equipped drone [,,,]"

          I suspect a drone is too light to apply any real pressure to the saw to counteract the bounce from the blade's rotation.

          An electric chainsaw on a very long pole would also do it - possibly. However there are two snags.

          1) a chainsaw can get trapped in the cut and needs freeing manually.

          2) when the branch is cut it can "hinge" rather than drop cleanly. There's a lot of weight in such a branch plus its momentum. It will damage anything that it hits - in this case the neighbour's fence.

          Both these events happened recently when a tree surgeon was pruning a nearby tree.

          As it is I will just have to hope that the ash tree gets taken out by the "die back" plague. That will stop its expanding canopy from blocking the afternoon sun in my garden.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

        They might not "qualify" but if you are inferring what i think you are inferring, then a good spraying of glyphosate applied at night will deal with your hedge problem...

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

          Is the 500 foot rule mentioned in the article an FAA one? The article suggests light aircraft must remain above 500 feet. The CAA rule is something like "except for the purposes of take off or landing, 500 feet FROM any vehicle, vessel, person or structure". Note those 4 items you must stay 500 feet from do not include the ground or water. If you can in the crowded UK stay far enough away from any of those then you are free to hedge hop without breaking a low flying rule (they will probably try and get you on another rule though).

          During PPL training, one of the fun parts of the course is the practice forced landing, the aircraft doesn't actually land but some instructors like to take the opportunity for a bit of hedge-hopping.

          1. Sir Alien

            Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

            I know I am always pissing on peoples fun but here is a snippet I found regarding the CAA (in the UK) so no hedge hopping for you sadly. Don't take my word for it though as I could be wrong (or the source is, not surprised if they are).

            """An unmanned aircraft must always be flown at least 50m distance away from a person, vehicle, building or structure."""

            I do enjoy a little drone action myself but more for the experimental and tinkering at an engineering level.

    2. DocJames
      Headmaster

      Re: Law in the UK is clearer.

      The lower stratum is concerned with the portion immediately above the land and interference with this air space would effect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it.

      I think you mean affect, unless the interference is the cause of the reasonable enjoyment.

      But upvoted despite my grammar nazi tendencies for such an informative post.

  7. Turtle

    Not Quite Right.

    "The owner of the drone, neighbor David Boggs, was unsurprisingly not happy about the situation and confronted Merideth, who then threatened him with a handgun."

    The original story as published here on The Register was that Boggs along with three friends went to confront Meredith. If four people came to my house confront me, I'd also have had my firearms handy and prominently displayed (if I actually had such - which I don't.)

  8. etapusrex

    More Drone Hysteria

    A pervert would climb a tree and use a telephoto lens. A crook would do a midnight check of your mail or a random knock on your door. Neither would use a device that requires you to stand around - in the open - to operate and sounds like a swarm of bees descending on a location. This drone hysteria is really getting old. People need to quit feeding it.

    I have a 4k Camera with a rock steady gimble and you can't tell a man from a woman at 100 ft. Any closer than that, and it sounds like you are literally standing in a bees nest. It is probably the WORST possible 'spy' equipment you could use.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. maffski

      Re: More Drone Hysteria

      Unless the crook was a swarm of bees. The drone of a drone would be perfect cover. And whenever you see them about they're already wearing their stripey jumpers.

      Bees - don't trust 'em

    3. h4rm0ny

      Re: More Drone Hysteria

      >>"A crook would do a midnight check of your mail or a random knock on your door"

      You're allowing your preconceptions to get the better of you. Drones are affordable and easy to use. Plenty of "criminals" have them. And yes, it's just as effective to be able to fly a drone past a house's upper windows peering in than it is to walk up to a door, knock and risk being spotted by neighbours or people who were at home after all; or to take the chance that maybe they just weren't bothering to answer the door. Possibly even more effective.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: More Drone Hysteria

        it's just as effective to be able to fly a drone past a house's upper windows peering in than it is to walk up to a door, knock and risk being spotted by neighbours or people who were at home after all

        LOL. Those dopey neighbours will think a human walking up to a door (in a courier vest) is highly suspicious but a noisy, wobbly flying vehicle with a camera hanging beneath it on a gimble and a bloke standing with a remote control aerial is not!

        If a drone was useful to aid in burglary, then that would only be for isolated, empty building. In a built up area they would be one of the most useless tool a burglar could possibly use. He might as well post leaflets through all the doors in the street telling them that he intends to do a burglary there in the near future.

        The real problem with drones is their potential to fall on somebody and injure them. For perving or burglary, forget it.

    4. Dabooka
      Stop

      Re: More Drone Hysteria

      @etapusrex

      What a crock of shit; so what you're saying is, that as the operator can't make enough detail out at 100ft I have no right to be concered or curious about what the fuck are they doing? I'm expected to be happy with the fact that they probably can't really see any detail?

      By the same stretch I suppose I shouldn't worry about the Snoopers Charter or GCHQ / NSA hoovering everything up? You know, as there's nothing to find why should I even care they're doing it?

      I can't believe you're on these boards.......

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: More Drone Hysteria

        "I can't believe you're on these boards"

        It's his first post. Maybe he's one of these new manglement types the proprietors are trying to attract.

    5. Glenturret Single Malt

      Re: More Drone Hysteria

      Is gimble = gimbal?

    6. Stevie

      Re: More Drone Hysteria

      "A pervert would climb a tree and use a telephoto lens."

      No sir, a pervert these days would subvert the cameras included for no readily apparent reason into your IoT lightbulbs and stream video of you to YouTube while he and his pals laughed their faces off.

      Stop admiring the shiny for a moment and think. If Boggs and his 3 man crew *weren't* the neighborhood trash, why aren't his outraged neighbors demanding justice for him?

      There's a clear subtext in this story. I'm not saying it's the one I'm hinting at, but doesn't it strike anyone else that it's suspicious how quiet everyone else in the nabe is being? How many times has Boggs decamped mob-handed to sort out some issue?

      Okay, forget the thug gang factor.

      Three (male) pals just happened to be nearby? Four guys? With a drone-mounted camera? And young girls sunbathing?

      That's called reasonable doubt and is why the case was thrown out of criminal court.

      Boggs is now relying on Preponderance of Evidence to make the dice fall his way in civil court. He thinks he is onto a winner because Shotgunguy admits firing the gun *at* the drone - I doubt this was Boggs' own idea. Some ambulance-chasing bottom feeder personal liability attorney has likely been agitating.

      And now Shotgunguy has to lawyer up.

      All because Boggs either doesn't have the sense evolution gave a cowpat or he thought with his three bros on hand he could behave any damned way he liked.

      At least, that's how it looks to me in the absence of any actual facts.

  9. flyguy

    Practicalities

    I'm a UK airline pilot. I can't comment (usefully) on the legal aspects of these devices.

    With regards to the Amazon proposal: I think it is certainly something we'll see in the future. There are serious obstacles (no pun intended) to overcome before I can ever see it becoming reality.

    In commercial aviation, safety is a priority, or at least it should be. How would Amazon deal with a failure of an in-flight drone on a delivery? Until they can safely land a drone with a technical problem, then I can't see it becoming reality. Bearing in mind that these are likely to be operating in built-up areas. The risks to people and property is high. The risk of collisions with other drones is relatively small and can be mitigated by good policies.

    But when a drone goes through your greenhouse, conservatory or worse your precious Corsa,... Well.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like