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. JJKing
    Coat

    If he can shoot down 4 more drones, that guy becomes an Ace. Woohoo!

  2. Sporkinum

    I am guessing all this drone brouhaha is what is holding up permission to launch LOHAN?

  3. sisk

    It seems to me that the law is already quite clear on this subject. The FAA's authority begins at 400ft - confirmed over and over and over by legal precedence - and a property owners rights extend at least to 83ft based on existing precedence. Basically this guy has zero chance - short of a judge willing to discard existing precedence (which, given it came from SCOTUS, any judge likely to hear the case would be overstepping their authority to do) - of winning this case and getting the money to replace his drone.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Arm the drones

    Equip innocent drones with shotguns. It is really the only logical answer.

  5. aelfheld

    Sauce for the goose

    Hopefully Merideth will sue Boggs for a solid six-figure sum.

    Boggs was, as the judge noted, at fault but it was Merideth that was arrested & required to appear in court.

  6. Fred Bauer
    Stop

    FAA enforedes airspace restrictions to ground level

    The FAA *DOES* exercise authority below 500 ft, and over model aircraft. They have recently banned the operation of any model aircraft within 30 miles of Washington, DC, and have shut down AMA fields. They don't recognize 83 feet or anything else, if it's airborne they assert that they have authority over it.

    http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/30/ama-finding-a-solution-for-special-flight-rules-area-sfra-in-the-d-c-area/

    1. sisk

      Re: FAA enforedes airspace restrictions to ground level

      Whether they choose to recognize the (well established) fact that they have no legal authority at all below 83 feet and only very questionable authority up to 400 feet is irrelevant. The courts have repeatedly ruled against them in such matters, as noted in the article.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: FAA enforedes airspace restrictions to ground level

        They do. Their authority attaches to the aircraft, not the air. As long as it flies and is larger than, say, a foot in dimension, they FAA holds legal authority via various acts that define its authority. That's why FAA regulations apply to aircraft even when they're on the ground.

        Where authority over the air comes in is that the FAA can regulate what can go into regulated airspace. So, for example, aircraft that can climb over 500 feet need to follow FAA rules regarding flight plans and so on, so as to reduce the risk of incursions and collisions. They don't have such controlling authority at lower altitudes, but they still have a say over the aircraft themselves.

  7. Jonjonz

    New Piracy Opp

    New opp in air piracy, outfit a big drone to latch on and hijack delivery drones or just follow them around and pick up the parcels after the initial delivery.

  8. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Simple question...

    Visualize a balloon-suspended person hovering just above the ground at various heights.

    A millimeter. Indistinguishable from trespassing. .: The answer is clearly not near zero.

    Therefore it's clearly an arbitrary height.

    Chair. Popcorn. Beer.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Simple question...

      Unless it's a cop rappelling from a police chopper (assume it's SWAT). He's in the line of duty, so he's allowed to trespass if the police have a warrant that grants them forcible entry.

  9. Two Lips
    Mushroom

    America bases civil rights upon ballistics...

    No change there then.

    I shot and killed him, therefore he must've been guilty. And subsequently had no right to life.

    Ethics and logic from the most aggressive nation on the planet.

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