Very unpleasant experience flying my ELEV-8 the other day.
I've been flying my gimbal equipped ELEV-8 pretty regularly this past week. Most flights I have the camera recording. I've been out of practice so need to work on my precision flying skills, such as nose-in flight, and just generally flying smoothly. We have almost five acres, about half of it wooded - not a bad place to fly, but it's certainly more demanding than an open park.
Well, two days ago I take off from my porch, fly up the hill over my parents house and back. Then I walk up the driveway following the quad to the end of our property and turn left to fly down a "tunnel" of trees. I spend the rest of the eight or nine minute flight over in the woods. Then I fly back and land on the porch.
Upon landing I hear my neighbor, who is standing at the line of trees that separate our properties (they are on the right as you go up the hill), she yells at me telling me not to fly over their property. She reminds me that I have five acres and that what I did was an invasion of privacy. I responded that I did not intend to fly over their property and apologized if I did so.
Later I reviewed the video and it is very clear that I was not over their property at all. I even caught her comments on the video. I'm thinking of posting it on YouTube. :-)
Some history about our neighbors follows;
When we bought this property I met the neighbor and told him we were buying it so that we could put a house on it for my parents. Later I spoke with him, to verify where the property line was and told him what we were planning. It wasn't until I was digging the foundation that I learned that my neighbors absolutely HATE that we put a house near the property line. There are two dense rows of evergreens on that property line. He grumbled at me that we had five acres and could have put the house somewhere else. Which isn't true at all, our property is entirely on a slope. The one place he pointed out that we could have put it would have cost us many thousands extra and while further away from the property line, would have been more visible to my neighbors.
Then we had to name the private drive. My neighbor complained that they were not yuppies who move every five years, they've been there for decades and now they have to change their address. I tried to tell him that it was not our fault, that the county passed a law saying that any private drive that served five or more homes OR four or more parcels needed to have an address. They of course focus on the five homes part and have decided that it is our fault - even though we were required to have a street name because the drive serves four parcels. The need to assign an address to the new home accelerated that process.
The whole situation is bizarre. They obviously feel that they've been wronged. I've been friendly with every interaction, they've treated me civilly, but with resentment. When she called out to me I thought that maybe we were going to have a pleasant conversation about something, maybe even ask if I could take some pictures. Instead she wanted to accuse me of invading her privacy. It's very disappointing. Even more disappointing is that my neighbor and I have many common interests and could be a big help to each other. A couple weeks ago I went over to offer some geogrid that I picked up at a ridiculously low price, I was going to give him a roll or two. They would cost over $1,500 each if you were to buy them. But they would not answer. Last week he bulldozed a 2,000 sq ft parking area, the geogrid would have been perfect for that.
I am sure that sooner or later they will be convinced that I have overflown their property again, and I probably will - but not intentionally (it would be very bad if I had a malfunction and crash landed on their side). I'd go and talk about it with them but I believe that they have the attitude of wanting to be upset. My plan now is to continue to be nice, try not to fly over their property and apologize profusely if they "catch" me doing it. If they call the sheriff, I'll have video evidence. Not that flying over their property is against any law, but I do agree that it is bad manners - especially if they have requested (demanded) that I don't.
I even thought about buying them a 5.8 ghz receiver so that they could switch it on whenever I was flying and see what the quad is seeing. They'd probably refuse it thinking that accepting it would be like giving me permission to fly. Maybe not, I'm gonna consider that one some more...
Well, two days ago I take off from my porch, fly up the hill over my parents house and back. Then I walk up the driveway following the quad to the end of our property and turn left to fly down a "tunnel" of trees. I spend the rest of the eight or nine minute flight over in the woods. Then I fly back and land on the porch.
Upon landing I hear my neighbor, who is standing at the line of trees that separate our properties (they are on the right as you go up the hill), she yells at me telling me not to fly over their property. She reminds me that I have five acres and that what I did was an invasion of privacy. I responded that I did not intend to fly over their property and apologized if I did so.
Later I reviewed the video and it is very clear that I was not over their property at all. I even caught her comments on the video. I'm thinking of posting it on YouTube. :-)
Some history about our neighbors follows;
When we bought this property I met the neighbor and told him we were buying it so that we could put a house on it for my parents. Later I spoke with him, to verify where the property line was and told him what we were planning. It wasn't until I was digging the foundation that I learned that my neighbors absolutely HATE that we put a house near the property line. There are two dense rows of evergreens on that property line. He grumbled at me that we had five acres and could have put the house somewhere else. Which isn't true at all, our property is entirely on a slope. The one place he pointed out that we could have put it would have cost us many thousands extra and while further away from the property line, would have been more visible to my neighbors.
Then we had to name the private drive. My neighbor complained that they were not yuppies who move every five years, they've been there for decades and now they have to change their address. I tried to tell him that it was not our fault, that the county passed a law saying that any private drive that served five or more homes OR four or more parcels needed to have an address. They of course focus on the five homes part and have decided that it is our fault - even though we were required to have a street name because the drive serves four parcels. The need to assign an address to the new home accelerated that process.
The whole situation is bizarre. They obviously feel that they've been wronged. I've been friendly with every interaction, they've treated me civilly, but with resentment. When she called out to me I thought that maybe we were going to have a pleasant conversation about something, maybe even ask if I could take some pictures. Instead she wanted to accuse me of invading her privacy. It's very disappointing. Even more disappointing is that my neighbor and I have many common interests and could be a big help to each other. A couple weeks ago I went over to offer some geogrid that I picked up at a ridiculously low price, I was going to give him a roll or two. They would cost over $1,500 each if you were to buy them. But they would not answer. Last week he bulldozed a 2,000 sq ft parking area, the geogrid would have been perfect for that.
I am sure that sooner or later they will be convinced that I have overflown their property again, and I probably will - but not intentionally (it would be very bad if I had a malfunction and crash landed on their side). I'd go and talk about it with them but I believe that they have the attitude of wanting to be upset. My plan now is to continue to be nice, try not to fly over their property and apologize profusely if they "catch" me doing it. If they call the sheriff, I'll have video evidence. Not that flying over their property is against any law, but I do agree that it is bad manners - especially if they have requested (demanded) that I don't.
I even thought about buying them a 5.8 ghz receiver so that they could switch it on whenever I was flying and see what the quad is seeing. They'd probably refuse it thinking that accepting it would be like giving me permission to fly. Maybe not, I'm gonna consider that one some more...
Comments
One neighbor made so many complaints about HUUUGE antenna and interference to everything in their house in that time that the local officials quit listening to them, and once even made them come examine the tower to see that there was nothing on it... Sometimes you just need to burn 'em out.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/update-drone-owner-disputes-suspects-claims-produces-video-claiming-to-show-flight-path
A man shot a UAV down over his property, claiming it was hovering 10 feet over his property and spying at his sunbathing daughter. The operator produced video showing otherwise. Found a follow up and in court, a judge ruled that the shooter was in the right:
http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/
A lot of people are paranoid or ignorant, so it's best to be extremely courteous.
EDIT: Apparently I'm not caught up. :-) I did read an opinion piece stating the above, but it seems the FAA confirmed it:
http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/faa-says-shooting-down-drones-is-a-federal-crime/
That still qualifies as legal opinion, and until it's court-tested I think we're still in a gray area.
On the FAA - I figure it might be a useful statement to quote to said neighbors.
Up in northern CA the neighbors people worry about a lot are new growers. e.g. search for news about Hayfork. A previous coworker was considering buy property next to his just so it wouldn't be sold to growers. Unfortunately they are willing to pay a lot for the land.
The FAA may well see shooting down a drone as being against federal law, but it requires going to federal court to prosecute it, and I wonder how many disgruntled neighbor cases they'd be willing to hear. The local DA can't press federal charges.
I can't imagine ham radio masts being tolerated in most neighborhoods these days. My stepfather's solution when he moved from LA to the San Diego area in the mid 50s was to purchase a large parcel of land on a hilltop, away from everyone else. His nearest neighbors were coyotes and rattlesnakes, and the odd lynx. There, he could put up his 60 foot masts and 6 meter quads. All these neighborhoods now with strict CC&Rs have pretty much eliminated the ham from the landscape.
Beware the local Home Owners Association (HOA). If you think the Local and Feds are bad, wait until you have a disgruntled old hag who's also on the HOA board sniffing around your property.
.
There are truly no limits or appeals when fighting the HOA.
.
You pretty much know when you buy the property if you can't put up an aerial, so if you later get the ham bug, you can only blame yourself for the predicament. OTOH, it would be interesting to see how HOAs might restrict drone flights, even if they are only over your own property. They're too new to be specifically noted in most association rulebooks.
In my case, I leave 5 miles outside a town with a population of 399. No HOA for me! Good thing too, they wouldn't like my antennas and windmills!
Jonathan
I remember when I was ten years old my father jumping up from the breakfast table then running across the garden outside our window brandishing a shovel. He was going to "negotiate" with our neighbour. This was a bit shocking as my dad was the most peaceful guy ever.
Later I learned that said neighbour had moved our boundary fence 2 meters inwards on two previous occasions whilst we were on holiday. That day he was starting to do it again.
Turned out said neighbour was an architect. He had fallen out with father when father refused to build our new house on the spot the architect wanted him to.
Said spot was down hill a bit and full of water. Said architect had built his new house in that swamp and had no end of trouble with damp.
I have had a very low opinion of architects ever since....
As in my last post, you still get the ones that try to cause trouble anyway. I will resist hanging an empty camera case on my tower pointed at his yard...
Curiously, even a real camera is likely to be completely legal (though this is not legal advice), as long as 1) the camera is on your property, 2) is not recording audio and 3) you post a sign.
I think it's a fair chance that the 2015 Parity Act isn't going anywhere. It was introduced a year ago, and with the election and all, if it's not heard this year (likely), would have to be reintroduced as new bills next term, with the new congress.
Historically, the courts generally find for the HOAs, except in the case of racial or other personal bias, or unless there's a clear public interest otherwise. Mind you, I'm not arguing against the bill, but it's quite vague in its remedy. Courts like to keep things in balance. It's a fair conclusion even if it passes they aren't talking about 6-meter. More likely, it would be limited to accommodating both the ham and the spirit of the CC&Rs, requiring use of no aerial that can be seen from the street. That means no towers, and probably limited to 23 or 33 cm band.
I also found their argument regarding the public interest to be wanting. CB still survives (in fact, it's making a come-back), and provides much the same benefits. I think they might have done better there.
Back to Rich's issue ... I suspect that before long, drone flying will go the way of the model rocket. Except for the little toy quadcopters, there will be significant age, place, and time restrictions when flying on public property, or over someone else's private property without their express permission.
Model rockets are different in that you don't control them. There are no guided model rockets. You aim them the best you can and hope for the best. You have no control over them once they leave the launch pad. They actually do pose a substantial risk. To apply the same restrictions to UAVs would require a change in how airspace is managed. I don't think that is likely, the risks and dangers with UAVs are mostly perceived rather than actual.
I'm not sure there's a need to control a model rocket to make it safe (properly made and flown, it goes up, then floats down using a parachute), or that a controlled quadcopter is inherently safer. In fact, I'd argue that the human element in flying a drone makes it less safe, unless it has a 100% automated flying mode. In any case, both are potentially damaging, but safety isn't the only reason these might see increasing restrictions in flying. Your recent experience with your neighbor is a good example. All it takes is a couple of these neighbors to take their complaints to city hall, and now you have a new ordinance on the books.
The human element changes things. A reasonable thinking person will conclude that the danger lies in the human who has the controls. A reactionary will conclude that the danger is in the drone. In rocketry, the human can do absolutely nothing to correct a rocket in flight. In RC flight, the human does have control of the flight. In both cases the human bears the responsibility for making sure the craft is airworthy.
Of course Rich was NOT doing that and was even extra respectful. A shame you have some cranky-pants neighbors, Rich. At least you did your part in being a good neighbor and past that just keep doing what you're doing.
CB radio has never saved the day in a disaster, while Ham radio has time and time again. In individual cases, of course. But 12 watts on 11 meters just will never provide the coverage and information passing capabilities needed in a Katrina. That takes many experienced operators with multiple band capabilities to accommodate time of day, weather and band conditions. So I respectfully disagree that CB radio provides pretty much the same thing. Not that I'm biased because I'm a HAM myself.... :-)
Jonathan
When I was a kid my family was heavily involved with REACT. Back then we had FCC callsigns for the CB frequencies. I certainly don't want to diminish the importance of HAM but CB has been instrumental in disaster situations. Not when there is widespread communication failure but in local emergencies such as tornadoes and blizzards. Which were not uncommon in rural Nebraska when I was growing up.
I certainly agree that CB cannot begin to replace HAM.
Not sure how you can say this, as CB has in countless times helped in fire and rescue, and many municipalities to this day monitor channel 9. This was particularly true in the 70s when everyone had a CB rig. I still have my Radio Shack handheld CB in case of emergency. I don't need to talk to some guy in Des Moines -- across town is far enough if I'm needing help.
Which brings us to the point: I never said CB and ham are equivalent, but the arguments made in the parity act for amateur radio are not persuasive to a non-technical lawmaker. They could and would ask how ham radio would benefit the public when a 12-watt SSB CB set could be equally useful in the typical emergency. (Not zombie apocolypse emergency, but local events like floods, tornadoes, etc.) It's a reasonable challenge, and one I doubt Congress would have a ready answer for.
I'm not in favor of CC&Rs, and would prefer not to live in such communities, but remember that many homeowners actively look for such property because they want those limitations. They prefer the sameness. I couldn't stand to have my house look like 10 others on the street, but that's me. Others are different. Not sure the government can or should say those kinds of restrictions are now moot, contract be damned. I mean, if they allow for big ham antennas for DXing, why not CB antennas, too? The parity act makes the mistake of (apparently) placing hams in a special exempt class, where it is the technology and its benefits that is of interest to the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Auxiliary_Radio_System
As noted on the wiki page, sadly not along ago the Navy decided their MARS program was no longer needed, relying instead on MARS Army or Air Force. They had a good run, though.
I remember when I was about six, visiting with my family, his (my father's) parents, and finding a post card. It was a message delivered to them via a similar service when he was station in Japan.
As for the HOA outfits, the ones in Florida are worse then most of us might think. In fact they ended up moving because of one.
I must agree that Congress is ill equipped for the technicalities. But there are many arguments for Amateur Radio's usefulness over WITH CB even at the local level.
Many Hams practice handling emergency traffic regularly in networks.
Most of those have well maintained rigs with battery backup, and a plan in case of damage.
Hams maintain extensive repeater systems (Also battery backed) on 6M and up, and have the mobiles and handhelds programmed for them. These are also kept charged and used on a regular basis.
CBs need antennas , too!
Secondly, let me apologize to the 11 meter crowd. I came across much harsher than I intended. CB radio has indeed saved many lives. What I meant to say and said poorly was that in a large area, long time period incident that CB radio does not "provide much the same benefits" as Ham radio. No offense Gordon! I just don't agree with that. I do agree that the ARRL could be making a much better argument and that the bill is unlikely to go anywhere.
As noted above, hams generally have a lot of time and money invested in robust, redundant stations and practice regularly. For an example, we recently had a tsunami drill where we activated the school shelters and the county emergency center. We passed digital messages from and to hospitals, used HF radio to relay them to the internet as well as voice communications. No offense meant to CB radio, it is a very valuable tool and I wish more folks still had them. But they just can't do what ham radio does.
Sorry again, Rich. I'll be quiet now. :-)
Jonathan
There are three things going on here:
1. Studies show that the majority of homeowners choose housing with HOAs because they want the restrictions, even with the limitations (http://www.newhomesource.com/resourcecenter/articles/living-in-the-hoa-most-home-owners-like-their-home-owner-association). IOW, it's the neighors that pose the greatest challenge, not the HOAs.
2. The act doesn't really provide any muscle at all for hams, as it's still down to the HOA to determine what is a reasonable exemption for aerial height and size, and you can bet that they will apply the strictest interpretation they can in order to avoid the Slippery Slope -- basically, nothing above height of the roofline, and nothing visible from the street. That works for sat dishes, but not so much for radio transmission antennas. However, I suppose it's better than nothing.
3. The government has many other less intrusive methods at its disposal to accomplish the same interest of public safety, so those have to be exhausted first, and adjudicated if the HOA and homeowner don't agree. For example, tax credits for amateur clubs who maintain repeater equipment on land suitable for higher power transmission. An HOA would seize on this type of technology as proof that a tall mast and huge antenna aren't required for the amateur to enjoy his hobby and provide a public benefit. For years, my brother walked around with a small handset, yet could talk to anyone in the world (conditions allowing). This was his choice, rather than a requirement of his neighborhood.
I understand this may not be a popular opinion. While I chose not to pursue the hobby of amateur radio, because of my many family members who were hams, my sympathies are fully in their camp. However, I just feel bills like these are a tremendous overreach of government into the lives of private citizens who have made the deliberate decision to accept the CC&Rs that bind them and their neighbors by contract. I feel uneasy whenever the government gets involved in matters between consenting individuals.
ARRL is pushing for it, but I don't think it's just hams, a CB isn't immune to the laws of physics, it needs a good antenna to be useful. Many hams go out of their way to hide antennas in flagpoles, or use thin wire in a tree, and then still get busted 'because an antenna is an antenna' even if you must examine closely to see it.
Then there's GMRS. in GMRS (but NOT FRS) an improved antenna and more wattage, as well as repeaters are allowed.
Like to listen to the public services? a small discone antenna will help, but is also at issue here, as well as broadcast radio, TV, shortwave listening, etc
We're not looking to put up a 300' guyed tower bristling with huge antennas, just 'cause i can, just some reasonable accommodation.
It's not really even the HOA that's under fire here, just some of the more, er, zealous neighbors.
I also apologize for hijacking the thread, and plan to get off my soapbox and shut up now.