Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
That comes from a time when there were no aircraft and it didn't matter. With the advent of aircraft that all changed.
(practically, that means at least 500 ft, possibly more).
That is your interpretation. For example it definitely does not apply around airports.
I have a right to build in the air 100 ft above my property (or 500 ft or whatever), and nobody else does.
Yes you do if it is attached to the ground but you don't have the right to deny an aircraft from flying under 500 feet if there is no building there. That is evidence you don't own it. Remember the reference to "spite poles"? If it was your property you could do anything you wanted with it.
And if things were as simple as you pretend, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The only reason we are having this conversation is that you can not tell the difference between safety limits and property rights.
It's also unclear whether the FAA has the authority to permit others to fly drones through my airspace below 500 ft.
The FAA has jurisdiction over all navigable airspace. Previous to drones navigable airspace had pretty high limits. Drones, like helicopters, are much more maneuverable and therefore lower safety limits.
The best thing for Congress would be to clarify this with a law, spelling out clear height limits for private property and public use of airspace, as opposed to the current legal uncertainty.
Your whole basis for this conversation is wrong and therefore any arguments based on it are also wrong..
the FAA is effectively trying to gain the power to regulate airspace that previously was either entirely private (over private land) or entirely public (over public land).
The airspace over private land has never been entirely private. You don't own that air other than what you can reasonably use for the enjoyment of the land. If your house is 20 feet tall the air above 100 feet is public not private. The FAA flight rules are safety standards for fixed wing aircraft not property right laws.
(1) you should be able to fly drones over your own property as long as you don't interfere with commercial aviation,
You can but not commercially and not out of line of sight.
(2) other people can't fly drones over your property without permission.
That is not a default as the air over you property, other than what you can reasonably use for the enjoyment of the land, does not belong to you. To make this a restriction would require a law.
If a helicopter flies below 500ft, it's really the pilot's job to be extra careful.
The point is the helicopter is allowed to do it and therefore any greater restrictions on drones would require a new law.
FAA compliance is necessary but not sufficient for legal operation of an aircraft.
Show me any non-FAA laws/rules that restrict flying drones under 500 feet and in public airspace. I know of none.. That is why the FAA is not allowing commercial drones until they work out any new restrictions.
The FAA is not trying to gain control over private airspace as what you think is private airspace is actually public airspace.You can repeat you incorrect assumption as many times as you want but it will still be wrong.
The issue is whether the FAA actually should have the authority to force you to let Amazon put a busy drown delivery route 50 ft above the roof of your house without any review, oversight, or positive act by Congress.
That is the issue. Right now there are no laws for commercial drones. Treating them like full sized aircraft is just stupid. Th FAA is not allowing comercial use of drones right now because they have yet to work out the new laws.
There should be a minimum height; 1000ft is too high and 50ft is too low. The laws need to be worked out before commercial drones are allowed.
Bye the way the 500-1000ft minimums are for fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters have different rules
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;
Most small drones are helicopters of some sort. Notice they talk about hazard and not annoyance.
Public UAS COAs are available to public entities that want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Common uses today include law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, military training, and other government operational missions.
A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example.
Your definition of "reasonable use" seems to differ from the court's. The operative word is "use". Denying someone else "use" is not "use" in itself. By "use" the court is talking about building structures.
In the US you do not have property rights from ground up to navigable airspace. Your rights stop much lower than that;
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land.
If you mean the litigation industry that will be needed to handle all the cases related to privacy, personal injury/property damage, trespassing, etc then yes it is suppressing an industry. A few drones in an area is not a problem but hundreds of drones from different companies will be a problem. The FAA hasn't figured out how to deal with that yet.
The UK plan is not very different from the US plan. In the UK you still need permission from the CAA under certain conditions.;
You must request permission from the CAA if you plan to:
- fly the aircraft on a commercial basis (i.e. conducting ‘aerial work’) or - fly a camera/surveillance fitted aircraft within congested areas or closer (than the distances listed within Article 167) to people or properties (vehicles, vessels or structures) that are not under your control
On the other hand, (if my understanding is correct), military and law enforcement agencies are free to fly UAV's whenever and wherever they please.
That is not true. The FAA issues a certificate of authorization for valid use of drones. Here is a map of authorized drone use in the US. Click on the dots and you will see that their areas of operation are quite restricted. The issue is that commercial aircraft require a COA and the FAA has yet to certify drones for commercial use.
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes Its use by persons or companies for business purposes."
The funny thing is that when I coped the first instance of the quote from the site I get "pecoins" and had to change it to "persons". It looks like the OCR screwed up.
There's a serious ethical problem with allocating scarce healthcare resources, particularly those in theatre to ideas that have no evidence of being worth trying.
It has been done during the 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak in Zaire. They tried it on eight patients and only one died. I have found no indication that any health care workers were infected. Notice the transfusions were done in Zaire. Also notice the ebola funding has increased quite rapidly.
As to numbers, There have only been 4,000 cases so far. Maybe a few hundred could be treated with transfusions and have their lives saved. Why deny them that? This is not an immunization treatment and therefore will only be used on already sick people. Restricting the practice to medical facilities that can handle the procedure will restrict if not eliminate infections of health care workers. Fewer people will be treated but it will be much safer.
If you save one patient with a blood transfusion but kill 2 others who accidentally get infected you're not really doing a good thing.
It you treat a few hundred people under restricted conditions and they live then it is a good thing.
As reported by The Los Angeles Times, the World Health Organization is endorsing blood transfusions from Ebola survivors as a treatment for those currently infected.
Notice they said "treatment" and not "cure". The antibodies will be used up but may give the body enough time to fight off the infection. It is not about impunity it is about survival.
So according to Shaffner because it is not a solution to the whole problem we should not do it at all. I think he missed the difference between "a priority" and "the priority". WHO can have a number of priority projects that each only handle part of the problem. Together the projects me be able to handle most if not all the problems.
According to the FIA Formula E site they will go a maximum of 225Km/h. That is about 135mph. While they look the F1 cars they can not go nearly as fast.
The open letter is about the Russian invasion and nothing to do with a US backed coup. Where is your evidence of a US backed coup? You are basing your argument an William Binney? A person who has been out of the loop for the past 13 years using only part of the intelligence available.
To cover iPhones an Apple store would have to have at most 8 different models. There are also fewer Apple Stores. Another factor is that many iPhone users "have" to have the latest phone so there are quite a few used phones around. Non-iPhones have different issues. Multiply the number of cell phone stores by the number of different models in the last 5 year and multiply that by the average cost of a phone and you get a very big number.
On the gripping hand, it's not like smartphones are exactly *large* and would take up a lot of space in the backroom so...
Do you have any proof of that? Might it be possible that Ukrainians might prefer closer ties with Europe rather than the country that killed 5 million of their people last century? The choice was between an EU trade package and a Russian trade package. Where did the US come in?
Wow, the person with one reference that has been proven inaccurate is saying someone else is talking out their ass.
I decided to look up evaporation from a pond. For example, Bath County Pumped Storage Station has an upper reservoir with n area of surface area of 265-acre (110 ha) and storage capacity of 35,599 acreft (43,910,720 m3). Using standard calculationswith 20km winds, 0% humidity and max holding of.020kg/kg I get a daily evaporation of about 73 acre-ft/day. That is a loss of 0.2% of the water in the upper reservoir per day. Sure if you let the water sit for 50 days you would get a 10% loss but that would be rare. So in 365 days one would lose 0.73 of a complete fill. If the reservoir let out ten percent a day there would be 36.5 fils per year. 0.73/36.5 = 2% loss due to evaporation. While evaporation causes losses it is not significant.
How did the US breach 1? The US has not entered Ukraine without invitation. I also think 2 is about threatening to ruin the Ukrainian economy if they don't go along. Russia did this by threatening to cut off oil and natural gas deliveries. How did the US do anything similar to this? The US consulted Russia about Russia's breaches and Russia is ignoring them. What did the US do wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
That comes from a time when there were no aircraft and it didn't matter. With the advent of aircraft that all changed.
(practically, that means at least 500 ft, possibly more).
That is your interpretation. For example it definitely does not apply around airports.
I have a right to build in the air 100 ft above my property (or 500 ft or whatever), and nobody else does.
Yes you do if it is attached to the ground but you don't have the right to deny an aircraft from flying under 500 feet if there is no building there. That is evidence you don't own it. Remember the reference to "spite poles"? If it was your property you could do anything you wanted with it.
And if things were as simple as you pretend, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The only reason we are having this conversation is that you can not tell the difference between safety limits and property rights.
It's also unclear whether the FAA has the authority to permit others to fly drones through my airspace below 500 ft.
The FAA has jurisdiction over all navigable airspace. Previous to drones navigable airspace had pretty high limits. Drones, like helicopters, are much more maneuverable and therefore lower safety limits.
The best thing for Congress would be to clarify this with a law, spelling out clear height limits for private property and public use of airspace, as opposed to the current legal uncertainty.
At least we agree on one thing.
Your whole basis for this conversation is wrong and therefore any arguments based on it are also wrong..
the FAA is effectively trying to gain the power to regulate airspace that previously was either entirely private (over private land) or entirely public (over public land).
The airspace over private land has never been entirely private. You don't own that air other than what you can reasonably use for the enjoyment of the land. If your house is 20 feet tall the air above 100 feet is public not private. The FAA flight rules are safety standards for fixed wing aircraft not property right laws.
(1) you should be able to fly drones over your own property as long as you don't interfere with commercial aviation,
You can but not commercially and not out of line of sight.
(2) other people can't fly drones over your property without permission.
That is not a default as the air over you property, other than what you can reasonably use for the enjoyment of the land, does not belong to you. To make this a restriction would require a law.
If a helicopter flies below 500ft, it's really the pilot's job to be extra careful.
The point is the helicopter is allowed to do it and therefore any greater restrictions on drones would require a new law.
FAA compliance is necessary but not sufficient for legal operation of an aircraft.
Show me any non-FAA laws/rules that restrict flying drones under 500 feet and in public airspace. I know of none.. That is why the FAA is not allowing commercial drones until they work out any new restrictions.
The FAA is not trying to gain control over private airspace as what you think is private airspace is actually public airspace.You can repeat you incorrect assumption as many times as you want but it will still be wrong.
The issue is whether the FAA actually should have the authority to force you to let Amazon put a busy drown delivery route 50 ft above the roof of your house without any review, oversight, or positive act by Congress.
That is the issue. Right now there are no laws for commercial drones. Treating them like full sized aircraft is just stupid. Th FAA is not allowing comercial use of drones right now because they have yet to work out the new laws.
There should be a minimum height; 1000ft is too high and 50ft is too low. The laws need to be worked out before commercial drones are allowed.
Bye the way the 500-1000ft minimums are for fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters have different rules
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;
Most small drones are helicopters of some sort. Notice they talk about hazard and not annoyance.
perhaps they don't need to be certified like the insignificant masses.
They are certified for use by the FAA.
Public UAS
COAs are available to public entities that want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Common uses today include law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, military training, and other government operational missions.
It has been done and quite successfully.
Did you read the whole quote?
A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example.
Your definition of "reasonable use" seems to differ from the court's. The operative word is "use". Denying someone else "use" is not "use" in itself. By "use" the court is talking about building structures.
In the US you do not have property rights from ground up to navigable airspace. Your rights stop much lower than that;
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land.
If you mean the litigation industry that will be needed to handle all the cases related to privacy, personal injury/property damage, trespassing, etc then yes it is suppressing an industry. A few drones in an area is not a problem but hundreds of drones from different companies will be a problem. The FAA hasn't figured out how to deal with that yet.
The UK plan is not very different from the US plan. In the UK you still need permission from the CAA under certain conditions.;
You must request permission from the CAA if you plan to:
- fly the aircraft on a commercial basis (i.e. conducting ‘aerial work’)
or
- fly a camera/surveillance fitted aircraft within congested areas or closer (than the distances listed within Article 167) to people or properties (vehicles, vessels or structures) that are not under your control
That case is under appeal and therefore not in effect.
On the other hand, (if my understanding is correct), military and law enforcement agencies are free to fly UAV's whenever and wherever they please.
That is not true. The FAA issues a certificate of authorization for valid use of drones. Here is a map of authorized drone use in the US. Click on the dots and you will see that their areas of operation are quite restricted. The issue is that commercial aircraft require a COA and the FAA has yet to certify drones for commercial use.
Here is the real quote;
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes Its use by persons or companies for business purposes."
The funny thing is that when I coped the first instance of the quote from the site I get "pecoins" and had to change it to "persons". It looks like the OCR screwed up.
There's a serious ethical problem with allocating scarce healthcare resources, particularly those in theatre to ideas that have no evidence of being worth trying.
It has been done during the 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak in Zaire. They tried it on eight patients and only one died. I have found no indication that any health care workers were infected. Notice the transfusions were done in Zaire. Also notice the ebola funding has increased quite rapidly.
As to numbers, There have only been 4,000 cases so far. Maybe a few hundred could be treated with transfusions and have their lives saved. Why deny them that? This is not an immunization treatment and therefore will only be used on already sick people. Restricting the practice to medical facilities that can handle the procedure will restrict if not eliminate infections of health care workers. Fewer people will be treated but it will be much safer.
If you save one patient with a blood transfusion but kill 2 others who accidentally get infected you're not really doing a good thing.
It you treat a few hundred people under restricted conditions and they live then it is a good thing.
As reported by The Los Angeles Times, the World Health Organization is endorsing blood transfusions from Ebola survivors as a treatment for those currently infected.
Notice they said "treatment" and not "cure". The antibodies will be used up but may give the body enough time to fight off the infection. It is not about impunity it is about survival.
So according to Shaffner because it is not a solution to the whole problem we should not do it at all. I think he missed the difference between "a priority" and "the priority". WHO can have a number of priority projects that each only handle part of the problem. Together the projects me be able to handle most if not all the problems.
It seems that quite a few researches are very creative in inventing results to "prove" their hypotheses.
Electric cars are more than capable of going faster than that:
But can it go that fast for the entire race? Maybe the top speed is restricted so that the battery will last half the race.
F1 races go up to 330kmh while E1 races will only go up to 225kmh. My point is that E1 races will be slower than F1 races.
Sorry but that train does not run on batteries and can draw a lot of power from the tracks.
According to the FIA Formula E site they will go a maximum of 225Km/h. That is about 135mph. While they look the F1 cars they can not go nearly as fast.
The open letter is about the Russian invasion and nothing to do with a US backed coup. Where is your evidence of a US backed coup? You are basing your argument an William Binney? A person who has been out of the loop for the past 13 years using only part of the intelligence available.
To cover iPhones an Apple store would have to have at most 8 different models. There are also fewer Apple Stores. Another factor is that many iPhone users "have" to have the latest phone so there are quite a few used phones around. Non-iPhones have different issues. Multiply the number of cell phone stores by the number of different models in the last 5 year and multiply that by the average cost of a phone and you get a very big number.
On the gripping hand, it's not like smartphones are exactly *large* and would take up a lot of space in the backroom so...
Space is not the issue. Cost is.
Do you have any proof of that? Might it be possible that Ukrainians might prefer closer ties with Europe rather than the country that killed 5 million of their people last century? The choice was between an EU trade package and a Russian trade package. Where did the US come in?
Yup and they are threatening 5.
Wow, the person with one reference that has been proven inaccurate is saying someone else is talking out their ass.
I decided to look up evaporation from a pond. For example, Bath County Pumped Storage Station has an upper reservoir with n area of surface area of 265-acre (110 ha) and storage capacity of 35,599 acreft (43,910,720 m3). Using standard calculationswith 20km winds, 0% humidity and max holding of.020kg/kg I get a daily evaporation of about 73 acre-ft/day. That is a loss of 0.2% of the water in the upper reservoir per day. Sure if you let the water sit for 50 days you would get a 10% loss but that would be rare. So in 365 days one would lose 0.73 of a complete fill. If the reservoir let out ten percent a day there would be 36.5 fils per year. 0.73/36.5 = 2% loss due to evaporation. While evaporation causes losses it is not significant.
How did the US breach 1? The US has not entered Ukraine without invitation.
I also think 2 is about threatening to ruin the Ukrainian economy if they don't go along. Russia did this by threatening to cut off oil and natural gas deliveries. How did the US do anything similar to this?
The US consulted Russia about Russia's breaches and Russia is ignoring them. What did the US do wrong?
Please explain.