[HN Gopher] Can I stop drone delivery companies flying over my p...
___________________________________________________________________
Can I stop drone delivery companies flying over my property?
Author : austinallegro
Score : 52 points
Date : 2025-06-02 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rte.ie)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rte.ie)
| GuestFAUniverse wrote:
| Don't overthink it: get a permission for one or many flag poles
| ;-)
| paulddraper wrote:
| Has a very easy answer in the US: No.
|
| You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace.
|
| You can build a tall structure (subject to local laws). But
| anything above that is outside your control.
|
| ---
|
| This article, however, is about Ireland.
| RankingMember wrote:
| In Ireland?
| 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
| So who pays your medical bills when one of those falls on your
| head. FAA or the delivery company?
| connicpu wrote:
| This is basically why regulations exist requiring operators
| of machinery/vehicles to carry insurance, so there's someone
| who can pay up if people get hurt.
| tjohns wrote:
| You actually don't need insurance to fly a plane (in the
| US).
|
| That said, I don't know of any aircraft operator who
| doesn't have some form of insurance. If nothing else
| because the banks demand it.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The domain is .IE, the FAA has little relevance.
| tjohns wrote:
| > Has a very easy answer in the US: No.
|
| While you're not wrong in practice, it's actually a
| surprisingly complicated area of law.
|
| The FAA doesn't "own" the airspace, it's a public right-of-way
| and every citizen has the right to transit it. See 49 USC
| SS40103: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of
| transit through the navigable airspace".
|
| The FAA gets to set policy on how to ensure safety, just like
| the Coast Guard sets rules for the safe navigation of public
| waterways (but neither "owns" the air/water): "the
| Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
| develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace
| and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace
| necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
| use of airspace."
|
| Now, where it gets complicated is the definition of "navigable
| airspace". A common definition is either 360 feet or 500 feet
| above the tallest structure on a parcel of land, but the case
| law isn't consistent on this - especially when you consider
| that some aircraft (like helicopters) can legally navigate
| lower than that. See:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States
| paulddraper wrote:
| While citizens have a right to transit through navigable
| airspace, the FAA controls more than that. The FAA controls
| _ALL_ airspace (but delegating control over some areas such
| as military airspace).
|
| For example, a drone weighing over 250 grams must be
| registered with the FAA, no matter what height it is flown.
| Even if it's your own backyard at eye level.
|
| This is a little weird, but factual.
| throwawee wrote:
| >You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace.
|
| Makes sense. If castle doctrine applied to the skies, people
| could take potshots at low flying aircraft above their house. I
| guess that's one way to prevent becoming a flyover state...
| username223 wrote:
| True, the article is talking about Ireland, and I don't know
| what the current laws are there. But for the States, normal
| aircraft are supposed to stay 500 ft away:
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
|
| That's not true for helicopters and UAVs within sight of their
| controllers, but I feel sorry for the people who bought a house
| _not_ near and airport, and now have to deal with a buzzing
| swarm overhead.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| In my neighborhood (rural) a drone hovering over someone's
| property would be likely used as target practice.
|
| If delivery drones become commonplace, there are going to have to
| be regulations about which air corridors they can use (altitude
| and routes) or it will be chaos.
| latchkey wrote:
| Yea, who cares where those bullets land...
| beau_g wrote:
| Hopefully people are responsible/safety conscious when
| shooting down drones and use birdshot
| tjohns wrote:
| For what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is
| a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously.
| Drones also have cameras.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Are rocks still kosher?
| rolph wrote:
| if a drone is close enough to be hit with a rock, its
| operating ilegally.
| Hatrix wrote:
| How about microwaves?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6XdcWToy2c
| pilingual wrote:
| What if you have a pellet with wings you are doing
| experiments with above your house and the drone fails to
| maneuver around it?
|
| (This may or may not be a Simpsons reference.)
| thih9 wrote:
| The question is so common that it has its own section in the
| FAA's drone FAQ
|
| > Can you shoot down drones above your property?
|
| > It's illegal under federal law to shoot at an aircraft. A
| private citizen shooting at any aircraft - including unmanned
| aircraft - poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned
| aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to
| persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with
| other objects in the air. Shooting at an unmanned aircraft
| could result in a civil penalty from the FAA and/or criminal
| charges from federal, state or local law enforcement.
|
| https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/what-know-about-drones
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Well,not my country, but I think it is quite a silly and
| too general rule:
|
| What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over
| my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my
| roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my
| doing and hurts _me_? So the actual rules need to be more
| nuanced than this, to prevent people doing crazy shit with
| their tech gadgets hurting others. They cannot be given
| free reign in that matter.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones
| over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground
| or my roof, 24 /7?_
|
| What if your neighbours climb on your roof and start
| banging on your windows at night?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I'm not categorically opposed to the idea of shooting
| them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| And I'd argue they deserved it. (I'd also expect you to
| get charged.)
| softg wrote:
| at that point you could just buy cheap drones yourself
| and ram those into your neighbor's (oops)
| Volundr wrote:
| > What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones
| over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground
| or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes
| without my doing and hurts _me_?
|
| Are you under the impression that either of these things
| is legal, and that gunplay is your only recourse?
| john-h-k wrote:
| The legal system is when you get to shoot at things that
| break the law
| throw933884 wrote:
| Technically drones are not aircrafts in US. Aircraft has to
| fly over some altitude limit and needs licence. Drones at
| lower altitude are just trespassers. FAA has no legal
| authority at low altitudes, except near airports.
| esseph wrote:
| This is blatantly incorrect.
|
| See above.
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| This is dangerous and untrue advice. Drones are considered
| aircraft in the US, and there is no altitude limit or
| license requirement for something to be considered an
| aircraft. See 49 U.S. Code SS 40102 [0] and explicit FAA
| regulation of airspace under 400 feet [1]
|
| [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40102
|
| [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/laanc
| ncrc74 wrote:
| They absolutely are aircraft and governed by the FAA. They
| call them Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's). FAA also has
| jurisdiction over all airspace in the US starting at ground
| level. There's plenty of reference material on the subject
| you can read.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| When do you differentiate between a toy and a UAV?
| tjohns wrote:
| The FAA has lighter regulation for drones under 250g, for
| this reason. But even then, small toy drones of any size
| are still regulated by the FAA.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Sometimes (often?) technical legal definitions considered
| without context lead to absurd conclusions that don't
| manifest in practice.
|
| Does the FAA have jurisdiction over paper planes? What
| about the airspace in my house and does it matter if the
| doors are open?
|
| On the other hand, I don't think government agencies have
| much incentive to preemptively limit the scope of their
| authority, but would be happy to hear of counter-
| examples.
| thih9 wrote:
| > FAA has no legal authority at low altitudes, except near
| airports.
|
| False, at least according to this FAA Fact Sheet:
|
| "The FAA has exclusive authority to regulate airspace
| efficiency for UAS at low altitudes"
|
| https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/public_safety_g
| o...
| thebitstick wrote:
| Me when I lie
| rz2k wrote:
| They likely know their neighborhood. In my semi-rural
| neighborhood even discharging a firearm might lead to someone
| calling the Sheriff. In other neighborhoods armed gangs can
| apparently confront FEMA without any repercussions. In yet
| others, they can occupy parts of national parks and have an
| armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real
| consequences.
| mulmen wrote:
| > In yet others, they can occupy parts of national parks
| and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with
| no real consequences.
|
| What situation are you referencing here? First one that
| comes to mind is Malheur but one of them was killed and 7
| went to prison.
| anonymars wrote:
| I imagine they're thinking of the Bundy standoff (which
| was federal BLM land but not a national park)
|
| To wit:
|
| > The Bundy standoff's most significant legacy may be the
| precedent it established: that armed resistance against
| federal authorities could succeed without serious legal
| consequences for participants. This outcome has had a
| profound impact on antigovernment extremist movements,
| creating what experts describe as "a straight line"
| connecting Bunkerville to the Capitol riot.
|
| https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/apr/13/a-decade-of-
| defianc...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| go to any large metro with large poor districts in the USA
| on New Year's Eve.. also 4th of July.. try and count the
| firearms.. People have figured out very well how to hide in
| a crowd. Some of the other circumstances mentioned sound
| ill-informed TBH
| gigel82 wrote:
| If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's
| property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property
| owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's
| perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| In the US, shooting a drone is the same as shooting an aircraft
| and that means federal law enforcement attention, especially
| when the drone is owned by one of the largest, richest
| companies in the world, with lots of data and video footage.
| mingus88 wrote:
| I'd be interested to see how that changes if you launch a net
|
| Any drone I would be able to pick off with a firearm would
| have to be low and slow enough for me to capture it with less
| violent means.
|
| Then I'm not shooting anything. I'm seizing property that
| shouldnt be here like I would a kids frisbee or a an
| abandoned vehicle. They're free to ask nicely for it to be
| returned
| Aloisius wrote:
| Nothing changes.
|
| It's a felony to attempt to damage, destroy, disable or
| wreck any aircraft. How you do it doesn't matter.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > shouldnt be here
|
| You'll want to examine this a bit more closely: is the
| aircraft in a location it should not be? Above your house
| is likely to be a valid place for a drone, whether you like
| it or not. Exceptions are for things like airports (other
| air traffic) and sporting events (large crowds).
|
| So when you use a net to capture the drone out of the sky,
| you are not collecting it from its location of abandonment
| on your property, you are stealing it. (That's assuming
| more lax rules on disabling drones vs. other aircraft, per
| the sibling comment.)
| tshaddox wrote:
| Surely that must depend on the altitude the drone is
| flying at. Surely I can use a net to capture a drone
| flying 8 feet above the ground in my backyard.
| Always42 wrote:
| Imagine shooting down a helicopter above your house, people r
| crazy
| patrickmay wrote:
| Helicopters typically contain people, drones do not.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Why would the drone be hovering over a property where it's not
| making a delivery?
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Why would a Waymo be stuck next to my property if it isn't
| dropping off someone?
|
| Things can go wrong
| Lio wrote:
| I guess it could be to film your house and garden for
| advertising tracking purposes.
|
| If you've got a new car or your kids are wearing new clothes
| could be important data points.
|
| Sadly, I'm only half joking.
|
| Whatever you can think of some fucker will be willing to try.
| threecheese wrote:
| My municipality (US) does this for property tax purposes
| already, using commercial datasets. Stands to reason that
| this is next.
| Sanzig wrote:
| That could easily be grounds for prosecution in Canada for
| negligent discharge of a firearm. You'd be lucky if the court
| didn't take your firearms license away for life.
| theodric wrote:
| That's nice.
|
| It's also illegal in the USA, btw.
| rolph wrote:
| pellet rifles are not firearms, although, they are usually
| considered dangerous instruments, big world of difference if
| you lose it and do something, not recommended [discharging
| projectiles].
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| What if you got a firearm, that is made to catch drones with
| a net of some sort? No stray bullets flying anywhere.
| Sanzig wrote:
| A net launcher wouldn't be considered a firearm under
| Canadian law, so it wouldn't be illegal under firearms
| rules.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _In my neighborhood (rural) a drone hovering over someone 's
| property would be likely used as target practice._
|
| Just yesterday, I told a drone operator that it was illegal to
| fly where he was.
|
| He told me that because he clicked "I agree" on some setup
| software that made it legal.
| rolph wrote:
| he told you the first lie that came into his head
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _there are going to have to be regulations about which air
| corridors they can use (altitude and routes) or it will be
| chaos_
|
| Agree. But a good way to ensure that doesn't happen is to have
| folks shooting at drones.
| catigula wrote:
| I highly doubt people are shooting at drones. Shooting at any
| aircraft is incredibly illegal & dangerous. I'd assume people
| have better self-preservation instincts than that.
| sib wrote:
| You know what they say about assuming...
| dole wrote:
| it makes an ass of u and massad ayoob
| SoftTalker wrote:
| People shoot at cars (road rage) which is way worse. I
| don't think such people have self-preservation instincts,
| or at least they aren't developed against threats such as
| "this might lead to an investigation and possible criminal
| charges some time in the future"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _People shoot at cars (road rage) which is way worse_
|
| Most people don't have dashcams. Drones, on the other
| hand, would have evidence of both the crime and criminal
| intent.
| esseph wrote:
| You would be incorrect. It happens frequently and gets
| prosecuted.
| catigula wrote:
| The word "frequently" is doing a lot of heavy-lifting
| here.
| esseph wrote:
| Completely up to what that word means to you.
|
| Just do a search for "charged with shooting at drone".
| catigula wrote:
| I had AI do a collation of news events and the general
| conclusion was
|
| > Civilian shootings at drones occur at a rate likely
| below 15 incidents per year in the U.S., compared to over
| one million registered drones.
|
| I'm going to have to conclude that this strains and
| breaks the bounds of the term 'frequently' and the
| initial term 'incorrect'.
| esseph wrote:
| So more than once a month an idiot is in the news for
| shooting at a drone.
|
| Depending on where you live, they might even be neighbors
| of yours.
|
| Something showing up every month is pretty damn frequent,
| especially when it leaks into national news and always
| grabs headlines, yet idiots still do it.
|
| I mean if a plane fell out of the sky once a month, is
| that frequently?
|
| What about if your bank blocked access to your account
| once a month when you needed it?
| Larrikin wrote:
| Your strained analogy would actually be if any bank
| blocked one account from all bank accounts once a month.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Bullets fall down and can be deadly, so anyone doing so
| should at least be prosecuted for reckless endangerment if
| not assault with a deadly weapon.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Most people seriously looking to shoot down a drone would
| be using a shotgun and bird shot, so that's essentially a
| non-issue.
| esseph wrote:
| There's a lot of idiots and a lot of small arms
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Shotguns are only good for about 100 feet, most delivery
| drones transit higher than that.
| op00to wrote:
| There are regulations about what air corridors they can use in
| the US.
| adolph wrote:
| > a drone hovering over someone's property would be likely used
| as target practice
|
| A long time ago I got to spend some time doing this and it was
| trickier than one might think. You have to lead over 3
| dimensions instead of 2 and the vehicle speed is more variable
| than most things.
| neepi wrote:
| Clearly the solution is to obtain anti delivery drone drones and
| bag all the free stuff that falls out of the sky into your
| property.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| With all the money behind it that's probably going to a
| criminally punished similar to hijacking a goods truck n the
| highway.
| neuroelectron wrote:
| Yes but not yet
| bilbo0s wrote:
| What will be legal is to simply sue the owner of the drone
| for breaking your window when your neighbor shot it down.
|
| After a while, that will get so expensive that either they
| will stop using drones to deliver, or drone design will
| improve to the point that they become almost impossible to
| bring down.
|
| Either way, hey, gets rid of the problem of drones dropping
| on your property.
| rolph wrote:
| drones have minimum distance and altitude regulations as well as
| restrictions from operating above people.
|
| also, stock up on fishing line
| Fairburn wrote:
| I hear that a focused low power EMP zot can do wonders .. /s
| threecheese wrote:
| I semi-interested in drones, and my social media algorithm
| repeatedly shows me both EMP devices and drone jamming
| countermeasures. Aliexpress style vendors, factory assembly
| videos. I would guess that both of these are illegal in the US.
| fifticon wrote:
| well, if you are russian, it appears not.
| Yeul wrote:
| How is drone delivery economically feasible? The carry weight is
| negligible, the range is paltry and they still require operators-
| whom I'm sure earn more than your average white van man.
| mingus88 wrote:
| Not sure how profitable they are today but I think it's obvious
| that the long term play is to eliminate the contract workers
| entirely
| Aloisius wrote:
| A Wing delivery drones can lift 5 lbs and travel upwards of 12
| miles at up to at 70 mph.
|
| If a single operator can pilot 20 drones simultaneously,
| delivering say 50+ packages/hour, then it starts to make sense.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| there are niches in places where the roads are
| bad/congested/otherwise and the cargo is particularly high
| value. I remember reading about a delivery use case for blood
| bags in the African countryside.
| Balgair wrote:
| Aside:
|
| It's going to be a great time when the crows, raccoons, and other
| semi-intelligent wildlife discover that these drones have food in
| them at seemingly random reward schedules.
|
| Sure, you can give the drones little tasers to keep the animals
| away, depending on your locality. But knowing what I know about
| bears and crows, almost nothing is going to stop them. Especially
| when some influencer jerk tries tempting a bunch of them with a
| box just oozing honey or some other high value food.
| adolph wrote:
| I can definitely see a future time when small autonomous air
| vehicles start to have problems with the local wildlife, either
| from the thick flocks of grackles in winter or from the more
| mischievous neighborhood corvids.
| seanthemon wrote:
| They'll have protecto-drones and decoy drones following them
| until it's so expensive we go back to good ol' launching
| packages by trebuchet
| nostrademons wrote:
| Friend of mine recorded this video 10 years ago:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc
| friendlyprezz wrote:
| There sure is one way to stop em
|
| Palmer lucky made another way too, an EMP that looks like a
| portable speaker
| antithesizer wrote:
| my advice on this question is the same as my advice on most
| questions: befriend the crows.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-02 23:00 UTC)