Shipping back an item to a seller

[gran-98]

Hello,

I have been thinking of buying a drone but am worried about it arriving and being damaged in some way, has anyone ever shipped a product that is like 2-3 kg back to the seller (china for example), is the shipping cost expensive and not worth the hassle?

Thank you.

[letscleanupmycupboards]

And these days most good quality drones would be higher than you'd see or hear easily so probably never know they've been there.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@letscleanupmycupboards wrote:
K1000 you actually don't own the airspace above your property same as you don't own more than a couple of metres under the ground. So it's actually the same. Neither a road nor the airspace above your house are private property. As I've said the fact a drone is supposedly infringing your privacy is a separate matter, while the operator could be taken to task on that, it does not give open licence for the home owner to attack it. One offence does not permit you to commit another. It would just be a matter of which is considered more serious under law.

---

cupboards, if you could post a link to the source of your information regarding airspace above private property it would be greatly appreciated.

I have time to spare, so I searched the net for some further information regarding recreational drone use.  CASA regulations say that a drone should not be flown within 30 metres of any person not controlling the drone or essential for the operation of the drone, and must not be flown over people.  This would mean a drone can’t be flown within a 30 metre radius of a person, which would cover most house blocks in cities and towns.  It would certainly give reasonable protection for me on my 1 acre (4000sqm) plot.

Here’s a screenshot from the CASA website page:

So, if I am on my property and a recreational drone flies within thirty metres of me (about the distance I could actually hit a tennis ball), OR one flies above me, then that operator/drone is in breach of CASA regulations.  It would be my duty as an upstanding citizen to disable the drone under these circumstances seeing as I am within 5.5km of an airport.

I also found other websites, and while most agree that the law is vague and open to interpretation, I found this site informative:

https://www.gotocourt.com.au/legal-news/drones-privacy-rights/

If a recreational drone flew so high that it is unnoticeable then I wouldn’t know it was there, so the issue of downing the drone becomes moot since I wouldn’t know it was there (and it would be out of my reach with a tennis ball).

So it would seem that I would do well to base my defence of my actions on the grounds of unreasonable trespass and not privacy.

For recreational drone users, I would consider them flying over my yard without my permission to be unreasonable trespass unless it is accidental and they make every effort to leave promptly.  If they hover over my property long enough for me to go to my garage and get my racket and balls then that would be unreasonable and not accidental.

[springyzone]

@ padi.

I need one of those!!

Just musing. Lucky we're not in USA. I bet some farmers there would get behind a tree & use the drones for target practice. If they're not picked up on camera it might be pretty hard to prove who did it!!

[springyzone]

From reading that, I would say that if you were in your backyard (and you'd have to be if you were trying to knock it down) then you could argue it was flying over a person (you) and breaching your privacy.

Depending on how high the thing was, you might also argue you knocked it away in self protection as you were scared it was going to hit you or your family.

The only case i have heard where drone use has gone to court was a while back when a woman said a real estate agent posted a photo on a billboard of a neighbouring property & because it was an aerial shot,  it showed her in her backyard. 

I thought that was fairly clumsy of the agent actually as it isn't rocket science to blot out people in photos.

[padi*0409]

---

@springyzone wrote:

@ @ padi.

I need one of those!!

---

Might have to see if I can modify it to fire some a heap of slr's tennis balls.      

If it can throw water 55 mts then a tennis ball ought to blast off to the stratosphere with ease....................

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

I could always argue that my serve is so abysmal that I was just practising when the ball hit the drone.  If the droner produced video of the downing then it would just prove they were videoing me, which would justify my tennis practice.

[letscleanupmycupboards]

But of course a drone flying 30.5m high is no longer closer than 30 metres from a person.

I think the point everyone is missing and that cannot be disputed is that it is not your right to destroy or attempt to damage someone else's property ie commit wilful damage due to them (it) commiting an offence. Yes if you perceive an issue you'd be entitled to make a complaint. As I've mentioned it would come down to you being charged and forced to financially compensate for destroying someone's property but they might only be a minor charge/warning for flying over your house. So you'd have to weigh up how keen you are. Drones are newish tech so the laws have not been tested multiple times in court like willful damage laws have. At best you might find they'd charge nobody criminally since you both did wrong (they often do "we drop ours you drop yours" deals) but still enforce damages for costs of the drone to you. Some pro drones cost $6-7000.

If someone parked their car in your driveway can you go inside get a hammer and smash their car up? Might have a dash cam and be filming you.....I'd say fair enough to go out and say bugger off. But not cause damage to property.

[davewil1964]

Doesn't matter how high they fly if they fly over a person. Provided they are low enough to be noticed, presumably. Under 500 metres?

[springyzone]

Yes, i get your point that each case is separate & the fact someone else does wrong does not give a person the right to also do a different wrong thing.

I think the thing with drones though is they would have to be able to prove it. perhaps if footage was being sent back & it showed you swatting it out of the sky they could, but I can think of instances where it might be hard to prove. For example (a bit OTT I know) but what if the person doing the damage wore a mask or other coverings?

I remember one case where a woman was being charged with making a false declaration to police but police had to drop it as after it came out that she was lying, she had her lawyer state that no one could prove she was the woman who made the complaint as whoever it was had been wearing a full veil (she was muslim) when they entered the police station.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@letscleanupmycupboards wrote:
But of course a drone flying 30.5m high is no longer closer than 30 metres from a person.

I think the point everyone is missing and that cannot be disputed is that it is not your right to destroy or attempt to damage someone else's property ie commit wilful damage due to them (it) commiting an offence. Yes if you perceive an issue you'd be entitled to make a complaint. As I've mentioned it would come down to you being charged and forced to financially compensate for destroying someone's property but they might only be a minor charge/warning for flying over your house. So you'd have to weigh up how keen you are. Drones are newish tech so the laws have not been tested multiple times in court like willful damage laws have. At best you might find they'd charge nobody criminally since you both did wrong (they often do "we drop ours you drop yours" deals) but still enforce damages for costs of the drone to you. Some pro drones cost $6-7000.

If someone parked their car 

---

I have been posting about recreational drone users and would not categorise a $6000 drone as being for recreational use.  I would think that a $6000 drone would be one that would require a CASA licence as it would likely weigh more than 2.3kg (see CASA link in a previous post), and users of commercial use drones would not risk CASA sanctions by flying over private property in breach of CASA regulations which they must follow.

As for the car parking in a driveway analogy, I'll pass on commenting and will stick to commenting about my views on recreational drone usage.

Now, cupboards, I wouldn't have asked you to post links in support of post content without being prepared to do so myself, so here's another useful CASA link to support content in this post:

https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standard-page/remotely-piloted-aircraft-system-frequently-asked-que...

Here's one screengrab from that page that supports what I have posted: