Drone Wars: The FAA Awakens

mshunter said:
Mine all look like real airplanes. So I'm different.

A Cub, a Laser 200, a Dago Red, a P51D, a Hell Cat, a Pitts S2B, and another Cub, but it's still just a bunch of balsa wood sticks. I'm still collecting the rest of the stuff for it (engine, servos, receiver, etc.)

$40 every three years isn't much. But it's still a PITA!
Click to expand...
Definitely keep your eyes peeled for developments on this angle: http://hackaday.com/2015/12/21/here...-drone-registration-system-doesnt-make-sense/. It appears the FAA may have already overstepped their authority as granted by congress. This isn't over.

A few years ago, Congress passed the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, an immense 300-page tome that set directives to the FAA including how airports should be improved, what medical certificates apply to what type of pilot, and special rules for model aircraft.

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft

In the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, ‘model aircraft’ are defined as, ‘an unmanned aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes.’ If these qualifications are met, the FAA may not make a rule regarding these aircraft, so long as they are not flown within 5 miles of an airport.
Click to expand...
 
mshunter said:
As much as I don't like it, I have to side with the FAA on this one. To many YouTube videos of people acting like idiots. The rules are to simple though, and it seems like a Hail Mary.
Click to expand...

HA! you assume people are going to follow these "rules".
 
CFI A&P said:
As @tomokc said, he is one of the educated and responsible operators, that is aware of the big picture. I have a friend locally that is also an approved operator for hire. A process that required a considerable investment of resources to be legit. He has followed AC91-57, hired legal counsel to prepare his 333 exemption, etc.... Much like 135 vs 134.5, in the eyes of the uneducated, the only tangible difference between the two is paperwork. This is what my personal observation has been. For example, my friend and I will run in to people at the beach, mall, parks, wherever and see someone operating a UAV/ UAS/ drone/ quadcopter... So we will engage in conversation with the operator and ask questions using the submarine theory. "That's pretty cool, what model? How high does it go? What's the range? How long does the battery last?" They will almost always talk to a stranger. Just like any enthusiast would when talking about cars, motorcycles, firearms...The story is almost always the same: just bought it online, practiced it a few times in their yards, then printed some business cards on vistaprint, and now they are in business. During these conversations they'll say things that are appalling to pilots. No understanding of airspace, safety or general laws. They will say that they can fly it anywhere and film anything which is why I bring up the reasonable expectation of privacy. People have an expectation of privacy at their residences, place of business and other places. Flying a UAS over a fence and filming the backyard is no different than being a peeping Tom.

Creating a classification between various operations and types is not a bad thing. Recreational and professional or something similar is a good move. Even though both are remote controlled, there is a difference between a parkzone flyer and a DJI phantom or a 1/4 scale F-4 Phantom (http://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-u-s-airliner-nearly-collided-with-drone-in-march-1399659956). Not to mention the guy that mounted a pistol to one and put a video of it on YouTube, or the guy that mounted a flamethrower to one. http://www.popsci.com/teen-puts-flamethrower-on-drone-gets-sponsor

The advancement in technology is great, certainly has it's uses in the world, as well as misguided uses. Continued use with the lack of education or operational limitations (regulations...gasp!) is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

I am kind of curious how the FAA plans to enforce against the rouge 'for hire' operator who are not in compliance with a 333 exemption. This is more cut and dry and now becomes an enforcement issue.

There may be a 'right of privacy' (in a broader context) but maybe not expectation of privacy. Flying a drone over a fence could be different from being a 'peeping tom' for the fact that the operators purpose was to film or watch something of sexual deviance (someone undressing or making love), from what is defined as unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another. It is plausible that a drone could be used for criminal voyeurism, and probably has been. But does that person have a reasonable expectation of privacy against drones flying over their fence (not being used for voyeurism that is known)? Intrusion of privacy could be argued, but would have to be found highly offensive and would most likely be regarding something like a peeping tom, surveillance with binoculars into a home, a wiretap, etc. where damages could be proven intentional - but most likely that the acts held in private of the plaintiff would have been within their own home.

Private property doesn't necessarily imply a reasonable expectation of privacy either, even if trespass in involved. Generally, being photographed or videotaped on ones own private property is not enough to suffice a reasonable expectation of privacy, so long as it was taken from a public vantage point. That is what makes this so interesting - airspace above a property is generally accepted to be "public navigable airspace" most likely making the viewing point a public vantage point, supported by the Causby decision and others regarding law enforcement agency's ability to obtain warrant's to search property after an overflight of the property (to some extent, but provides definition). That makes proving trespass difficult in the least to the property owner who could take action under certain circumstance, as the airspace is a public vantage point.

Unless the drone is being used for voyeurism, stalking, wiretapping, or harassment which the laws prohibit and a drone could be used for, it seems difficult to find that a reasonable expectation of privacy outside those offenses exists. Additionally, drone overflight of property is not likely trespass, and maybe only considered a nuisance or at least proven to be.

"As drones are further introduced into the national airspace, courts will have to work this new form of technology into their jurisprudence, and legislatures might amend these various statutes to expressly include crimes committed with a drone."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42940.pdf

(I highly recommend reading the whole report)

In other drone news:

Rogue toy drones are interfering with military operations

Rogue toy drones — a hot-selling Christmas gift this season and last — are starting to interfere with military operations at several bases across the country. With sales of consumer drones expected to approach 700,000 this year, military officials say they are bracing for the problem to get worse and are worried about the potential for an aviation disaster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-drones-interfering-with-military-operations/

FAA records detail hundreds of close calls between airplanes and drones

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f812ae-4737-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html
 
I was going to buy a remote controlled helicopter for someone for Christmas. This changed my plans. I guess RC aircraft are neither in my, nor my children's, future.
 
Did anyone read anything about possible certificate action as a penalty for not registering? All I see is the civil penalty of a fine and criminal penalty of imprisonment. Someone tried to tell me they could take certificate action against your airman's certificate.

Obviously it goes without saying if you're being stupid and reckless they'll take action. I'm speaking specifically to enforcement and penalties related to not registering.
 
bronco21016 said:
Did anyone read anything about possible certificate action as a penalty for not registering? All I see is the civil penalty of a fine and criminal penalty of imprisonment. Someone tried to tell me they could take certificate action against your airman's certificate.

Obviously it goes without saying if you're being stupid and reckless they'll take action. I'm speaking specifically to enforcement and penalties related to not registering.
Click to expand...

They'd figure out a way. 91.13 applies to everything.
 
FAA & FSDO people I've spoken with have always stated that an enforcement action could be taken against a pilot's certificate, but for non-pilots not much could be done unless the violation was particularly egregious such as recklessness and public endangerment.
 
mshunter said:
They'd figure out a way. 91.13 applies to everything.
Click to expand...

tomokc said:
FAA & FSDO people I've spoken with have always stated that an enforcement action could be taken against a pilot's certificate, but for non-pilots not much could be done unless the violation was particularly egregious such as recklessness and public endangerment.
Click to expand...

Figured as much. I was just curious. I registered anyway.

Took less than 5 min.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top