Man shoots down Drone with camera hovering over his property

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Jehan-reznor wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Does he live inside city limits? I couldn't really tell from the article. There is no threat to his safety or any other indication that would justify deadly force, so he could simply be arrested for firing a firearm inside city limits. Shooting a drone, on his property or not, probably falls under the same law as shooting cans or shooting skeet. If that is illegal then shooting drones would likely be considered illegal as well.

The only other possible charge could be reckless endangerment if he was shooting into the air, but he really mitigated that by using bird shot, so that really shouldn't be an issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.

If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.

If the RC car has a camera i agree, but if it hasn't than it is no same than shooting the ball of some kid.
Drones usually have camera's

I am not aware of any jurisdiction where cameras justify deadly force. They could exist I guess, but I'm not aware of them.

"Deadly force" is a legal concept applied to people, not inanimate objects. Shooting a kid's ball, or a camera equipped drone, as long as you are not shooting a person (or near a person) is not 'deadly force'.

Deadly force is usually the exception to the whole "no shooting stuff inside city limits" rule, hence why I used it.

If you can legally shoot targets, a kids ball, or a random RC car on your property, then you may likely be clear when it comes to shooting a drone on your property. If you can't go target shooting on your property, then you likely can't shoot drones either. The presence of a camera, on a car or a drone, should be immaterial.

You can either shoot all the time, or you can only shoot to defend yourself (my use of the phrase "deadly force") in which case a remote controlled camera hardly qualifies as a threat IMO.

**Frazzled**

According to the article the drone was hovering over his deck and filming him. A person doing so could get shot at my place.

And....then you would be in jail for a major felony.

**CptJake**

My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."

And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.

If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.

Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."

And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.

If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.

Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.

Thats not how the law works though. You can't blast away at property that you don't own, even if it is on your property.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Snagged a local cover of the story. It is illegal to discharge within the city limits for his town. His daughters, and his neighbor's daughter (16) were outside at the time the drone came over. I would have blasted it too.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

Spoiler:

WDRB wrote:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A Hillview man has been arrested after he shot down a drone flying over his property -- but he's not making any apologies for it.

It happened Sunday night at a home on Earlywood Way, just south of the intersection between Smith Lane and Mud Lane in Bullitt County, according to an arrest report.

Hillview Police say they were called to the home of 47-year-old William H. Merideth after someone complained about a firearm.

When they arrived, police say Merideth told them he had shot down a drone that was flying over his house. The drone was hit in mid-air and crashed in a field near Merideth's home.

Police say the owner of the drone claimed he was flying it to get pictures of a friend's house -- and that the cost of the drone was over $1,800.

Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. He was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center, and released on Monday.

WDRB News spoke with Merideth Tuesday afternoon, and he gave his side of the story.

"Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard," Merideth said. "And they come in and said, 'Dad, there’s a drone out here, flying over everybody’s yard.'"

Merideth's neighbors saw it too.

"It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter.

VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird.

"I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.

Merideth agrees and said he had to go see for himself.

“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got under their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property.’"

That moment soon arrived, he said.

"Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."

"I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air," he added.

It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.

"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40 mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

A short time later, Merideth said the police arrived.

"There were some words exchanged there about my weapon, and I was open carry – it was completely legal," he said. "Long story short, after that, they took me to jail for wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief...because I fired the shotgun into the air."

Merideth said he was disappointed with the police response.

"They didn’t confiscate the drone. They gave the drone back to the individuals," he said. "They didn’t take the SIM card out of it…but we’ve got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio."

Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter says you can't fire your gun in the city.

"Well, we do have a city ordinance against discharging firearms in the city, but the officer made an arrest for a Kentucky Revised Statute violation," he said.

According to the Academy of Model Aeronautics safety code, unmanned aircraft like drones may not be flown in a careless or reckless manner and has to be launched at least 100 feet downwind of spectators.

The FAA says drones cannot fly over buildings -- and that shooting them 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," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr.

Merideth said he's offering no apologies for what he did.

"He didn’t just fly over," he said. "If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right."

"You know, when you’re in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy," he said. "We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don’t know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."

For now, Merideth says he's planning on pursuing legal action against the owners of the drone.

"We’re not going to let it go," he said. "I believe there are rules that need to be put into place and the situation needs to be addressed because everyone I’ve spoke to, including police, have said they would have done the same thing."

"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level. We need to have some laws in place to handle these kind of things."

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:

According to the article the drone was hovering over his deck and filming him. A person doing so could get shot at my place.

And....then you would be in jail for a major felony.

Nope, not in NC.

"He was holding what appeared to be a weapon"

NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

If you have come through the two locked gates, or over the barbed wire/chainlink (depending on what part of the property line, traversed the few hundred yards minimum to get to the house and got onto my porch, I am going to assume you mean harm to my family.

Seriously, you have to have trespassed across at least one other property to get to mine unless you come down the private road. Then the series of gates (to keep horses in and vehicles out) along with the multiple no trespassing signs posted gives me confidence no one is showing up lost to ask for directions.

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:

According to the article the drone was hovering over his deck and filming him. A person doing so could get shot at my place.

And....then you would be in jail for a major felony.

And also be an idiot for shooting the guy before finding out how he was hovering in the first place

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."

And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.

If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.

Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.

Thats not how the law works though. You can't blast away at property that you don't own, even if it is on your property.

A drone casing my place for a future break in? A drone filming my 13 year old daughter?

Sorry. I'll take the misdemeanor charge.

**lord_blackfang**

Sticky situation.

I think his rights to privacy were definitely violated, and there is the possibility that the drone was recording his underage daughters, which is probably a felony in most of the world.

Shooting the thing seems excessive, perhaps, but what else can you do about it? It's a drone, the controller doesn't have to be anywhere near, there's no other way you can protect yourself or even identify the perpetrator to report him.

**CptJake**

I suppose a paintball gun would be a good option.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."

And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.

If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.

Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.

It was probably an awkward way to respond to the point that the other posted raised, I'll admit that. I was just trying to explain that the presence of a camera really doesn't change how the law would view this case IMO.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

According to the article the drone was hovering over his deck and filming him. A person doing so could get shot at my place.

And....then you would be in jail for a major felony.

And also be an idiot for shooting the guy before finding out how he was hovering in the first place

I...had not considered that. It might be a djini!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."

And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.

If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.

Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.

Thats not how the law works though. You can't blast away at property that you don't own, even if it is on your property.

A drone casing my place for a future break in? A drone filming my 13 year old daughter?

Sorry. I'll take the misdemeanor charge.

Oh I didn't say you shouldn't. Consider it a cost of doing business.

**nkelsch**

Interesting article:
http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028

Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?

Before you decide to shoot that drone out of your backyard, there are a few important things you need to know.

First of all, damaging any flying robot is a federal crime. It doesn’t matter if it’s crashing your pool party or watching you in your skivvies through the skylight in your master bath.

“In my legal opinion,” says Peter Sachs, a Connecticut attorney and publisher of Drone Law Journal, “it is never okay to shoot at a drone, shoot down a drone, or otherwise damage, destroy or disable a drone, or attempt to do so. Doing so is a federal crime.”

Here’s the thing. You might view a drone as many things: Creepy. Loud. Annoying. Scary. A sophisticated robot. A really cool toy. Target practice.

But in the eyes of the law, a drone is a full-fledged aircraft, and deserves the same kind of respect. Here’s what federal law (18 USC § 32) has to say:

(a) Whoever willfully—

(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
What does that mean for you? If you attempt to gun down a flying robot, you could face those two decades in the slammer, and/or a fine of up to a quarter of a million dollars. So, legally speaking, shooting a drone could be the same as trying to damage a chopper or a 747. “Aircraft” is a pretty sweeping definition, it turns out, and it could work in drones’ favor.

“This applies even if a drone is hovering over your backyard,” says Sachs. “According to the FAA, it controls all airspace from the blades of the grass up. However, even if you did own X feet above your property, you would not be permitted to shoot a drone that flies within that space because shooting any aircraft is a federal crime.”

Under the Law, You Just Shot at an Airplane

Since when did a flying, remote-controlled robot become a legally binding “aircraft”? Not that long ago—only last November, as a matter of fact. In 2011, a photographer named Raphael Pirker shot a commercial at the University of Virginia with one of his drones. The FAA decided to fine him because he’d flown his hobbyist drone way too low, close to buildings, cars, and pedestrians. A legal battle ensued, and ultimately the National Transportation Safety Board ruled in November that drones are considered aircrafts, and are subject to FAA regulations.

Recently, people have continued to take literal aim at drones. Last September, a New Jersey man was arrested after shooting down a neighbor’s drone. Just last month, a viral video showed a firefighter spraying a drone with a firehose. Another man had to pay $850 after shooting down his neighbor’s UAV.

FAA spokesperson Laura Brown told Gizmodo: “We do consider unmanned aircraft to be ‘aircraft,’ but the damage issue is more a destruction of personal property question that is outside our jurisdiction.” The Department of Justice didn’t respond for a comment for this story.

Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?

Since as early as 2013, air date of this CNN report, anti-drone citizens have pushed for laws that allow shooting the aerial devices. Image credit: CNN/YouTube

Unfortunately, you can’t bring drones down just because you think they’re a nuisance, even if they’re invading your privacy. There is, however, one plausible reason that could result in your whipping out a shotgun and felling the flying vehicle: Self-defense.

One Reason to Shoot Down a Drone Legally

It sounds like a cyberpunk, apocalyptic scenario, but if you ever found yourself in a situation where a drone is not only trespassing on your property, but is intentionally trying to harm you, then you can probably shoot it down. But this is only if the drone is swooping and trying to ram itself into you, or was outfitted with some (illegal) ammo of its own and started opening fire.

Violent retaliation in the name of “self-defense” has proven to be a slippery slope in America, and drones could be no exception. After all, if one person finds a drone hovering outside his or her bedroom window, spying, couldn’t that kind of buzzing voyeurism be considered a “threat”? Not quite, Sachs says.

“It would have to fall under ‘self-defense’ as it is commonly known: to save yourself from deadly force, or imminent bodily harm,” he says. Someone simply looking at you doesn’t cut it. Put another way: If someone starts taking pictures of you on the street, that doesn’t give you the right to punch ‘em in the face.

But isn’t trespassing on your property enough for you to open fire? Nope. However, trespassing is grounds for you to call the police—even if you can’t break out the boomstick and go all Scarface. Just because you find a drone on your property, it doesn’t mean you have the right to attack it.

Limits to Drone Surveillance

There are reasonable limits, though. Just because the law protects drones from your physical wrath, it doesn’t mean UAVs have full aerial reign.

Many states have “peeping tom laws” that prohibit voyeurism. It’s still prohibited, even if it’s voyeurism-by-drone. That said, there’s a huge difference between a drone violently diving in through an open kitchen window, and one that’s circling around the cul-de-sac down the street. If there’s a drone in your neighborhood that’s capturing video or taking pictures of public places, the operator is within his or her First Amendment rights, Sachs says.

Another reason to avoid shooting machines out of the sky? Common sense.

“Shooting at aircraft also poses a significant safety hazard,” says Les Dorr, FAA spokesperson. “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.” And, of course, it could also “result in criminal or civil charges.” (Firing bullets into the air, period, can be deadly.)

Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?

The US Navy built this laser to shoot down drones in military operations. Credit: Wikimedia

You may have heard news about governments building big-budget, Hollywood-style mega weapons to take down killer drones. This situation is clearly apples and oranges, since military law is vastly different from civilian law. For example, the US Navy constructed an anti-drone laser recently, and Japan and China have also looked into drone-zapping artillery. In combat zones, drones actually are intended to harm humans, so in that situation, killer lasers are A-OK.

Finally: Just because you see a drone in the sky, doesn’t mean it’s a malevolent spybot from Terminator’s Cyberdyne. It’s probably perfectly harmless.

But even if you declare the drone a threat to you and let the bullets fly, you need to be prepared to face a fallout of lawsuits, potentially staggering fines, and prison time. As long as the drone isn’t trying to physically hurt you, there’s not much you can do, besides call the cops.

Otherwise, the laws are still evolving. Unmanned aerial vehicles are a new technology, and the more they’re woven into our lives, the clearer the rules will become.

In the meantime, put yourself in the shoes of the person flying the drone, likely a hobbyist just taking the thing for a spin. In most cases, you shouldn’t freak out. Your neighbor’s drone is probably more scared of you than you are of it.

Basically, in the eyes of federal law, unless the drone was in the act of trying to kill you, you are a terrorist who shot down an airplane and risk 20 years in federal prison.

Sounds like due to lawsuits, judicial law has been made already on this issue so it is time for the feds to sit down and make some drone-specific legislation since I don't think local jurisdictions can overrule the FAA.

**Xenomancers**

I really don't care what the law is - If you are flying a drone over my property - I'm getting the AR-15 and having a little fun.

~My main man

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson

**Frazzled**

Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.

**Ouze**

Xenomancers wrote:
I really don't care what the law is - If you are flying a drone over my property - I'm getting the AR-15 and having a little fun.

You know those bullets don't fall into a magical fairyland when they come back down, right?

I give it a year tops before some fool murders some bystander with a falling bullet that they aimed at a drone.

**nkelsch**

Frazzled wrote:
Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.

I agree, The tech has outpaced the laws and need to be a focus of the national legislature.

And while this guy seems like he is going to claim civil disobedience and probably get the charges dropped due to low-level discretion and sympathy, it doesn't take much to be the first person who tries to fight an unjust law and be crushed by it.

**LordofHats**

nkelsch wrote:

Basically, in the eyes of federal law, unless the drone was in the act of trying to kill you, you are a terrorist who shot down an airplane and risk 20 years in federal prison.

"So what do you guys do to end up here?"

"I strangled a hobo."

"I killed my wife."

"I shot down an airplane." *whistles softly*

**NuggzTheNinja**

Frazzled wrote:
Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.

Frazz, you never struck me as someone who favors more government regulation.

Enforce the laws currently on the books - interfering with firefighting efforts with a drone is no different than interfering with firefighting efforts using a hang glider or your bare hands. There are laws on the books for prosecuting people who do so without additional regulation.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Xenomancers wrote:
I really don't care what the law is - If you are flying a drone over my property - I'm getting the AR-15 and having a little fun.

~My main man

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson

Amazon are going to start trials of using drones to deliver parcels. What if a drone has to fly over your house to deliver a parcel to your neighbour?

Love this quote from one of the articles:

He was booked into the #Bullitt# County Detention Center, and released on Monday.

You crazy Americans and your guns.

You even named a county after your love of firearms

On another note, it's never good for anybody, except lawyers, when you have the 1st,2nd, and 4th amendments, battling for supremacy

**CptJake**

nkelsch wrote:
Interesting article:
http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028

“This applies even if a drone is hovering over your backyard,” says Sachs. “According to the FAA, it controls all airspace from the blades of the grass up. However, even if you did own X feet above your property, you would not be permitted to shoot a drone that flies within that space because shooting any aircraft is a federal crime.”

Sachs would be wrong. FAA controls (in most cases) 500 feet AGL. And the previously cited SCOTUS case seems to agree property owners DO own some air space. FAA may be responsible for the safety of all airspace (grass and up) but the property owner does have some rights here.

And according to the FAA the drone operators were probably also violating fed regs on the use of model aircraft (they MUST be flown in direct line of sight of the operator for example, though there are regs about flying them near people/over populated areas too).

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
And according to the FAA the drone operators were probably also violating fed regs on the use of model aircraft (they MUST be flown in direct line of sight of the operator for example, though there are regs about flying them near people/over populated areas too).

I'll repeat, the FAA does not regulate noncommercial radio control aircraft flown below 500 feet. They only have issued nonbinding guidelines that do not have force of law. So the IT MUST be flown in line of sight is not binding, and there are no laws prohibiting flights over crowds with some exceptions - there was a NOTAM to prohibit flights over major/pro league stadiums with occupancy of more than 30,000 people.

Frazzled wrote:
Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.

You feel strongly about your right to privacy, do you?

And yes, I agree with Nuggz - the area around a wildfire is classified as a temporary no-fly zone with the exception of authorized firefighting aircraft. In this specific example no further regulations are needed.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Ouze, the author of the article nkelsch posted seemed to indicate that drones were protected by the FAA. What makes you say that they aren't regulated? Genuinely curious here...

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

I suspect that by defining drones as aircraft the FAA (via the courts) have imposed a whole raft of rules and regualtions on uses that nobody has thought of yet

I bet that they now technically need training, pilots licences etc

also The use of alcohol and drugs by pilots is regulated by FAR 91.17. Among other provisions, this regulation states that no person may operate or attempt to operate an aircraft (which now means drone):
• within 8 hours of having consumed alcohol
• while under the influence of alcohol
• with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% or greater
• while using any drug that adversely affects safety

**CptJake**

There are special rules for 'model aircraft'. Basically as stated, they are guidelines, but the aircraft MUST meet the statutory defintion for 'model aircraft' to avoid the regs. Part of that definition is flying in direct line of sight of the operator.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

**Ouze**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Ouze, the author of the article nkelsch posted seemed to indicate that drones were protected by the FAA. What makes you say that they aren't regulated? Genuinely curious here...

Hobbyist drones when flown for recreational, non commercial purposes are considered model aircraft and do not require FAA authorization when flown below 500 feet.

**lord_blackfang**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Amazon are going to start trials of using drones to deliver parcels. What if a drone has to fly over your house to deliver a parcel to your neighbour?

If a neighbor built his house so that the only access to it would be through my house, he would have bigger problems than a few missing packages from Amazon.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
There are special rules for 'model aircraft'. Basically as stated, they are guidelines, but the aircraft MUST meet the statutory defintion for 'model aircraft' to avoid the regs. Part of that definition is flying in direct line of sight of the operator.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

No, there are guidelines. They do not have force of law.

From your own source:

Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
• the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower … with prior notice of the operation….
P.L. 112-95, section 336(a)(1)-(5).

Thus, based on the language of the statute, we conclude that aircraft that meet the
statutory definition and operational requirements, as described above, would be exempt
7
from future FAA rulemaking action specifically regarding model aircraft. Model aircraft
that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as
such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations

Note nothing about line of sight. Also, again note that the can clearly prosecute the drone operators who interfered with firefighting efforts under established law.

They then go on to list rules that they just explained they have no statutory authority to enforce, and in fact, they never have enforced for noncommercial operations. They brought a case against a single drone operator once for unsafe flight; he countersued and the FAA got shot down.

Raphael Pirker, the unmanned aerial vehicle pilot charged in the FAA’s case — and somewhat of a figurehead in the remote-pilot community — was slapped with fines by the FAA in October. The federal agency attempted to classify Pirker’s Ritewing Zephyr powered glider as an Unmanned Aerial System, and said Pirker flew the aircraft in a “reckless and careless” fashion over the University of Virginia grounds. Aero-News reported:

“The (FAA) charged that the ‘pilot’ operated the aircraft with a camera aboard that sent real-time video to the ground; that the flight was performed for compensation; and that he operated the aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”

But National Transportation and Safety Administration Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled in favor of Pirker and — it would seem — the entire UAV commercial industry, stating there was — and still is — no real FAA rule against what Pirker did.

“At the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying a model aircraft as a UAS,” the court documents state.

In this thread, CptJake urges unelected bureaucrats employed by the federal government to extend it's authority in excess of statutes issued by congress with literally no sense of irony

**Frazzled**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.

Frazz, you never struck me as someone who favors more government regulation.

Enforce the laws currently on the books - interfering with firefighting efforts with a drone is no different than interfering with firefighting efforts using a hang glider or your bare hands. There are laws on the books for prosecuting people who do so without additional regulation.

Please show me "the laws currently on the books."

**nkelsch**

Ouze wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Ouze, the author of the article nkelsch posted seemed to indicate that drones were protected by the FAA. What makes you say that they aren't regulated? Genuinely curious here...

Hobbyist drones when flown for recreational, non commercial purposes are considered model aircraft and do not require FAA authorization when flown below 500 feet.

But are still subject to FAA regulations... and if found to be reckless or risk to harm property or other, are still regulated under FAA. Being under 400ft doesn't give someone permission to do what they want.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/18/365023143/faa-can-regulate-small-drones-ntsb-reverses-judges-ruling

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Documents/5730.pdf

The page which shows actions which are illegal and considered breaking of regulations even though they are under 400ft show the FAA does have control over all 'aircraft' when it comes to potentially dangerous actions.

Just because it is under 400ft doesn't mean if you do dangerous stuff with the drones, you cannot be held accountable... and apparently they consider flying an aircraft within 25ft of a person or building as reckless and dangerous.

Edit: Looks like it is back for a second appeal... Time for the legislative branch to make some federal laws...