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.

Give me a break. You conveniently skipped the section before the one you quoted which lays out the statutory requirements to be considered a model aircraft.

StatutoryRequirements
On February 14, 2012, the President signed into law the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) (the Act), which established, in Section 336, a “special rule for model aircraft.” In Section 336, Congress confirmed the FAA’s long-standing position that model aircraft are aircraft. Under the terms of the Act, a model aircraft is defined as “an unmanned aircraft” that is “(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c). Congress’

And you left out where the FAA says if you violate that statutory requirement they can regulate you.

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 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, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft.

And no, I do NOT advocate "unelected bureaucrats employed by the federal government to extend it's authority in excess of statutes issued by congress". Get rid of the reg completely and let the states decide how to handle it, or let municipalities and counties decide where folks can fly them.

All I have done was try to show that the quote I used from post by nkelsch I replied to (the one with the Gizmodo article link) was wrong. The Sachs guy was wrong. And if the operators were not in line of sight they took their air craft out of the definition of 'model air craft' which means they likely did violate current FAA regs. I don't claim the regs are good or bad and I sure as hell do not advocate MORE regs. If anything the reg is too restrictive given current GPS and 'fly by camera' tech on some of these toys.

nkelsch wrote:
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

Your sources are out of date, as is the initial reporting you linked earlier.

And so, Pirker is out after getting his fine reduced from $10,000 to $1,100. Under the terms of the deal, he will not admit fault and we're still sort of left with no idea as to what constitutes a reckless flight.

"The FAA had some general allegations in the complaint, like 'flying close to the ground' or 'at treetop level' or 'close to a railway line,'" Pirker said. "It's stuff that everybody is doing, and there was some concern that this could then be used as a precedent. All of these charges were dropped as part of the settlement deal."

As the law lays now, as long as you're under 500 feet, you're really only prohibited from flying over a stadium with a seating capacity of 30,000 or greater, flying within a no-fly area (such as DC or over federal installations), and so on as long as it's within the classification of being a noncommercial radio controlled model aircraft. AFAIK there has never been a prosecution for reckless flight of a model aircraft.

I suspect those wildfire guys are going to be the first.

So the gist of it is:

*Model Aircraft have exceptions to regulation.
*Unmanned aircraft are regulated.
*Both count as 'aircraft' for regulations deeming reckless and harmful activity.

A Drone can be both a Model Aircraft and/or an Unmanned Aircraft depending how the person uses it. Primarily exceeding airspace and operator LOS.

None of this supports shooting a drone over your property unless your life or property was directly in danger and to do so could expose you to personal property civil cases and possibly a landmark legal battle if the FAA decided to target you with untested regulations.

nkelsch wrote:
So the gist of it is:

*Model Aircraft have exceptions to regulation.
*Unmanned aircraft are regulated.
*Both count as 'aircraft' for regulations deeming reckless and harmful activity.

A Drone can be both a Model Aircraft and/or an Unmanned Aircraft depending how the person uses it. Primarily exceeding airspace and operator LOS.

None of this supports shooting a drone over your property unless your life or property was directly in danger and to do so could expose you to personal property civil cases and possibly a landmark legal battle if the FAA decided to target you with untested regulations.

Yes, I generally agree this is accurate. I may have used poor phrasing earlier in terms of "unregulated".

Also, the FAA is considering relaxing the LOS rules for even commercial drone operations, as they should. There is also a link to the pending drone regulations which will have force of law, and I find fairly reasonable.

Back on topic though, I think shooting at them is reckless, dangerous, and will potentially open you to criminal charges as well as civil penalties.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
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

How about flight plans?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
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

How about flight plans?

Read that last link I dropped, it's the most up to date.

So he has two teenage daughters, at least one of which was sunbathing in his back yard that has a 6ft tall privacy fence and this drone flies over his home...yeah I would shoot it down as well.

If shooting the damn thing is illegal, I would throw rocks at it or something (if it was low enough). Like a lot of people have said, flying a camera drone onto private property without the owner's permission should be a crime (if it isn't already).

 Ghazkuul wrote:
So he has two teenage daughters, at least one of which was sunbathing in his back yard that has a 6ft tall privacy fence and this drone flies over his home...yeah I would shoot it down as well.

We could also "tactically acquire" a Duke or similar system, set it up in the dining room (depending on how much yard you have), and then watch the chaos unfold when drones approach

Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?

Because police returned the drone (and SD card) to the owner. Odds are the footage is already edited and and parts that make the owner look bad are deleted.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?

Because police returned the drone (and SD card) to the owner. Odds are the footage is already edited and and parts that make the owner look bad are deleted.

Yeah this. I'd bet dollars to cents the unedited film would show a hot young teen sun bathing.

There have been a few cases of drones hampering firefighting aircraft. (As in dangerous to fly an aircraft carrying fire retardent through a cloud of drones).

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/06/30/drones-in-restricted-area-divert-planes-fighting-wildfire/

So, there is some talk of anti-drone laws. Government agencies might gain the right to take down drones in emergencies.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
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.

It's too bad the cops didn't take the card out of the thing, since there was suspician of wrong doing by the home owners. The thing was hovering below a canopy in a neighbors yard fer crying out loud.

Daniel Rosen ( http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Daniel-Rosen-State-Dept-Official-Pleads-Guilty-11-Counts-Stalking-Voyeurism-319430861.html ) held the (cell phone) camera in his hands and is going to do time. I'm not sure mounting it on a drone would/should exclude similar charges.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
If shooting the damn thing is illegal, I would throw rocks at it or something (if it was low enough). Like a lot of people have said, flying a camera drone onto private property without the owner's permission should be a crime (if it isn't already).

It is: trespassing. I think the best option is DNA splicing to develop a trained Pteranadon flight that can take these buggies down.

Paintball.
Instead of shooting it out of the air, blind it.
It's 'non-lethal', doesn't require registration anywhere I know of, and only causes temporary or minor damage.
It'll make a right mess if you miss, though.

That, or spraycans.

A big net. Just catch the thing then jump up and down on it a few times

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?

Because police returned the drone (and SD card) to the owner. Odds are the footage is already edited and and parts that make the owner look bad are deleted.

If you think the police didn't review the footage first, you're mistaken.

In any regards, the operators supposedly were hired to take photographs of a neighbor's property. That might sound strange, but it's actually something that is becoming a bit common for people who are listing their properties for sale.

If they were doing it for commercial purposes they were not flying a 'model aircraft' by FAA standards, they are subject to a slew of rules they were clearly breaking.

Can someone explain to me ho him shooting a shotgun up in the air is harmless? The projectiles still have to land somewhere, dont they?

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Can someone explain to me ho him shooting a shotgun up in the air is harmless? The projectiles still have to land somewhere, dont they?

He used light shot designed for shooting birds. The shot he used was Number 8, which has a shot diameter of 0.090" (~2.3mm).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Can someone explain to me ho him shooting a shotgun up in the air is harmless? The projectiles still have to land somewhere, dont they?

He used light shot designed for shooting birds in flight.

in other words, when the pellets landed they wouldn't inflict any kind of damage beyond....wtf was that?

If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.

Thats strange. You would think that the 9.8ms^2 acceleration from gravity would be enough to hurt somebody.

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
There have been a few cases of drones hampering firefighting aircraft. (As in dangerous to fly an aircraft carrying fire retardent through a cloud of drones).

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/06/30/drones-in-restricted-area-divert-planes-fighting-wildfire/

So, there is some talk of anti-drone laws. Government agencies might gain the right to take down drones in emergencies.

a law where the government has the right to destroy a your property if they seem fit, brilliant.

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.

Thats strange. You would think that the 9.8ms^2 acceleration from gravity would be enough to hurt somebody.

Another Mythbusters (IIRC) thing showed the age old, "if I drop this penny off the Empire State Building, and it hits someone when it gets to the ground, it'll kill them" thing was false. The mass of the object falling even at Gravity might feel like an insect sting, but that's about it. And something even smaller than that, such as this birdshot, I suspect, would feel like a "light" hail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

a law where the government has the right to destroy a your property if they seem fit, brilliant.

Clearly not "as they deem fit". In emergencies, as others have posted, wildfire fighters have had difficulties flying because idiots are out there with drones filming crap. I'm sorry, but a person's right to have their home saved by fire fighters trumps the "right" of people to be douchey "journalists"

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.

Thats strange. You would think that the 9.8ms^2 acceleration from gravity would be enough to hurt somebody.

Not for pellets smaller than most gravel. Once the shot reaches the apex of its trajectory it loses its lethal force and only comes down with terminal velocity, which at that size isn't going to hurt anything. And that is a regular bullet. Shotgun pellets lose their lethality very quickly.

 Kanluwen wrote:
In any regards, the operators supposedly were hired to take photographs of a neighbor's property.

The FAA is going to be on the operator for that.


Anyway, the drone operator has produced the flight tracking from the ipad he was running it from that showed it never was less than about 200 feet, and was at nearly 300 feet up when it was shot down.

If you shoot down a drone, you're going to be paying for the drone, you're looking at civil and possibly criminal charges, and you're going to be responsible for what happens when your bullet and the drone hit the ground.


Also, are we claiming now that people can't get hurt by falling bullets?

If it was indeed flying at 300 feet, that was one heck of a shot with the shotgun.

And bullets can definitely be fatal when fired recklessly into the air. Shotgun pellets not so much.