One of the important questions of our time, can I legally put a flamethrower on a drone?

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.

**Frazzled**

For those of us who are not only too lazy to walk over to set you on fire, but to lazy to put on a flamethrower, we now have flamethrowers on drones!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/case-of-drone-mounted-flame-thrower-may-test-u-s-faa-authority

Case of Drone-Mounted Flame Thrower May Test U.S. FAA Authority
Alan Levin

July 19, 2016 — 12:07 PM CDT

The father and son who posted videos of drones firing a handgun and incinerating a Thanksgiving turkey with a flame-thrower can be questioned by aviation regulators, a U.S. judge ruled in a closely watched case that may determine the government’s ability to oversee unmanned aircraft.

The FAA is investigating whether the flights -- which became an internet phenomenon on YouTube -- may have violated aviation safety regulations.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Meyer dismissed the arguments of Austin and Bret Haughwout, who maintained that the Federal Aviation Administration had no legal authority over the small drones because they aren’t aircraft and the agency has no right to question them.

“I do not agree,” Meyer wrote in a decision issued on Monday. The judge said “it is plausible to believe that the Haughwouts’ devices fall within the definition of an ‘aircraft’ for the purposes of federal law.”

Whether the FAA will be able to successfully bring an enforcement case against the pair from Clinton, Connecticut, is a separate matter, the judge said. He laid out the eventual arguments in what may become a test case over the limits of the FAA’s authority over drones. The FAA argues that it controls the airspace down to the ground for purposes of overseeing drones, but Meyer questioned whether that is legitimate.
Authority Questioned

“No clause in the Constitution vests the federal government with a general police power over all of the air or all objects that leave the ground,” he wrote. He stopped short of issuing an opinion on that, saying: “This case does not yet require an answer to that question.”

The debate over where FAA’s authority begins and ends holds enormous potential impact over the burgeoning drone industry, said Rebecca Byers MacPherson, a lawyer at Jones Day in Washington who formerly worked as an FAA attorney.

The FAA has traditionally avoided regulating aircraft below 200 feet because airplanes and helicopters rarely fly that low except at airports, MacPherson said. Drones, which fly in those near-ground zones, have led the FAA to claim authority closer to the ground.
Industry Impact

How the courts eventually decide that question will impact numerous industries, such as railroads and utilities that may not want unmanned aircraft hovering over their property, as well as individuals like the Haughwouts or neighbors who may fear for their privacy, she said.

Austin Haughwout, who had been a student at a local state college, created a sensation with his drone videos, first posting one last year of a quad-copter holding a black handgun apparently firing shots into a wooded area. It has been viewed more than 3.7 million times. Later last year, he posted a separate video entitled “Roasting the Holiday Turkey” showing a slightly larger drone holding a flame-thrower blasting a turkey on a spit.

The Haughwouts’ attorney, Mario Cerame, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment. Cerame has argued that the FAA is overreaching in its investigation.

“You’ve got to stop for a second and think about what’s the jurisdiction of the FAA,” he told reporters after a July 6 hearing on the case in New Haven according to video posted by the Hartford Courant. “What do they have power over? Do they have power over what people do in their backyards on their own property? No one is saying anyone was hurt here.”

The case is Huerta v. Haughwout, 16-cv-00358, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (New Haven).

**Ouze**

I agree that drones over a certain weight are indeed aircraft, and as such, the FAA has regulatory authority.

The current weight the FAA picked seems a bit light - the FAA picked 250 grams. I think the principle is sound though.

**jhe90**

anything over a certain size, range and height. yes they should have final say

**=Angel=**

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the drones to keep and bear flammenwurfers, shall not be infringed.

**Wyrmalla**

Couldn't this be going through whatever authority is currently regulating drone licenses? IIRC any drone over a certain weight needs a license, but whether that is 250 pounds already I haven't bothered to check.

If it is another group, they probably don't have the same teeth the FAA does. A separate branch entirely seems like it'll be inevitable though, if we are indeed moving towards a cyberpunk future.

**Frazzled**

If we ban flamethrowers, then only bad guys (and WWII re-enactors) will have flamethrowers!

Am I the only one foreseeing a new show: Battlebots II: Air Wars!

**jhe90**

Frazzled wrote:
If we ban flamethrowers, then only bad guys (and WWII re-enactors) will have flamethrowers!

Am I the only one foreseeing a new show: Battlebots II: Air Wars!

fighter drones with weaponry and mellee weapons....

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
If we ban flamethrowers, then only bad guys (and WWII re-enactors) will have flamethrowers!

Actually I think flamethrowers are generally not regulated at all, although YMMV depending on jurisdiction. I only have a minute to check but I think they're only restricted in California.

**jhe90**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
If we ban flamethrowers, then only bad guys (and WWII re-enactors) will have flamethrowers!

Actually I think flamethrowers are generally not regulated at all, although YMMV depending on jurisdiction. I only have a minute to check but I think they're only restricted in California.

and as weapons, heavy, use up there fuel in seconds and a WW2 version is nigh on 70 pounds loaded... for 7-10 seconds firing.
even lightened there hardly practical

why bother banning them when there that impractical

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
If we ban flamethrowers, then only bad guys (and WWII re-enactors) will have flamethrowers!

Actually I think flamethrowers are generally not regulated at all, although YMMV depending on jurisdiction. I only have a minute to check but I think they're only restricted in California.

I'm pretty sure Assault Wiener Dogs are restricted in California, so what isn't?

**Daemonhammer**

Arent flamethrowers pretty heavy? You would need a pretty big drone for something like that.

**Frazzled**

A proper Texas sized drone can lift a small large rhino, or a small jackalope if you prefer.

**kronk**

Daemonhammer wrote:
Arent flamethrowers pretty heavy? You would need a pretty big drone for something like that.

Not if it's a tiny flame thrower that could start a wildfire during drought conditions (all of CA and most of the West, ATM) in the woods near a housing subdivision without leaving any evidence.

Or something.

The question isn't can you do it. The question is what purpose does it serve?

**Daemonhammer**

kronk wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
Arent flamethrowers pretty heavy? You would need a pretty big drone for something like that.

Not if it's a tiny flame thrower that could start a wildfire during drought conditions (all of CA and most of the West, ATM) in the woods near a housing subdivision without leaving any evidence.

Or something.

The question isn't can you do it. The question is what purpose does it serve?

I would love to fly one of those near a nest of wasps or some other nopes like that and play heavy metal music while obliterating hundreds of them

Other than that I cant really think of any real purpose to it.

**kronk**

Daemonhammer wrote:
kronk wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
Arent flamethrowers pretty heavy? You would need a pretty big drone for something like that.

Not if it's a tiny flame thrower that could start a wildfire during drought conditions (all of CA and most of the West, ATM) in the woods near a housing subdivision without leaving any evidence.

Or something.

The question isn't can you do it. The question is what purpose does it serve?

I would love to fly one of those near a nest of wasps or some other nopes like that and play heavy metal music while obliterating hundreds of them

Touche, but perhaps some wasp spray delivery would be more useful.

**whembly**

Great idea for pizza delivery! Drop off the pie and give it a 'lil heat burst.

Guarantee'ed hot pizza delivered!

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
Arent flamethrowers pretty heavy? You would need a pretty big drone for something like that.

Not if it's a tiny flame thrower that could start a wildfire during drought conditions (all of CA and most of the West, ATM) in the woods near a housing subdivision without leaving any evidence.

Or something.

The question isn't can you do it. The question is what purpose does it serve?

You could get a drone to light your cigar.

**Daemonhammer**

Daemonhammer wrote:
kronk wrote:

I would love to fly one of those near a nest of wasps or some other nopes like that and play heavy metal music while obliterating hundreds of them

Touche, but perhaps some wasp spray delivery would be more useful.

Thats also a good idea but its not as brutal as burning the gaks to death. I would use napalm. Or white phosphorus. They must learn trough force that we are not to be trifled with and made example of to the rest of their foul species.

**jmurph**

Frazzled wrote:
A proper Texas sized drone can lift a small large rhino, or a small jackalope if you prefer.

Of course a proper Texas size drone would probably be the size of a 747. Everything is bigger.

Everything.

**malamis**

The next 'logical' step wil be self propelled incidiaries - model rocket engines with an electric ignition, and a load of, say, lighter fluid.

It's a question of when...

**SickSix**

250 grams? What the F!?

Pure federal overreach. And was this limit voted on by Congress or more bureaucratic rules making by non-elected officials?

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Let me hold my toungue before one of you progovernment types reports me to Homeland Security.

**kronk**

SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

**Vaktathi**

Flamethrowers arent particularly restricted or regulated, the only state that even bothers regulating them is CA because of the fire hazard.

They're also generally very expensive for real ones ($25k+, at least if you want something other than a weeny propane torch movie prop) and need to be maintained and tested in much the same way as scuba gear, and weigh a lot.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

The liquor store.

**kronk**

whembly wrote:
kronk wrote:
SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

The liquor store.

Well, that would be the Miller Light aisle, I suppose.

**Ahtman**

The only thing that can stop a bad man with a flamethrower is a good man with a flame thrower.

**kronk**

Musical Flame Thrower.

**SickSix**

kronk wrote:
SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

Small bodies of water on Private property.

Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution.

**Ouze**

SickSix wrote:
Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution.

Here is an article for you to not read.

**kronk**

SickSix wrote:
kronk wrote:
SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

Small bodies of water on Private property.

Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution.

The Environmental Protection Act give them their authority. http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/about-us/legislation/acts-administered-by-epa A quick google would help you.

You know what else isn't in the constitution? That you have to have a driver's license and insurance or you can be fined for operating a motorized vehicle. Get over it.

If that small body of water can affect the ground water of your neighbor's land, then yes, you can't just dump motor oil and Agent Orange into it.

However, these two sentences are telling: "Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution."

I forgot why I had you on ignore. Thank you for the reminder. Please go back to lining your hats with tinfoil and sending money to the Cliven Bundy Defense Fund.

I apologize to my fellow Dakkanaughts for engaging in this discussion. The error was mine.