I’m certain you are a very responsible UAS pilot. When I was working for my SEL ticket, a flight instructor advised me that if I ever flew over mountains at night, to follow lit roads so that if the engine pooped out, I could see somewhere to land. That’s a very responsible practice, but it isn’t required by the FAA.
Flying at a predetermined range similarly simply isn’t a requirement. It is not in your cite. And you keep saying that this wasn’t a recreational flight, but your evidence for this is nothing more than one of your posts stating he was taking photos for a real estate sale.
I can’t find a single news story that backs that up. In fact, one of the original stories said that the drone operator showed the reporter a text message from a friend in Las Vegas who asked the operator to check up on his house. That is clearly a recreational activity, no different than someone wanting to get a nice picture of a sunset or a nice tree.
You just haven’t produced cites that actually say what you have claimed. That’s not a reflection of your expertise with UAS. It just means you aren’t presenting a defendable position, at least so far.
I read the real estate thing someplace, but it may be hearsay. No argument there.
I do sometimes go outside the FAA guidelines. The airplane is sent to photograph an inaccessible location. That does not endanger persons or property. There’s nobody out there.
The line of site requirement was put on by a naïve Congress. You cannot control a model as far as you can see it. Often the safest way to get it back is to put it on automatic.
The FAA definitions are stringent. Checking out a house is not recreation.
The FAA uses the dictionary definition of “hobby” and “recreation” - that is, activities taken “taken outside of one’s profession engaged in especially for relaxation.”
How is flying a drone at 290 feet for maybe a quarter mile on a weekend to look at a friend’s house not something done for enjoyment and relaxation?
Even assuming that he was taking pictures of his friends house for a real estate sale, if he’s not charging his friend for the pictures, is it still commercial?
Note the conundrum, as noted on page 6, regarding Section 336 restricting the ability of the FAA to promulgate new rules. Also note their distinctions between commercial and recreational use on pages 9 through 11. Checking in on a friend’s house, like taking photographs for personal use and viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment, are recreational activities. Taking pictures of a house to advertise it for sale is commercial.
That said it does seem that a FAA extant rule on not within 500 feet of a dwelling may apply … this they state, may “enforcement action when conducted unsafely.”
So it may be that the FAA has cause to come down on the operator and definitely has cause to come down on the shooter … shooting at aircraft is not something the FAA generally looks the other way at.
Will they make a … Federal case … about it? They could and probably should in both instances.
And yes I have little doubt that a Federal court would find the shooter guilty. And the FAA has previously stated they will take on these cases:
This seems like a perfect case for them, both reinforcing that shooting at drones will not be tolerated and, without directly weighing in on privacy reinforcing the 500 feet from dwellings guideline. The operators get fined and the shooter gets a short sentence in the Fed Pen.
I’m not convinced that document claims that a drone cannot operate withing 500 of a dwelling. That section reads to me as if they’real explaining the similar rules for operation of manned aircraft. The knowbeforeyoufly.org site (sponsored by the FAA) makes no such claim.
Even though it is a parody it’s here already. Don’t have a link but it’s a cam-drone that self navigates and homes in on the distance to a bracelet you wear while it films you from several selectable perspectives. It is waterproof (it can be dropped or land on water and take off again), and perhaps from this thread may one day be armored and have the ability to shoot back, or just perhaps film and upload the whole video of the perp before the craft is destroyed so the person shooting can be charged with the crime and also have to also repay for the destruction of personal property. Hopefully convicted of a felony so such a person can never own a firearm again, which seems appropriate for someone who obviously does not know how firearms are to be used in a society.
You’real thinking of the Lily Drone. The demo is pretty damn cool, but one thing they admit they don’t have is obstacle avoidance. So if it’s following you from behind and 20 feet up and you run under a tree… well, don’t.
I think drones are cool, but the technology is way ahead of the regulation. Beyond the privacy issues, if recent news reports are to be believed, a major aviation tragedy almost seems inevitable, with many recent close calls reported at airports in the US and elsewhere.
It’s a matter of statistics. Out of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of drone hobbyists, X number of them are going to be dumb enough to fly it a dangerous manner and Y number of are going to be mischievous enough to invade privacy and disturb the proverbial sht of their neighbors. We need comprehensive federal regs ASAP.
A quad-copter recently landed on the Whitehouse lawn.
*Federal prosecutors said Wednesday they will not charge the recreational drone operator whose device crashed onto the White House lawn Jan. 26, but the District resident and intelligence community worker may face a fine from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The decision, announced by the office of the U.S. attorney for the District, Ronald C. Machen Jr., came after the security breach of the executive mansion grounds focused national attention on potential threats posed by the growing use of small, unmanned aircraft.
Secret Service agents presented the results of their investigation of the case, but in a statement, prosecutors said a forensic analysis determined that the drone’s operator was not in control of the craft when it crashed*.
I find it amusing that the drone operator won’t be charged BECAUSE HE WASN’T IN CONTROL OF HIS DRONE WHEN IT CRASHED. The drone operator chose to launch the drone operator but is no longer responsible if he loses control of it??? How convenient.
Apparently, flying over the WH is illegal. Landing on the WH lawn is illegal. I would like to see the rules, regulations, and laws changed to provide me, my family, my home, and my property with the same protection against drone operators that the WH enjoys.
Fair’s fair. I want the same protections as the WH.
Airlines are required to stick to established flight paths. Airlines carry liability insurance to cover accidents. Drone fliers could be required to do the same.
I know of three RC airplane fields in my area where RC operators are allowed to enjoy their hobby. Drones could be flown at any of those.
You don’t get to tell airliners that they can’t fly over your house. You don’t get to have an army protect your every movement. You don’t get to have 24/7 protection in case someone trespasses on your property. The President is special – and yes, I’ll agree that his treatment has long ago crossed into the privileges afforded to a king rather than an elected leader – but you and I don’t rate the same protections. Get used to it.
In practice, this happens especially near airports using published arrival and departure procedure. But especially after the arrival of GPS, aircraft can proceed direct from on location to another when cleared to do so at their request. Pilots flying under visual flight rules have even more freedom to fly wherever they please subject to restriction in congested airspace.
You can enjoy the same protections as the POTUS by becoming POTUS. Or by living in a nuclear power plant.
I have no problem with requiring drone fliers to carry liability insurance or stick to established flight paths, but how do you differentiate between a “drone” and “little Susie’s radio controlled plane”? This is the sort of regulation that your side of the aisle is generally yelling about on talk radio.
Mr. Boggs has released what he claims is unedited video footage from the drone, which shows it hovering briefly and, to my completely non-expert eye, pretty high up, before being shot down.
