Federal Crime to Interfere with Drone & Pilot

[611WM]

So, fly quietly, and carry a big weapon of your choice.

Agreed and bring our own sniper to deter drone-hating snipers too. Crazy world!

 

[Dungeons And Diving]

Doing my due diligence. I've seen it on other sites but they tend to reference Forbes. Posts by the FAA about drones do have 18 USC 32 in them but I can't 100% say it isn't for prosecuting drone pilots who fly unsafely. I've reached out to the FAA to get the 100% answer from them.

61WM.... as I said before, I'm not expecting anyone to be prosecuted for it.... fully agree it would be handled with assault charges. Additionally, I don't expect Billy Bob UAV Road Rager to be worried about 18 USC 32, if he even heard of it, if he's willing to break well known anti-assault laws. My posts were just contributing to OP's topic.

I'll follow up here once I get their reply... simply because I find it a curiosity question.

 

[Dungeons And Diving]

Got a response from the FAA:

The FAA considers drones to be aircraft operating in the National Airspace System. 18 USC 32 applies.

Steve

FAA UAS Support Center
844 FLY MY UA | 844-359-6982
Send us your questions!
Stay current on all things drone
Twitter | Facebook

 

[Meta4]

Got a response from the FAA:
The FAA considers drones to be aircraft operating in the National Airspace System. 18 USC 32 applies.

That sounds dubious.
It wouldn't be the first time that FAA personnel have given incorrect information.

 

[BigAl07]

Got a response from the FAA:

The FAA considers drones to be aircraft operating in the National Airspace System. 18 USC 32 applies.

Steve

FAA UAS Support Center
844 FLY MY UA | 844-359-6982
Send us your questions!
Stay current on all things drone
Twitter | Facebook

Now contact the FBI and ask them about how they are going to handle it. With all of the HOT issues in the FBI etc right now anyone who thinks that is going to be a priority for them is delusional.

 

[611WM]

Now contact the FBI and ask them about how they are going to handle it. With all of the HOT issues in the FBI etc right now anyone who thinks that is going to be a priority for them is delusional.

And without at least 1 prosecution with conviction we will never be taken seriously.

 

[Dungeons And Diving]

And without at least 1 prosecution with conviction we will never be taken seriously.

My posts aren't about "OMG THEY CAN'T TOUCH US" but more along the lines of "We are actually covered by it" and to provide the FAA's position on their policy rather than the couple of people who implied it is not the case.

Additionally, I've also mentioned that those who would harass/assault a UAS pilot... obviously doesn't care what the laws are, regardless of one they've probably never heard of.

If you guys are going to comment... please read the multiple posts that I said I do not expect prosecutions. I'm simply doing the due diligence in finding out the actual policies and regulations, rather than the opinions of Internet lawyers.

 

[Dungeons And Diving]

That sounds dubious.
It wouldn't be the first time that FAA personnel have given incorrect information.

You can be doubtful on what the FAA puts out there... but you're the reason I even contacted them to get their black and white answer. I came to this forum looking for information (as a new UAS pilot) and it seems that you would rather be a troll than helpful to others. Your only posts in this thread have been FUD. I'm 100% more inclined to follow what the FAA puts out rather than your cynical viewpoints.

Don't bother responding unless it's to actually be helpful or provide information that can actually help others. I won't respond to less than helpful posts. I'm not here for Internet arguments... for those I'd head over to Twitter or Reddit.

 

[Puck Acorn]

someone in these forums, posted a "flyer" with similar wording a few months ago. i downloaded a PDF then asked a friend to print me copies, after they read it they refused to. the pdf got lost in the fracas of windows and apples

I found this in my files. Probably not what you're looking for, but something I carry with me when I fly.

 

[Drone Law Rabbit Hole]

Easy now... don't get too far down this rabbit hole. There is a BIG difference between interfering with a flight crew piloting a 747 coming in for a landing and harassing a UAS pilot flying a UAS that will auto fly/land. You can let go of the controls, walk away, take a drink, and who knows what else and the UAS will hover in place. At a certain point of no control the UAS will initiate Return to Home and Autoland. BIG DIFFERENCE!

The FAA will NOT be the people investigating an infraction of 18 USC 32. It goes to the FBI and they will determine if it's worth investigating and if so they will do the investigation and follow-up depending on current work load and priority/urgency. I can assure you that merely "interfering" with a UAS is going be be sub terrain level of urgency LOL.

Let's not misinterpret the meaning of ~18 US 32 to include UAS as it was not intended or worded to include UAS and rightfully not.

I think it's pertinent to go down that rabbit hole, just a little. It is bad enough that drones fall out of the sky due to malfunctions without any interference by a person to the UAS, and a Drone pilot has to take accountability if that happens.

Suppose you have an encounter with an upset bird watcher or neighbor in general who grabs a controller out of your hand or knocks it clear free of you, and the Drone is now locked into a dive or 12ms decent down toward person sitting on their lawn and hits them and you are liable? What if you had Auto-bypass or another safety control off because you were trying to get a shot of something but a pesky tree branch 3' away kept causing your waypoint mission to stop 30 minutes ago and now you were free flying with those controls still off?

There are all kinds of what-if's, they are limitless. But suffice to say I think Dungeons and Diving has a point.

 

[BigAl07]

I think it's pertinent to go down that rabbit hole, just a little. It is bad enough that drones fall out of the sky due to malfunctions without any interference by a person to the UAS, and a Drone pilot has to take accountability if that happens.

Suppose you have an encounter with an upset bird watcher or neighbor in general who grabs a controller out of your hand or knocks it clear free of you, and the Drone is now locked into a dive or 12ms decent down toward person sitting on their lawn and hits them and you are liable? What if you had Auto-bypass or another safety control off because you were trying to get a shot of something but a pesky tree branch 3' away kept causing your waypoint mission to stop 30 minutes ago and now you were free flying with those controls still off?

There are all kinds of what-if's, they are limitless. But suffice to say I think Dungeons and Diving has a point.

First off WELCOME to the forum!! I hope you are wearing your Big Boy pants . . . this can be a heated discussuib so let's keep it CIVIL and not get overly personal. As you can probably see, others have let this topic get the best of them and let their actions/mouths get them removed from the forum.

In regards to your "scenario": It started with ASSAULT! That's a local ordinance/law etc and has nothing to do with UAS, the FAA, or anyone else except Local LEO.

This whole concept that the FAA is going to be there "should" you get harassed by an angry person is ridiculous and totally BS. Those rules are for MANNED aircraft and even include phrases/terms stating as such. Until the FARs are re-written to specifically include UAS in the descriptions. Words like "Cabin Crew", "In the aircraft", "Onboard" etc pretty much EXCLUDE UAS.

Careful what you wish for in terms of exactly HOW the FAA and other agencies "Classify" our UAS. It's a slippery slope wanting them to give us "Full Blanket Coverage" just like a 747 and then see how much Certification etc will cost us. Be VERY careful what you wish for because you can NOT put the genie back in the bottle once she's out.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I consider your patience in the above detailed response extraordinary, Alan.

I had a much pithier reaction to the example: Still isn't comparable to interfering with a jumbo landing at an airport. Absurdly incomparable.

 

[mavic3usa]

I consider your patience in the above detailed response extraordinary, Alan.

I had a much pithier reaction to the example: Still isn't comparable to interfering with a jumbo landing at an airport. Absurdly incomparable.

Agreed but cheating and bending and stretching the rules happens on both sides; that's just where we are today. If LEO is allow to take out a drug scale and measure your drone take-off weight at 250.6g then the drone pilot is able to do the same (opposite). Both are "wrong" and take way out of context and not within the spirit of the law/rule. But that's the way things are today (not just with drone but with anything) and while I'm not going to say who started it, I know who should end it. Otherwise, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Agreed but

There is no "but". Comparing interfering with a comparatively relatively gigantic aircraft carrying dozens or hundreds of people to interfering with a recreational drone pilot is ridiculous. Period.

Are you willing to engage me in an argument about how horrible it is to kill some ants in my kitchen because... animal abuse, calibrated by comparing to illegal hunting of elephants for ivory?

Or would you refuse to engage at all because such an ethical comparison is completely ridiculous?

No need to respond. To this point, despite our many disagreements, I believe you to be rational.

 

[mavic3usa]

There is no "but". Comparing interfering with a comparatively relatively gigantic aircraft carrying dozens or hundreds of people to interfering with a recreational drone pilot is ridiculous. Period.

Are you willing to engage me in an argument about how horrible it is to kill some ants in my kitchen because... animal abuse, calibrated by comparing to illegal hunting of elephants for ivory?

Or would you refuse to engage at all because such an ethical comparison is completely ridiculous?

No need to respond. To this point, despite our many disagreements, I believe you to be rational.

No that's not the argument drone pilots are making. Such as argument would be ridiculous. No drone pilot would try to imply such a comparison.

Instead, what "some" drone pilots tend to argue is something else...but I won't post it here because it's not my argument to explain or defend.

But if we're being honest, it's just as ridiculous as some of the other arguments on the other side. Look, I'm all for putting things into perspective and making the proper and fair comparison on both sides. Sadly, I'm in the minority.

ETA: Ouch, didn't realize I was posting in a thread from years ago....no wonder.

 

[Meta4]

If LEO is allow to take out a drug scale and measure your drone take-off weight at 250.6g

Something that's never happened .. .and is likely to never happen in the future.

 

[mavic3usa]

^Exactly what I mean, why have a law for something that doesn't exist? Why open this up to selective enforcement and even go so far as to assign penalties to it if it is "useless?" Do we have this so we can hang it over the heads of drone flyer whenever we find it useful? Is it so we can gain a bunch of registrations by setting a cut-off and maybe changing that limit in the future whenever necessary to adjust the "recreational" flyers? It's the topic of dozens if not hundreds of drone conversations so it's hardly irrelevant since it impacts our lives almost daily. None of us ever considered openly violating this rule despite that it's

Something that's never happened .. .and is likely to never happen in the future.

So I would argue that is it a factor else let's do this: "New regulation that says no law enforcement agent is allowed to use a scale to weight a drone to determine if it meets the statutory requirement." Instead, we should rely on the manufacturer's specs....agree, then we can give a little on both sides; disagree, I made my point. Or "New regulation that says in light of being a regulation with focus on safety, there penalty for flying an overweight drone is void and no penalty shall be imposed for failure to comply." Do this in good faith so we don't needlessly drive an entire industry.

 

[Droning on and on...]

^Exactly what I mean, why have a law for something that doesn't exist? Why open this up to selective enforcement and even go so far as to assign penalties to it if it is "useless?"

I think you misunderstand the reason for law.

Laws are not created with the purpose of punishing people. They are created with the purpose of controlling behavior and creating an orderly society.

As such, rule of law predominantly relies on voluntary compliance, not a vast monitoring and enforcement apparatus.

Do you understand the reasons for the 250g limit in the rules? Notice it didn't take creating an army of enforcers to have the intended effect... there are tons of sub 250g drones in the air now, and we're all safer for it. The law worked, and drone enthusiasts didn't have to face a new army of enforcers harassing us to get the intended effect.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think you misunderstand the reason for law.

.... in light of being a regulation with focus on safety.....

....and we're all safer for it.

Already said that.

So you ok with one of my two options? Or we can have a third option that says something like "first offense is a warning, second offense is an infraction with fine no more than $25, etc."

 

[Droning on and on...]

So you ok with one of my two options? Or we can have a third option that says something like "first offense is a warning, second offense is an infraction with fine no more than $25, etc."

I'd have to study the issue more thoroughly to comment on a specific regimen of penalties.

That said, a tiered, escalating consequence for violating the law is both reasonable, and common.