49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Jurisprudence. Input please?

[KI5RLL]

We should seriously discuss this. And use it. Thoughts from the Mavic Pilot community?
Possibly a mitigant to a common topic now. Mass use may seriously reduce the problem.

Once a licensed Pt. 107 UAS pilot, you are legally an airman and an aircraft pilot. You are legal aircrew. Your legally registered plane/craft with the proper FA# attached is also a legal airplane under Dept. Of Transportation, FAA and US Code. You are listed in the IACRA database as a pilot.

You will be a legal pilot flying a legal aircraft. The USC and FAA make no stepwise or otherwise truncated separation between UAS and manned pilots. We are held to the same aviation law, responsibilities and accountabilities. We carry legal jeopardy as a pilot now.

UAS is about to become very large and saturated into transportation and logistics. UAS pilots are gaining in value today just for the 600+ applications used now for their skill. And the many hundreds of lives saved by UAS pilots. This is before the new UAS platforms are fully integrated into Cat. IV UAS deliveries for top 100 companies like FedEx, UPS, DHL, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Apple, Google, and more.

Subsequent to the critical nature and need for qualified pilots and aircrew, the Code Of Federal Regulations (CFR) has adjudication measures to further the maintenance, retention and defense of qualified pilots and aircrew.

The following is one small aspect of that already known to manned pilots and it equally applies to UAS pilots.

Example:
If while flying legally, a person approaches you and wishes to call the police on themselves for their violations of (Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) aviation law, you may submit the following information to the responding law officer to assist him/her in their duties of prosecuting the individual. It is recommended you just print off your own multiple copies of the legal statutes 49 U.S. Code § 46504 to give to the authorities as they may not yet be versed in aviation law as we pilots and aircrew are. If there is clearly a crime committed, police officers are generally happy to prosecute it. They just need to see what law was violated.
The individual calling the police on themselves while trying to interfere with your UAS safe and legal operation will learn this.

You may feel free to have other charges made like disorderly conduct, harassment, and disturbing the peace, among others. And shooting at ANY airplane is a Federal Crime no matter the location or circumstances.
Jurisprudence:
(Title 18 excerpted)

An individual in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of theaircraft, or interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
Interfering with a FAA licensed pilot in the performance of his or her safe and legal duties.

Civil or criminal acts? Let the courts tell them.

Interference. The maximum civil penalty for interfering with a crewmember is a fine of up to $25,000. (49 U.S.C. § 46318.)

To impose a fine, the FAA files a notice of a proposed civil penalty. The offender can request a hearing, which will be held before a federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Usually, both the FAA and the offender are allowed to present evidence, and the offender can (and should) be represented by an attorney. After a hearing, the judge announces his or her decision, and sometimes issues a written decision. If either the offender or the FAA requests review, the FAA Administrator reviews the judge's decision. Either party may then appeal the Administrator's decision by filing an appeal in a Federal Court of Appeals.
———
Consider keeping a copy with you of the FAA 20-page Drone Response Playbook For Public Safety document. It is the same full copy given to Law Enforcement and tells them their duties under FAA regarding UAS.

 

[mobilehomer]

You have made one mistake in your interpretation which has been previously addressed by Big AL, I believe. You skip over the word "on" the special aircraft jurisdiction. There is no one ON the drone.

 

[One-Eye]

We should seriously discuss this. And use it. Thoughts from the Mavic Pilot community?
Possibly a mitigant to a common topic now. Mass use may seriously reduce the problem.

Once a licensed Pt. 107 UAS pilot, you are legally an airman and an aircraft pilot. You are legal aircrew. Your legally registered plane/craft with the proper FA# attached is also a legal airplane under Dept. Of Transportation, FAA and US Code. You are listed in the IACRA database as a pilot.

You will be a legal pilot flying a legal aircraft. The USC and FAA make no stepwise or otherwise truncated separation between UAS and manned pilots. We are held to the same aviation law, responsibilities and accountabilities. We carry legal jeopardy as a pilot now.

UAS is about to become very large and saturated into transportation and logistics. UAS pilots are gaining in value today just for the 600+ applications used now for their skill. And the many hundreds of lives saved by UAS pilots. This is before the new UAS platforms are fully integrated into Cat. IV UAS deliveries for top 100 companies like FedEx, UPS, DHL, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Apple, Google, and more.

Subsequent to the critical nature and need for qualified pilots and aircrew, the Code Of Federal Regulations (CFR) has adjudication measures to further the maintenance, retention and defense of qualified pilots and aircrew.

The following is one small aspect of that already known to manned pilots and it equally applies to UAS pilots.

Example:
If while flying legally, a person approaches you and wishes to call the police on themselves for their violations of (Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) aviation law, you may submit the following information to the responding law officer to assist him/her in their duties of prosecuting the individual. It is recommended you just print off your own multiple copies of the legal statutes 49 U.S. Code § 46504 to give to the authorities as they may not yet be versed in aviation law as we pilots and aircrew are. If there is clearly a crime committed, police officers are generally happy to prosecute it. They just need to see what law was violated.
The individual calling the police on themselves while trying to interfere with your UAS safe and legal operation will learn this.

You may feel free to have other charges made like disorderly conduct, harassment, and disturbing the peace, among others. And shooting at ANY airplane is a Federal Crime no matter the location or circumstances.
Jurisprudence:
(Title 18 excerpted)

An individual in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of theaircraft, or interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
Interfering with a FAA licensed pilot in the performance of his or her safe and legal duties.

Civil or criminal acts? Let the courts tell them.

Interference. The maximum civil penalty for interfering with a crewmember is a fine of up to $25,000. (49 U.S.C. § 46318.)

To impose a fine, the FAA files a notice of a proposed civil penalty. The offender can request a hearing, which will be held before a federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Usually, both the FAA and the offender are allowed to present evidence, and the offender can (and should) be represented by an attorney. After a hearing, the judge announces his or her decision, and sometimes issues a written decision. If either the offender or the FAA requests review, the FAA Administrator reviews the judge's decision. Either party may then appeal the Administrator's decision by filing an appeal in a Federal Court of Appeals.
———
Consider keeping a copy with you of the FAA 20-page Drone Response Playbook For Public Safety document. It is the same full copy given to Law Enforcement and tells them their duties under FAA regarding UAS.

I like your thinking. It's important to us as FAA certified UAS pilots to both know the law & be able to provide reference to it. Printed materials with the FAA logo will get people's & law enforcement's attention. I just took the Part 107 exam this week & have yet to receive even the electronic copy of my certificate, but I think it will be a good idea to have some printed materials present when I fly. I intend on having some legal references on the back of my business cards, as well.

 

[KI5RLL]

You have made one mistake in your interpretation which has been previously addressed by Big AL, I believe. You skip over the word "on" the special aircraft jurisdiction. There is no one ON the drone.

Yes that is why we need this discussion.
I am sure if I am harassing and threatening a 737 pilot while walking around outside his plane doing his pre-tip, there would be a problem with that.

 

[KI5RLL]

I like your thinking. It's important to us as FAA certified UAS pilots to both know the law & be able to provide reference to it. Printed materials with the FAA logo will get people's & law enforcement's attention. I just took the Part 107 exam this week & have yet to receive even the electronic copy of my certificate, but I think it will be a good idea to have some printed materials present when I fly. I intend on having some legal references on the back of my business cards, as well.

Congrats Pilot!
Your Temporary Airman Certificate should be on IACRA only a couple days after passing the exam and submitting your exam passing long code number thing as instructed (forgot what they actually call that number).

 

[lookout]

With remote ID and the lack of FAA manpower, the FAA is turning the enforcement of their laws over to the common person or uninformed policeman. But as the authority of the air requiring people to have remote ID to implement this scary transfer of power and responsibility.

 

[mobilehomer]

Yes that is why we need this discussion.
I am sure if I am harassing and threatening a 737 pilot while walking around outside his plane doing his pre-tip, there would be a problem with that.

Yes, but it would come under a completely different set of rules and laws.

 

[Vic Moss]

As mentioned, all of the interference with a person or flight crew is predicated on the word "on".

While 18 USC 32 protects our aircraft, as it has since the Pirker v. Huerta ruling in 2015, we ourselves are not protected.

Which is why the DSPA is working with Jonathan Ruprecht to introduce legislation with the working title of "Drone Pilot Safety Act" during the next legislative session. We don't know if that means an additional section to 18 USC 32, or a completely new section in the CFRs. It would be easier to just add a section, but with the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act next year, we may just try and add something there.

We're still working on a game plan, and I'm going to be talking to other AAAC members at the meeting in D.C. next week.

The meeting will also be streamed on the FAA's YouTube channel. The morning session (10:00-11:35 ET) can be watched here:

, and the afternoon session (12:50-2:30 ET) can be watched here:

.

 

[JimSteadman]

Friends -Stay in your own lane. Fly your drones responsibly, follow the rules. The first cited section of law above was passed 29 years ago in 1994. If you would like to read the text, it is 657 pages long. God knows how many times it has been amended since.

The original post asked for input on "Jurisprudence". I do not even have my 107, but I have earned a Juris Doctorate degree. If you want to wade into this stuff, prepare to get stuck in the mud. It's highly technical and few have the patience to read the law and the decisions of the courts which have interpreted it. As someone pointed out above a single letter (pilot ON an aircraft vs. pilot OF an aircraft) makes a big difference.

And if you are reporting this to local law enforcement, you are far more likely to get Barney Fife than Dirty Harry to investigate. You almost certainly know more than local law enforcement. So be glad that you know what you know, but you also remember that there is a heck of a lot you don't know. If someone shoots down your drone, by all means report it. But don't go into the back woods and get in a battle with someone who doesn't like your drone flying over their property. Trying to convince someone who has their mind made up is a losing proposition, especially if he has a gun and you have a drone.

 

[KI5RLL]

Friends -Stay in your own lane. Fly your drones responsibly, follow the rules. The first cited section of law above was passed 29 years ago in 1994. If you would like to read the text, it is 657 pages long. God knows how many times it has been amended since.

The original post asked for input on "Jurisprudence". I do not even have my 107, but I have earned a Juris Doctorate degree. If you want to wade into this stuff, prepare to get stuck in the mud. It's highly technical and few have the patience to read the law and the decisions of the courts which have interpreted it. As someone pointed out above a single letter (pilot ON an aircraft vs. pilot OF an aircraft) makes a big difference.

And if you are reporting this to local law enforcement, you are far more likely to get Barney Fife than Dirty Harry to investigate. You almost certainly know more than local law enforcement. So be glad that you know what you know, but you also remember that there is a heck of a lot you don't know. If someone shoots down your drone, by all means report it. But don't go into the back woods and get in a battle with someone who doesn't like your drone flying over their property. Trying to convince someone who has their mind made up is a losing proposition, especially if he has a gun and you have a drone.

Thank you for the legal discussion. We appreciate a JD discussing this for us.
It is important to discuss this yes. If they want to hide behind pedanticisms, well, why can’t we? I am pretty sure harassing an A340 pilot because he wasn’t “on” his plane but “in” his plane regarding “of” his plane is certain to make a lot of billable hours. Mission Accomplished.
Yes I know the single letters matter of course. Well he wasn’t “on” his plane, he was “in” it so….” And it gets obnoxious as you say.
It is the gray area that too often gets abused. So they keep it vague. So the guy with the gun and badge shielding ZERO topic knowledge wins.
“You get the justice you can afford.” Instant railroading.
The original post was an accumulation of a spool of threads. Many thoughts on this of course.
Good point on interaction. I just follow Samuel Clemens’ advice. “If you argue with an idiot, it is just 2 idiots arguing.” We should consider “educate not argue” but the wilfull maintenance of ignorance is belligerent now here.
Not many Pt. 61 pilots with a 107 now. My background is marine engineering and chemistry. We all have different backgrounds unrelated to the topic and I am no expert here aside my 107 and a lot of experience.
Thank you again.

 

[lookout]

Was Mr Magoo "in" or "on" the movie theater?

 

[lookout]

Friends -Stay in your own lane. Fly your drones responsibly, follow the rules. The first cited section of law above was passed 29 years ago in 1994. If you would like to read the text, it is 657 pages long. God knows how many times it has been amended since.

The original post asked for input on "Jurisprudence". I do not even have my 107, but I have earned a Juris Doctorate degree. If you want to wade into this stuff, prepare to get stuck in the mud. It's highly technical and few have the patience to read the law and the decisions of the courts which have interpreted it. As someone pointed out above a single letter (pilot ON an aircraft vs. pilot OF an aircraft) makes a big difference.

And if you are reporting this to local law enforcement, you are far more likely to get Barney Fife than Dirty Harry to investigate. You almost certainly know more than local law enforcement. So be glad that you know what you know, but you also remember that there is a heck of a lot you don't know. If someone shoots down your drone, by all means report it. But don't go into the back woods and get in a battle with someone who doesn't like your drone flying over their property. Trying to convince someone who has their mind made up is a losing proposition, especially if he has a gun and you have a drone.

Just where are these documents, maybe they've debated all of this before? Nothing new than what we are discussing.

 

[mobilehomer]

Thank you for the legal discussion. We appreciate a JD discussing this for us.
It is important to discuss this yes. If they want to hide behind pedanticisms, well, why can’t we? I am pretty sure harassing an A340 pilot because he wasn’t “on” his plane but “in” his plane regarding “of” his plane is certain to make a lot of billable hours. Mission Accomplished.
Yes I know the single letters matter of course. Well he wasn’t “on” his plane, he was “in” it so….” And it gets obnoxious as you say.
It is the gray area that too often gets abused. So they keep it vague. So the guy with the gun and badge shielding ZERO topic knowledge wins.
“You get the justice you can afford.” Instant railroading.
The original post was an accumulation of a spool of threads. Many thoughts on this of course.
Good point on interaction. I just follow Samuel Clemens’ advice. “If you argue with an idiot, it is just 2 idiots arguing.” We should consider “educate not argue” but the wilfull maintenance of ignorance is belligerent now here.
Not many Pt. 61 pilots with a 107 now. My background is marine engineering and chemistry. We all have different backgrounds unrelated to the topic and I am no expert here aside my 107 and a lot of experience.
Thank you again.

Cussing a pilot in the parking lot is misdemeanor assault. Cussing the same pilot when he is on the plane is federal. When you are flying your drone you are not in or on the drone. You are on the ground.

 

[retiredNH]

These debates are getting sooo boooring.....

 

[lookout]

These debates are getting sooo boooring.....

Nobody said that legal beagle stuff is exciting.

 

[retiredNH]

Nobody said that legal beagle stuff is exciting.

Actually, legal stuff can be interesting. It's these endless debates about potentially over-reaching local authorities, and ways civilians can communicate their interpretation of the law that gets tedious.

 

[lookout]

Actually, legal stuff can be interesting. It's these endless debates about potentially over-reaching local authorities, and ways civilians can communicate their interpretation of the law that gets tedious.

As far as I can tell part 89 isn't helping with that.

 

[ericole]

With remote ID and the lack of FAA manpower, the FAA is turning the enforcement of their laws over to the common person or uninformed policeman. But as the authority of the air requiring people to have remote ID to implement this scary transfer of power and responsibility.

Like too many things in US govt today. Individuals are falling under all kinds of regulations with force of law that were never passed by a legislative body.