FAA wants to talk...while I'm flying...

[Dronecation]

Exactly what @akdrone did.



No I don't.

Everyone needs to lighten up a bit. To me "intrusive" requires some forcefulness.This was polite, friendly, and for all we know they might have just walked away if interaction was politely declined.

Viewing any interaction with government officials as some sort of violation of your rights is likely to lead to trouble. It's also just wrong in a bigger picture, we all gotta live together, POV.

Bingo!

 

[Cafguy]

Someone saying “I’m with the FAA” doesn’t automatically mean you’re being detained.

True but it can also mean the exact opposite.

Cafguy, I usually agree with your posts and you’ve helped a lot of pilots, but this one seems unnecessarily inflammatory.

Sorry its not meant that way It is simply another side of the coin and I think the incident while all harmless in its nature could be proven intrusive I would say that if it was a local police rep. and they walked up to you and said " I am ROY with the Police and I was just curious about what you are doing" instead of "Hello I am Roy" what are you to think?
In your capacity as an official in uniform of course you can say "hello I am So and so with such and such" BECAUSE you have Business with those you greet OR you are simply giving a hello. You cannot walk up and question anyone you wish tho!!! and giving your title during a greeting smells like questioning to me Because it is something you must do before you ask "on the record" questions.
I would find it a bit intimidating to answer questions from a person that gave his government job title to me first rattle out of the box.
If you as an employee of the government that has the power to question or detain someone Do so for no reason I can sue the Government...... Hence the policy. I think they even have classes about the ins and outs of doing such things.
This is why cops dont go around calling themselves "Officer" this or that on their off time..If a police officer walked up to you and asked what you were doing just out of the blue would you hesitate to answer are you being asked in an official capacity?Government employees I know some with the FAA Do not indroduce themselves as such and then question people...Its a huge rights violation. The police would never approach and question you without cause....The FAA is the Same. I don't think the FAA guy understood this with his "introduction"
As I said this is simply another point of view on the subject...Nothing More.

 

[Chip]

So FAA agents in plain clothes with no ID are now accosting pilots in the field?

 

[Droning on and on...]

So FAA agents in plain clothes with no ID are now accosting pilots in the field?

"Accosting"?

 

[mavic3usa]

I am reading but I'm not replying to any of these; I think everyone knows my opinion on this. I see a lot of good replies but I also see a lot of bad ones; really bad one, but I won't be commenting since I don't want to sour the conversation or "escalate" the situation. The OP handled it the way he wanted (no harm with that) and I might have done a few things differently (as a recreational pilot) is all I can say.

 

[Cafguy]

I dont think the FAA guys were doing anything but greeting the person honestly, BUT their are "legalities" about how one approaches and ask questions of someone in public if you work in certain capacities as a government rep. all I'm sayin

 

[Bad Santa]

So FAA agents in plain clothes with no ID are now accosting pilots in the field?

A lot of accusation in that comment.
The FAA inspectors have a job to do. I'm sure they could have presented their ID if asked but (and I know from a close source) that they don't normally present ID like you see on TV shows.
People SHOULD ask for ID.

For an FAA inspector to just walk up, ask a few questions, is not accosting. Read my post above and you might learn about some human's tendencies. The first point might resonate.

 

[anotherlab]

I dont think the FAA guys were doing anything but greeting the person honestly, BUT their are "legalities" about how one approaches and ask questions of someone in public if you work in certain capacities as a government rep. all I'm sayin

They were acting in professional and legal manner. What laws or rules are you using to back up your assertions?

 

[Cafguy]

There are NO assertions, Its simply a different viewpoint on the Matter. If the police would have done this I am sure you would find many that would question the officers actions. I am not saying that what was done was wrong. it is simply a viewpoint about the Subject. If the next time you are flying you encounter someone that greats you with "HI Im from the FAA my advice would be to say hello back and Nothing more.

 

[anotherlab]

There are NO assertions, Its simply a different viewpoint on the Matter. If the police would have done this I am sure you would find many that would question the officers actions. I am not saying that what was done was wrong. it is simply a viewpoint about the Subject. If the next time you are flying you encounter someone that greats you with "HI Im from the FAA my advice would be to say hello back and Nothing more.

You literally wrote an assertion with no legal basis to back it up,

Employees of the Government are Not allowed to walk up to you for no reason and introduce themselves as government representatives unless they have business with you! Sure they can walk up to you and during conversation mention they work for the Government no problem...But to simply walk up to you for no reason and introduce that fact is getting a little intrusive don't you think? It also violates their code of conduct.
An official with the FAA has the power to legally Detain you! Anyone with such power (such as the Police) must announce themselves first, If they walked up to you and said "Hello I'm with the FAA"... They weren't having a conversation....(By law).... YOU were being DETAINED....They need a legal reason to do that.

That is the definition of an assertion. And none of it has any supporting rules for your assertions. It is your viewpoint, but your statements about the legality are false.

 

[hank970]

There are NO assertions, Its simply a different viewpoint on the Matter. If the police would have done this I am sure you would find many that would question the officers actions. I am not saying that what was done was wrong. it is simply a viewpoint about the Subject. If the next time you are flying you encounter someone that greats you with "HI Im from the FAA my advice would be to say hello back and Nothing more.

"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion." Titus Lucretius Carus, ca 99-55 BCE

Viewpoint = Opinion.

You're entitled to your opinions about authority figures, even if I think they're a bit overwrought, but you shouldn't go beyond them to boldly assert that the FAA guys were exceeding their authority, behaving inappropriately, or acting illegally. They weren't, and there's no agency or government-wide law, regulation, policy, or code of conduct you can cite to the contrary.

You now admit that the bolded assertions in your first post regarding this matter were simply viewpoints, not facts. We're making progress here.

 

[Chip]

"Accosting"?

A lot of accusation in that comment.

Let us say you are sitting inside your car flying your drone. And someone walks up, taps on the window, indicates they want to talk to you. You roll down the window and they say they work for the FAA and would like to ask you some questions about your legal authority to fly a drone in that area at that time. It matters not whether they are smiling or frowning, they are conducting an investigative stop and anything you say can and will be used against you. As you are talking to them, there are no eyes on the drone which is per se illegal flying.

The FAA inspectors have a job to do. I'm sure they could have presented their ID if asked but (and I know from a close source) that they don't normally present ID like you see on TV shows.
People SHOULD ask for ID.

Yes, the only way to know what these FAA agents were up to would have been to ask more questions about who they were, whether they were working, and whether they believed the flight was unlawful. Those questions can be asked very politely and any refusal to answer tells you all you need to know.

For an FAA inspector to just walk up, ask a few questions, is not accosting. Read my post above and you might learn about some human's tendencies. The first point might resonate.

That depends on how you define accosting. How do you feel btw about the FAA dreaming up secret roving TFRs to protect ICE movements and operations?

 

[anotherlab]

How do you feel btw about the FAA dreaming up secret roving TFRs to protect ICE movements and operations?

What secret TFR?

The FAA did issue NTOAM FDC 6/4375 on January 16th, which creates a moving no-fly zone for drones around DHS facilities and mobile assets, including ICE vehicles and convoys, that applies wherever they are operating. It prohibits drones from flying within 3,000 ft laterally and 1,000 ft vertically of such assets. This NOTAM moves with the assets and has no fixed boundary or published time limits.

It sucks, but it's 100% public, not secret. You can read it here: tfrweb

It's not specific to ICE, but applies broadly to the Department of Defence, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security.

You could be flying recreationally, 1/2 mile from an activity of the DoD, DoE, or DHS, and could be considered in violation of 6/4375

 

[Cafguy]

You now admit that the bolded assertions in your first post regarding this matter were simply viewpoints, not facts. We're making progress here.

That was made clear from the very start.there was never an assertion.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Let's stop with playing gotcha, okay? Language is imprecise. You both can be right.

Similarly with the dispute over "accosted".

 

[Droning on and on...]

What secret TFR?

The FAA did issue NTOAM FDC 6/4375 on January 16th, which creates a moving no-fly zone for drones around DHS facilities and mobile assets, including ICE vehicles and convoys, that applies wherever they are operating. It prohibits drones from flying within 3,000 ft laterally and 1,000 ft vertically of such assets. This NOTAM moves with the assets and has no fixed boundary or published time limits.

It sucks, but it's 100% public, not secret. You can read it here: tfrweb

It's not specific to ICE, but applies broadly to the Department of Defence, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security.

You could be flying recreationally, 1/2 mile from an activity of the DoD, DoE, or DHS, and could be considered in violation of 6/4375

Don't think I agree that "it sucks" in light of what ICE agents have been facing. Wish it weren't so, but then what I'm really saying is I wish people could be civil, so ICE agents don't feel threatened, leading to things like this TFR.

 

[Bad Santa]

From the internet, it's always right

To accost is to approach someone aggressively or confront them in an inappropriate way.

Let us say you are sitting inside your car flying your drone. And someone walks up, taps on the window, indicates they want to talk to you. You roll down the window and they say they work for the FAA and would like to ask you some questions about your legal authority to fly a drone in that area at that time. It matters not whether they are smiling or frowning, they are conducting an investigative stop and anything you say can and will be used against you. As you are talking to them, there are no eyes on the drone which is per se illegal flying.

I love playing this game.
I believe the correct response is "I wouldn't get myself into these situations"

I've BEEN in that situation. I did not take my eyes off my drone. I can talk to someone without looking at them. I do it all the time. Humans are often hideous looking creatures.

 

[Capt.Tuttle]

akdrone said:
{With all the toy drones I'm not sure how it could be implemented but I've thought of the same thing.}

Did you tell the FAA guys that your a member of the Drone Police at the Mavic Pilots Forums?

Thank You for your attention to this matter.

 

[hank970]

Don't think I agree that "it sucks" in light of what ICE agents have been facing. Wish it weren't so, but then what I'm really saying is I wish people could be civil, so ICE agents don't feel threatened, leading to things like this TFR.

Crocodile tears.

 

[Chip]

From the internet, it's always right

To accost is to approach someone aggressively or confront them in an inappropriate way.

Okay, that is your parry but here is my riposte:
ac•cost
(əˈkɔst, əˈkɒst)

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach with a greeting, question, or remark.

I believe the correct response is "I wouldn't get myself into these situations"

But any of us could find ourselves in the situation described by AK Drone. Although realistically, maybe not in as nice a place as Alaska.

Sam crossed the majestic mountains
To the valleys far below
He talked to his team of huskies
As he mushed on through the snow
With the northern lights a-runnin' wild
In the land of the midnight sun
Yes, Sam McCord was a mighty man
In the year of 1901