Federal Crime to Interfere with Drone & Pilot

[MS Coast]

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."

How about we just accept that absolutely no one is following drone pilots and using precision scales to arrest people with 249 gram drones who added a strobe or some decorative foam?

The speed limit on most of the Interstate Highway System is 70 mph. Are you concerned that there are police officers using radar guns to issue tickets to people driving 74 mph? Maybe singling out the ones with bumper stickers that don't like?

Why imagine solutions to a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[DARKSeifer]

Maybe in the paper, in the reality you are alone and exposed to any Karen that wants to interfere.

 

[EssenYVR]

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."

The problem with this is that it fails to address how egregious the offenses might be, even though they be first or second ones. It lumps an innocent person who made an honest mistake in with a sociopath who deliberately uses a drone to cause havoc or injury.

The way our legal system takes the circumstances and the character and intent of the offender into account is to have courts and judges. The laws should be written to allow the courts to fit the punishment to the nature and severity of the offense.

 

[mavic3usa]

The problem with this is that it fails to address how egregious the offenses might be, even though they be first or second ones. It lumps an innocent person who made an honest mistake in with a sociopath who deliberately uses a drone to cause havoc or injury.

The way our legal system takes the circumstances and the character and intent of the offender into account is to have courts and judges. The laws should be written to allow the courts to fit the punishment to the nature and severity of the offense.

We are talking about infractions involving the weight of a drone not a crime called careless/reckless use of a drone. I am proposing we keep the rule but if you are caught with a drone that weighs 256g for example and you failed to slap a registration sticker on the drone, the most you could be fine is $25 if someone were to catch you. I believe the $15,000 and possible jail time should be reserved for someone flying an unregistered 950g drone. It's just an example, I'm not here to argue the merits of the regulation which is actually pretty effective and focused on safety. I'm just trying to block the possibility of putting someone in handcuffs over 6g or confiscating their equipment.

I know it has been said (and I agree) this hardly ever happens but "250g" is driving huge costs unnecessarily in the recreational drone community. Personally I believe, for example, the DJI Mini 4 should receive a "mini drone" DoC and under no circumstances should that drone model be required to be registered in the recreational portal. I don't believe the 250g number should be manipulated (like raising it to 300g) to accommodate. This recognizes that nothing can be done materially to cross that line meaning you simply cannot add enough weight to that drone to change it's status. Perhaps this means redefining the definition to mean something fixed, recognized, and enforceable like the drone's weight class designation rather than something dynamic, difficult to measure, and largely unenforceable such as take-off weight in the field. Is there any traffic regulation that depends and varies on what happened when you first left your driveway? Imagine if the use of an HOV lane depends on how many passengers you left home with.

 

[Meta4]

We are talking about infractions involving the weight of a drone

Why?
Why get so worked up about an imaginary crime?

I'm just trying to block the possibility of putting someone in handcuffs over 6g or confiscating their equipment.

Maybe you should something real to be concerned with?

 

[mavic3usa]

Why get so worked up about an imaginary crime?

I agree, it is an imaginary crime. So it should have an imaginary penalty, too.

Maybe you should something real to be concerned with?

It's just an example, there are about a dozen others. I'm not really that concerned but I was asked so I answered. For this particular example, I'm more concerned with the costs it is driving and I think assigning imaginary penalties to this imaginary crime would lower the costs.

 

[MS Coast]

I'm just trying to block the possibility of putting someone in handcuffs over 6g or confiscating their equipment.

In terms of totally ridiculous drone flying fears, that one goes even beyond the idea that drone pilots need a firearm to protect themselves from meddlesome bystanders.

The sky is not falling. Go fly a drone in it and you'll see.

 

[mavic3usa]

In terms of totally ridiculous drone flying fears, that one goes even beyond the idea that drone pilots need a firearm to protect themselves from meddlesome bystanders.

The sky is not falling. Go fly a drone in it and you'll see.

I think we are getting too far away from the topic. I already mentioned it's mostly about cost.

 

[Droning on and on...]

We are talking about infractions involving the weight of a drone not a crime called careless/reckless use of a drone.

This really is very simple.

If some egregious, illegal act occurs, the weight of the drone is an important element of the crime. The reasoning behind this I hope is obvious.

 

[BeticusMagnus]

IANAL but I don't think 49 USC 46504 would apply to drones as it begins with the phrase, "An individual on an aircraft..."

Just sent an email to a law firm in Florida asking for clarity on this. Once I get a reply, I will share with the group.

 

[Ember]

I’m glad I found this tread. My husband is contracted for a major project to photograph all the utility poles in southern ca and likely nor cal in 6 months. It’s for the Cal. Pub. Utilities Commission for fire prevention and infrastructure upkeep ect. It just includes a nadir and a handful of orbit photos, but the catch is that the contractor didn’t take the time to inform the public before hand so it’s been really dangerous. 6 drones were shot down last week and the fleet isn’t even full built out. Any information that’s as reliable as it can be regarding this would be extraordinarily valuable. We’ve been mobbed and threatened. Best case scenario it takes massive amounts of time off our valuable daylight hours. Since we seem to have had to largely be the ones telling everyone, this info would help. I knew a loose vague amount of info, but this isn’t in fact recreational, difficult and time critical work. I’m not publicly talking trash about the contractors, but I’m really worried about people’s safety and could use any help I can get. Thanks if anyone happens to come across this post- I know it’s quite old now…

 

[MS Coast]

I’m glad I found this tread. My husband is contracted for a major project to photograph all the utility poles in southern ca and likely nor cal in 6 months. It’s for the Cal. Pub. Utilities Commission for fire prevention and infrastructure upkeep ect. It just includes a nadir and a handful of orbit photos, but the catch is that the contractor didn’t take the time to inform the public before hand so it’s been really dangerous. 6 drones were shot down last week and the fleet isn’t even full built out. Any information that’s as reliable as it can be regarding this would be extraordinarily valuable. We’ve been mobbed and threatened. Best case scenario it takes massive amounts of time off our valuable daylight hours. Since we seem to have had to largely be the ones telling everyone, this info would help. I knew a loose vague amount of info, but this isn’t in fact recreational, difficult and time critical work. I’m not publicly talking trash about the contractors, but I’m really worried about people’s safety and could use any help I can get. Thanks if anyone happens to come across this post- I know it’s quite old now…

Post this as a new thread if you want it to be seen.

I have to say it sounds a bit odd. Shooting several photos of every utility pole in California in six months? Six drones shot down in one week?

FAA regional office - https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ara/western_pacific

 

[mavic3usa]

I’m glad I found this tread. My husband is contracted for a major project to photograph all the utility poles in southern ca and likely nor cal in 6 months. It’s for the Cal. Pub. Utilities Commission for fire prevention and infrastructure upkeep ect. It just includes a nadir and a handful of orbit photos, but the catch is that the contractor didn’t take the time to inform the public before hand so it’s been really dangerous. 6 drones were shot down last week and the fleet isn’t even full built out. Any information that’s as reliable as it can be regarding this would be extraordinarily valuable. We’ve been mobbed and threatened. Best case scenario it takes massive amounts of time off our valuable daylight hours. Since we seem to have had to largely be the ones telling everyone, this info would help. I knew a loose vague amount of info, but this isn’t in fact recreational, difficult and time critical work. I’m not publicly talking trash about the contractors, but I’m really worried about people’s safety and could use any help I can get. Thanks if anyone happens to come across this post- I know it’s quite old now…

Unfortunately the FAA and the police don't care a lot about drones being shot down. They'll stick up for big corp and organized professional sports but regular folks don't get the benefit of the doubt and the law is hardly ever applied properly. People shoot down drones because they know they can get away with it since there's no way to actually "prove" it and only a few will confess and do all the work for the government case. Otherwise, don't expect the government to use their resources to protect your drone flights whether they are legal or not. This is one of those areas where the vast majority of the public don't agree with it.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Post this as a new thread if you want it to be seen.

I have to say it sounds a bit odd. Shooting several photos of every utility pole in California in six months? Six drones shot down in one week?

FAA regional office - https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ara/western_pacific

Yeah, not calling @Ember a liar or anything, but rather the contractor and CA PUC idiots among morons.

Setting aside the alarming violence, the task is, simply, impossible. Again setting aside the simple question of coverage, there are thousands that are inaccessible, especially so under p107 rules.

This was not thought through at all by anyone with Drone expertise.

 

[MS Coast]

Unfortunately the FAA and the police don't care a lot about drones being shot down. They'll stick up for big corp and organized professional sports but regular folks don't get the benefit of the doubt and the law is hardly ever applied properly. People shoot down drones because they know they can get away with it since there's no way to actually "prove" it and only a few will confess and do all the work for the government case. Otherwise, don't expect the government to use their resources to protect your drone flights whether they are legal or not. This is one of those areas where the vast majority of the public don't agree with it.

Another installment in the ongoing dramatic series "Big Bad Government Dumps on the Little Guy (especially if they're a drone pilot)."

 

[BlueHeeler]

People distract drone pilots in a variety of ways, the ONLY one that concerns me is a threat of bodily harm, and if and when it becomes that, I am dropping my controller to defend myself, then it's the 911 call, 18 USC 32 without FAA teeth to back it up means nothing to me.

I rarely ever see another drone pilot in the wild, but when I did, I would stand nearby and wait for the landing, then talk shop.

 

[mavic3usa]

Another installment in the ongoing dramatic series "Big Bad Government Dumps on the Little Guy (especially if they're a drone pilot)."

All I am suggesting is don't expect the FAA to fix the problems which all drone flyers fear but only a few experience: the pilot is harassed while they are in control and the drone is interfered with while it is in flight. Because the drone is unmanned and FAA isn't seriously concerned with drone pilot harassment directly translating into drone safety issues to the public, we all need to set our expectations and plan for it. Carrying around federal rules on this topic won't help.

The little guy with his drone is not the most important item on the FAA safety agenda. Even the public has rejected RID which was a tool given to them to identify the drone and ascertain their role, evaluate the threat, and take the appropriate steps. If you are within shotgun range then you should be able to take out your standard smartphone, capture and process the required details being broadcast, and identify the UAV in your immediate AO. FAA gave the public easy access to this *knowing* that only the few honest law-abiding citizens in the community would actually use it instead of using force. If FAA cared much, hard to see why none of this is working as intended.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Well, how to recover from this?

What immediately comes to mind is running through an area that would be covered in one day's session the day before and posting a notice on everyone's door. I'll bet that would eliminate 90% or more of the problem.

Then, while you're performing the operation, make sure there are plenty of "official" trappings; weare a yellow, reflective vest labeled, Pilot; get a magnetic sign (2) that says something like, Aerial Survey Service or something like that, and put it on your car. Have a friend/spouse stand there with you, also in antifreeze-yellow vest, holding a clipboard.

I'm totally serious about these measures. It will nearly eliminate harassment.

 

[mavic3usa]

Well, how to recover from this?

What immediately comes to mind is running through an area that would be covered in one day's session the day before and posting a notice on everyone's door. I'll bet that would eliminate 90% or more of the problem.

Then, while you're performing the operation, make sure there are plenty of "official" trappings; weare a yellow, reflective vest labeled, Pilot; get a magnetic sign (2) that says something like, Aerial Survey Service or something like that, and put it on your car. Have a friend/spouse stand there with you, also in antifreeze-yellow vest, holding a clipboard.

I'm totally serious about these measures. It will nearly eliminate harassment.

I also agree these steps would help lower the risk but you shouldn't have to go to this extent because ultimately this will cost time and money. Regardless, let's say you did all this but it still doesn't mean the few people out there who don't agree with you will all of a sudden accept the situation. Seems to me, it was unacceptable to them regardless the circumstances. A pilot only gets attacked one time and once is enough even if you thwarted a dozen others with your precautions. If you fight off a dozen folks but one attack gets thru, where does that leave you? I get it, your safety is not guaranteed and whatever anyone does, there are risks involved and the factors are numerous and varied. Some folks are "lucky" they don't have to experience any of this. I just wish the laws were more comprehensive so I wouldn't have to go to extreme measures just to fly my drone.

I know it wasn't your intent but your last sentence kinda sounded like blaming the victim for not doing enough to keep the criminals at bay. All I can say is, you are right from the standpoint of making yourself look unapproachable to the wrong people but welcoming to the curious and the law-abiding and that I have done.

 

[MS Coast]

All I am suggesting is don't expect the FAA to fix the problems which all drone flyers fear but only a few experience: the pilot is harassed while they are in control and the drone is interfered with while it is in flight. Because the drone is unmanned and FAA isn't seriously concerned with drone pilot harassment directly translating into drone safety issues to the public, we all need to set our expectations and plan for it. Carrying around federal rules on this topic won't help.

The little guy with his drone is not the most important item on the FAA safety agenda. Even the public has rejected RID which was a tool given to them to identify the drone and ascertain their role, evaluate the threat, and take the appropriate steps. If you are within shotgun range then you should be able to take out your standard smartphone, capture and process the required details being broadcast, and identify the UAV in your immediate AO. FAA gave the public easy access to this *knowing* that only the few honest law-abiding citizens in the community would actually use it instead of using force. If FAA cared much, hard to see why none of this is working as intended.

I'm guessing this was triggered by the report from a first-time participant saying that six of their company's drones were shot down last week without details. Before we react to that alleged rash of shootings, let's see if there's any fact to it.

Violence against drone pilots seems even less common than kidnapped pussycats being barbecued.