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.