Got a call from the Police about my drone

[ackdrone]

HA ha ha, got pulled away from the desk by the wife's "emergency"!

Funny guy, eh?!
After see many posts about pilots being accosted by the public, it finally happened to me! I live in a small, everyone knows everyone community so I was surprised. She even claimed to have been part of the law to ban drone flights! It is disturbing because everyone so far is either curious or doesn’t care.
I am always courteous and ask about kids and dogs getting upset and will leave if so asked, but she barked at me before I could ask. I offered my FAA registration and LAANC flight plan, but she talked over me saying the police would be on the way. I explained the governance was by FAA not police but she refused to believe it! I flew home and packed up not wanting further issues and waited for the cops who didn’t show up. It amazes me how negative and ignorant some people are, and I wonder where they get their information . Oh well......... tips up!

 

[dawgpilot]

Just to be clear: the same company that makes our drones also makes a device/platform that can be used to (unknowingly) track their operation? That's one way to 'sell arms to both sides'.

Yep, exactly what DJI does here.

 

[anotherlab]

Just to be clear: the same company that makes our drones also makes a device/platform that can be used to (unknowingly) track their operation? That's one way to 'sell arms to both sides'.

Not exactly. DJI only sells the Aeroscope to authorized customers. Like a prison, where they have a legitimate need to track any drone flying into the prison grounds.

 

[Thomas B]

And how exactly are they to know whether you have spotters or excellent vision? This sounds like an overreach of the local cops, but if they report to FAA it indeed could spell trouble.

But this is analogous to local law enforcement reporting undocumented suspects to ICE. If a city has a policy to not cooperate for this issue, it would seem to be hard to justify reporting drones to FAA.

FAA has specifically given permission/ leeway to investigate illegal flights and report to them. Google FAA law enforcement toolbox.

 

[rxlawdude]

FAA has specifically given permission/ leeway to investigate illegal flights and report to them. Google FAA law enforcement toolbox.

Permission and leeway allow a lot of leeway at the local LEO level. Most LEOs are probably not interested in filing a report with the FAA.

But then, there are the Barney Fifes.

 

[eaglesurfing]

And now the fun begins.

 

[MA2 317]

But then, there are the Barney Fifes.

And Gomer, " Citizens arrest, citizens arrest!"

 

[Chip]

Hi guys I had a run in with cops the last summer. I was out flying in Charlotte NC in the city and a cop pulled up and asked if I was flying a drone. I said yes. I told him I was just getting some pics for the skyline and the panthers stadium. After I landed, another cop on a segway pulled up and the other cop asked him if he saw the drone on some tracker.

No the second flight was nowhere near the stadium that's why I was a little surprised. The only issue they had was that I was flying so far that I couldn't see it, but I think the aeroscope is what they are using

Here is one way to find out. Send a public records request to the city of Charlotte at the link below:

[City of Charlotte] Public records request form

charlottenc.seamlessdocs.com

Ask for these documents:

1. All records regarding the City of Charlotte’s acquisition or purchase of any unmanned aerial vehicle or drone monitoring, tracking, or locating device.

2. All records regarding the City of Charlotte’s use of any device to locate, track or monitor unmanned aerial vehicles or drones in the city of Charlotte.

3. All records from the FAA or any other federal agency authorizing or permitting the City of Charlotte’s police department to use any device to locate, track or monitor unmanned aerial vehicles or drones in the city of Charlotte.

4. All records from the FAA or any other federal agency authorizing or permitting the City of Charlotte’s police department to use any device to intercept wireless, radio or other electronic signal from privately owned and operated unmanned aerial vehicles or drones operated in the city of Charlotte.

5. All non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements signed by the city of Charlotte with any state or federal agency or any third party regarding or relating to the deployment or use of any device to intercept wireless, radio or electronic signal from privately owned and operated unmanned aerial vehicles or drones in the city of Charlotte.

 

[Aerial Edge]

I was just suggesting why they might be using Aeroscope all the time.
Otherwise I would think they would have better, more important things to do.

I belive Charlotte NC and NYC have been a test bed for the FAA enforcement and drone detection. I was reading something the FAA put out about LE using detection methods and their own drones to do enforcement. I live within 5 miles of a Nuclear power plant, I am sure they know when I am up every time. Actually flew at the plant last week for a job.


ETA: Cants seem to find where I read that. But there is this.

FAA presses on anti-UAS testing -- FCW

 

[Chip]

LAW ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED UAS OPERATIONS
Version 5 – Issued 8/14/2018

https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

Excerpts: Counter UAS Systems and Employment

There are significant legal constraints that restrict most entities from testing, evaluating, or using countermeasures against UAS.

Various provisions of federal criminal law in title 18 U.S.C. (including, but not limited to, the Pen/Trap Statute, the Wiretap Act, the Aircraft Sabotage Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and other laws restrict most public (including federal/state/local entities) and private entities from testing, evaluating or using certain detection, and most mitigation and countermeasure, capabilities against UAS. In addition, the testing, evaluation, and use of such technologies by non-federal entities is subject to the Federal Communications Act.

Attachment A also includes a NOTAM concerning avoidance (including no loitering) over power plants, dams, refineries, industrial complexes, and military facilities. Although not a restriction, this TFR urges all aircraft operators to avoid these locations.

Very few entities (currently a few federal agencies only) have obtained legislative relief (or may be otherwise exempt under certain circumstances) from these laws.

For those entities authorized to test, evaluate, or use countermeasures, extensive coordination with the FAA is required in order to assess and mitigate any potential impacts the countermeasures may have on the National Airspace System (e.g., manned and unmanned aviation systems and air navigation systems). In addition, significant coordination
with, and approval from, FCC/NTIA, as applicable, is needed with regard to the use of certain technologies.

For additional information regarding your legal risk under title 18 U.S.C., as well as other federal/state/local laws, we recommend you consult your legal counsel for a thorough assessment of your options.

 

[Little bird]

And how exactly are they to know whether you have spotters or excellent vision? This sounds like an overreach of the local cops, but if they report to FAA it indeed could spell trouble.

But this is analogous to local law enforcement reporting undocumented suspects to ICE. If a city has a policy to not cooperate for this issue, it would seem to be hard to justify reporting drones to FAA.

Must of been a slow cop, everybody must of been behaving.
,

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

hmmm, that might be what they are using. If so flying in airplane mode, they would still be able to track me

More precisely, maybe track the drone (not your location, unless they were scanning your sim card, too!).

 

[Tentoes]

Not exactly. DJI only sells the Aeroscope to authorized customers. Like a prison, where they have a legitimate need to track any drone flying into the prison grounds.

DJI is just trying to calm fears that they're providing evil drones for us perverts to use... We should be applauding them.

 

[Howard70]

DJI is just trying to calm fears that they're providing evil drones for us perverts to use... We should be applauding them.

I agree with Tentoes. The situation is interesting. Recreational drone owners and pilots are a minority within the population of the USA. For various reasons there is a somewhat distorted view of the impact our activities can have on others. Thus we’ll likely always have restrictions on our flights and piloting some of us accept and others feel are unwarranted, but hopefully we’ll continue to have a regulatory environment that balances our ability to continue recreational flying with the majority’s desire for what they perceive as safety, privacy and freedom from harassment.

Some of that balance may come from education so that the majority’s perceptions change to be more tolerant and accepting of our activities. Some comes from laws and monitoring systems that may convince the majority that their interests are important and protected from drones and pilots perhaps acting outside of the regulations.

Now imagine a large, successful company who’s continued success requires a growing market for recreational drones (among other uses). That regulatory environment has the potential to greatly restrict their success. Thus, it may not be surprising that they work on several fronts to contribute to a balanced approach that supports growth of their market - through education, through developing better means of monitoring and producing drones that make staying within the rules simple.

Howard

 

[Vic Moss]

NYC has a lot of AeroScope systems. And nothing in any law prevents them from sharing that information across a broad spectrum with other LEAs. And it makes perfect sense they do.

This is no different than any other law enforcement database. But unless there is a need to know, no LEA can gain access to the FAA's database.

And gathering information is not a violation of any counterUAS restrictions. cUAS laws restrict taking action against a drone that would alter its flight course. That is why AeroScope doesn't currently have that capability.

 

[offtheback]

Just to be clear: the same company that makes our drones also makes a device/platform that can be used to (unknowingly) track their operation? That's one way to 'sell arms to both sides'.

Recalls a song "Smuggling Man" by Tim Hardin with the line "I sell guns to the Arabs,I sell dynamite to the Jews"

 

[bcfd29]

And how exactly are they to know whether you have spotters or excellent vision? This sounds like an overreach of the local cops, but if they report to FAA it indeed could spell trouble.

But this is analogous to local law enforcement reporting undocumented suspects to ICE. If a city has a policy to not cooperate for this issue, it would seem to be hard to justify reporting drones to FAA.

false equivalency here: one has nothing to do with the other; monitoring traffic is NOT surveillance it is being proactive to identify hazards and correct them. with the proliferation of hobbyist drones at increasingly lower entry costs, increased traffic = increased hazards to both legit users and those that choose to remain clueless (as well as those people and things on the ground).

fly responsibly: obey VLOS rules, and use common sense... know and avoid TFR and protected areas (like stadiums) and obtain permissions if you need to be proximate to known secure sites or areas. if you choose to challenge or stretch the regs, be prepared for the cost.

 

[kidroc]

I’d get a new drone!!! If you have refresh maybe have small crash send her in for a refurbished one scary!!

 

[scoble08]

NYC has a lot of AeroScope systems. And nothing in any law prevents them from sharing that information across a broad spectrum with other LEAs. And it makes perfect sense they do.

This is no different than any other law enforcement database. But unless there is a need to know, no LEA can gain access to the FAA's database.

And gathering information is not a violation of any counterUAS restrictions. cUAS laws restrict taking action against a drone that would alter its flight course. That is why AeroScope doesn't currently have that capability.

Hey Vic.
How can a private US citizen find out if these "discovery" devices are being used in the area(s) they fly in?

If not, isn't that defeating the purpose of UAS pilots (citizens for that matter) having the right to be made aware of measures that can be used in detecting violation of laws BEFORE it goes on record?
If I were to know that AeroScope is being used in an area I am flying, I would surely find myself trying to be aware of all restrictions in order to keep my 107 privilege clean.

 

[wsteele]

false equivalency here: one has nothing to do with the other; monitoring traffic is NOT surveillance it is being proactive to identify hazards and correct them. with the proliferation of hobbyist drones at increasingly lower entry costs, increased traffic = increased hazards to both legit users and those that choose to remain clueless (as well as those people and things on the ground).

fly responsibly: obey VLOS rules, and use common sense... know and avoid TFR and protected areas (like stadiums) and obtain permissions if you need to be proximate to known secure sites or areas. if you choose to challenge or stretch the regs, be prepared for the cost.

In my opinion, this was almost the only reasonable response in this thread. The FAA is responsible for the safety of the airspace from the ground up. They have published rules to try and and maintain safety as both recreational and commercial drones operating in the airspace below 400 ft grow. In the past couple of years we've seen ignorant people operating their drones in airport landing zones, around recreational facilities, and near emergency responses, etc. These actions cause more and more regulations. I will not say that I have never flown beyond line of sight, but I try to follow all the published rules and I don't care if my drone is observed, tracked, or emitting telemetry that tells the FAA and law enforcement where it is. In most of the threads I've read, if you follow the rules, enforcement may check on you but they accept you're within the rules and leave you alone.

There's no Amendment that protects your right to fly a drone. Stay within the law and politely correct others on this forum who flaunt the drone regulations and then state they have some sort of right to privacy in the Federal air space.