Illegal to mess with a drone operator

[DVPOWERS]

I'd love to get a laminated piece of paper that sites the law from the FAA that it is illegal to interfere with a drone operator when he is the Pilot in Command. Then I could show it to anyone who takes the law into their own hands.

 

[GFields]

I'd love to get a laminated piece of paper that sites the law from the FAA that it is illegal to interfere with a drone operator when he is the Pilot in Command. Then I could show it to anyone who takes the law into their own hands.

Does this even exist? If so, please cite your source.

 

[DVPOWERS]

I believe this link says it all:

Federal Crime to Interfere with Drone & Pilot

Thought I would make this clear for anyone who has questions about it. A “UAS” is comprised of 3 parts. The aircraft, the controller, and the pilot. When the aircraft is flying in FAA airspace which is everywhere in the US below 400 feet it is illegal to interfere with any of those 3 entities...

mavicpilots.com

 

[GFields]

I believe this link says it all:

Federal Crime to Interfere with Drone & Pilot

Thought I would make this clear for anyone who has questions about it. A “UAS” is comprised of 3 parts. The aircraft, the controller, and the pilot. When the aircraft is flying in FAA airspace which is everywhere in the US below 400 feet it is illegal to interfere with any of those 3 entities...

mavicpilots.com

You really need to re-read the entire thread. In fact, I'm not sure if your post is even necessary considering the fact that 18 U.S. Code Code § 32 was hashed out pretty thoroughly.

 

[dart106]

I believe this link says it all:

Federal Crime to Interfere with Drone & Pilot

Thought I would make this clear for anyone who has questions about it. A “UAS” is comprised of 3 parts. The aircraft, the controller, and the pilot. When the aircraft is flying in FAA airspace which is everywhere in the US below 400 feet it is illegal to interfere with any of those 3 entities...

mavicpilots.com

Although it reads well and is accurate, the regulation quoted needs to be included in order to be credible to the average law enforcement entity and John Q. Public.

 

[KB9Radio]

I'd love to get a laminated piece of paper that sites the law from the FAA that it is illegal to interfere with a drone operator when he is the Pilot in Command. Then I could show it to anyone who takes the law into their own hands.

You could type your own up citing the fcc rule & federal codes covering this as cited in the link included in post 3. Print them the size you want and cut them out to size. If you want them laminated, any office supply store like "Office Max" can laminate them for you. Business card size would probably work out well and are easy to print. Luckily folks never bother me, but I'm a fairly large and apparently intimidating guy

 

[spsphotos]

Well, one way to clarify this....call the FAA and ASK! lol.

 

[Vic Moss]

Quick answer is no. Nothing in 18 USC 32 protects us. It certainly puts the weight of the US Gov't behind us if they destroy or threaten to destroy our drones, but not us.

Any mention of protection of individuals includes the word "on". 32 (b)(1) states, "performs an act of violence against any individual on board [emphasis mine] any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;"

So we have no federal statute that protects drone operators.

Towards that end, Jonathan Rupprecht has been working on such a proposal. There is nothing public yet, but we hope to push it out next year during testimony about the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act. The proposal if for a "Drone Pilot Safety Act." We don't know if we can get it to change the wording of 18 USC 32, or craft an entirely different set of rules. Changing the wording in 32 is an easier row to hoe. So that's likely the path we'll take.

We just need to get this in front of Congress. That will be a push after the new year. I'll keep everyone up to date.

You can read the preliminary wording here: Drone Pilot Safety Act. There is a lot there, and some won't likely make the final push, but it's a great start.

 

[GFields]

Quick answer is no. Nothing in 18 USC 32 protects us. It certainly puts the weight of the US Gov't behind us if they destroy or threaten to destroy our drones, but not us.

Any mention of protection of individuals includes the word "on". 32 (b)(1) states, "performs an act of violence against any individual on board [emphasis mine] any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;"

So we have no federal statute that protects drone operators.

Towards that end, Jonathan Rupprecht has been working on such a proposal. There is nothing public yet, but we hope to push it out next year during testimony about the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act. The proposal if for a "Drone Pilot Safety Act." We don't know if we can get it to change the wording of 18 USC 32, or craft an entirely different set of rules. Changing the wording in 32 is an easier row to hoe. So that's likely the path we'll take.

We just need to get this in front of Congress. That will be a push after the new year. I'll keep everyone up to date.

You can read the preliminary wording here: Drone Pilot Safety Act. There is a lot there, and some won't likely make the final push, but it's a great start.

Thanks Vic for the input and clarification.

I am a Jonathan Rupprecht subscriber and read his material. Great stuff.

I do hope the Drone Safety Act or similar legislation is passed.

 

[Vic Moss]

Thanks Vic for the input and clarification.

I am a Jonathan Rupprecht subscriber and read his material. Great stuff.

I do hope the Drone Safety Act or similar legislation is passed.

Jonathan is a good guy!

 

[wardtom084]

The print this out...

 

[SethB]

The print this out...

That document has errors.

It states that the person presenting it to a bystander or LEO is a TRUST certificate holder, then goes on to say that roof inspection is a legitimate activity for recreational pilots. Doing roof inspection for others certainly requires a Pt. 107 certificate. Private land management? Flying commercially operated private land for purposes of land management would seem to be non-recreational use.

It also includes this statement:
Recreational pilots may legally operate an unmanned aircraft (including takeoff and landing) FROM public property and private property (with permission).

You can’t make a blanket statement that operations from public property are legal. It varies - a lot!

What’s the source of this brochure? It seems to be a mix of legal interpretations with no citations and materials copied from FAA documents. It makes questionable claims about the scope of the recreational carve-out from Pt. 107. I’m not a lawyer and don’t offer legal advice, but I’d want to make sure that what I handed to an LEO was sound!

I think it’s a great idea to have something to hand out.

 

[Dbez1]

Quick answer is no. Nothing in 18 USC 32 protects us. It certainly puts the weight of the US Gov't behind us if they destroy or threaten to destroy our drones, but not us.

Any mention of protection of individuals includes the word "on". 32 (b)(1) states, "performs an act of violence against any individual on board [emphasis mine] any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;"

So we have no federal statute that protects drone operators.

Towards that end, Jonathan Rupprecht has been working on such a proposal. There is nothing public yet, but we hope to push it out next year during testimony about the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act. The proposal if for a "Drone Pilot Safety Act." We don't know if we can get it to change the wording of 18 USC 32, or craft an entirely different set of rules. Changing the wording in 32 is an easier row to hoe. So that's likely the path we'll take.

We just need to get this in front of Congress. That will be a push after the new year. I'll keep everyone up to date.

You can read the preliminary wording here: Drone Pilot Safety Act. There is a lot there, and some won't likely make the final push, but it's a great start.

Thanks Vic for all you do for the droning community.

 

[wardtom084]

Maybe you would like this better... 107

 

[moldorf]

I've read 3 or 4 threads about this subject here and I've concluded a couple of things about recreational drone pilots and harassment laws:

one is that there really is no legal remedy for simply being 'harassed' when you're flying your drone

the other is if you want to possibly end the harassment, you can cite some gibberish about what the harasser is doing is a crime as defined by (insert the gibbersish section here). Maybe it will get them to back off and leave you alone