Law enforcement question?

[sar104]

I'm pretty sure that if you called the SOSC first, you'd get permission, with the form sent in after the event. And yes, the SGI is important.

No - we have used this process and I'm pretty sure that even a direct call from LE won't get immediate verbal permission.

 

[nick007]

I believe the pilot in command always has the authority to deviate from the regulations if an emergency requires it. This scenario would certainly appear to be an emergency. Keeping in mind flying low over a river would probably not be much of a threat to manned aircraft. I would tell the cop to have his dispatcher immediately notify the airport and then proceed with the search.

I think you're correct, I recall reading that during my 107 course

 

[brett8883]

I hate using Wikipedia as a resource but there’s an aspect of tort law called “Duty to Rescue” meaning you could be sued if you have the ability to save one and it does not put yourself in danger and choose not to.

Now this is part of common law and there are very few example of this successfully being used but if we are going off of the letter of the law I could make an arguement that you could be held civilly liable if you refused.

There’s also an aspect of common law called “The Good Samaritan Law” which gives protection to someone who has to break the law to save someone’s life. So therefore I find the “it’s against the rules” argument to be extremely weak.

 

[sar104]

I hate using Wikipedia as a resource but there’s an aspect of tort law called “Duty to Rescue” meaning you could be sued if you have the ability to save one and it does not put yourself in danger and choose not to.

Now this is part of common law and there are few example of this successfully being used but if we are going off of the letter of the law I could make an arguement that you could be held civilly liable if you refused.

There’s also an aspect of common law called “the Good Samaritan Law” which gives protection to someone who has to break the law to save someone’s life. So therefore I find the “it’s against the rules” argument to be extremely weak.

I agree - I cannot imagine the law being invoked against a reasonable action at the request of LE (or even without LE) provided that it does not create a greater hazard, such as interfering with aerial resources etc.

 

[RoboticTundra]

Local LE are low folks on the pole and generally, depending on the situation, outranked by just about everyone including FAA, US Marshals, Secret Service, Postal Inspectors, most state agencies, etc. I think only TSA are ranked lower. While some are fairly intelligent there are a large number who are surprisingly ignorant of many laws and common sense. Because of this local LE are also not highly regarded by other enforcement agencies. So, proceed with caution. Your get out of jail free card from LE may not be worth what you think it is.

As mentioned above, I'd likely fly in a heartbeat but also insure that the cop or their super are notifying FAA and local tower and that they are finding out about any other aircraft being used. I'd hate to bring down the helicopter sent in to rescue someone.

I think we've all read numerous reports of drones involved in rescues and I'd guess the frequency will grow. Flyers like those on this forum are a great resource. LE need to incorporate this in to their response plans and insure that for any incident they have someone who quickly takes on the roll of airborne coordinator to insure that there are no dangerous conflicts.

 

[nick007]

I hate using Wikipedia as a resource but there’s an aspect of tort law called “Duty to Rescue” meaning you could be sued if you have the ability to save one and it does not put yourself in danger and choose not to.

Now this is part of common law and there are few example of this successfully being used but if we are going off of the letter of the law I could make an arguement that you could be held civilly liable if you refused.

There’s also an aspect of common law called “the Good Samaritan Law” which gives protection to someone who has to break the law to save someone’s life. So therefore I find the “it’s against the rules” argument to be extremely weak.

Do you practice law? I figure you're either a lawyer or a very knowledgeable clerk

 

[brett8883]

Do you practice law? I figure you're either a lawyer or a very knowledgeable clerk

I’m am not no. Please don’t take this as legal advice in any way. It’s for entertainment purposes only. Lol

 

[bobfa100]

Hypothetically, boating accident happens and somebody falls in the water cop comes up to me and ask if I can fly my drone up and down the river to see if anybody is bobbing in the water or on the shoreline. I am in D airspace. can I lawfully do that for that police officer? I am a Part 107 pilot so I should know this. my first impression is no because the FAA regulates the air not the police officer but it's an emergency how far can that go?

My take would be to assist and document and ask authority figure to sign something saying they requested your assistance. I remembered one 107 question that went something like this: you have to fly to 600 ft to avoid an accident with a piloted aircraft. When Do you have to report this to the FAA? The correct answer was report it only if requested by the FAA. I think your “hypothetical” case would be similar; responding to an emergency. Document everything in your log, grab the officers badge number and name and politely as him to sign your log. You’ll be golden with full documentation IF the FAA asked you about it.

 

[1919Films]

Now this doesn't exactly cover the situation you describe, since it refers to an in-flight emergency, but to my mind the spirit of the regs is that if you, as the pilot-in-command using your best judgment, decide that the rules need to be broken in order to perhaps save a life, you go for it and plead forgiveness later.

14 CFR § 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

 

[BlueRidge]

Now this doesn't exactly cover the situation you describe, since it refers to an in-flight emergency, but to my mind the spirit of the regs is that if you, as the pilot-in-command using your best judgment, decide that the rules need to be broken in order to perhaps save a life, you go for it and plead forgiveness later.

14 CFR § 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Brilliant! This is why I love following this forum.

 

[Cutitout]

Boo...

I’d do it in A airspace if the dang thing would fly. Really, saving a missing kid would be worth the wrath of the FAA later on. Im speaking from personal experience here, too.

There was a small kid that fell into a river where I worked as a river ranger, and the lead guy wouldnt let anyone recover him until they could do it with a boat. It would have been an easy rescue as a certified lifeguard; the water was still and clear in the pool the kid ended up in, but he said no. I regret not doing it anyways.

Did the child survive?

 

[AMann]

Did the child survive?

For only a few days - too long in the water. It was cold and clear, so had he been pulled out earlier, he would have been better off. Kids have been resuscitated successfuly even half an hour later in cold water drownings.

 

[BD0G]

Thats a sad thing to live with! Man, I would try and put that as far back in my brain as possible.

 

[AMann]

Thats a sad thing to live with! Man, I would try and put that as far back in my brain as possible.

Yeah, so now that I’m older, I follow my instictive decisions more even if superiors say otherwise... I was pretty green and twenty something when that happened.

This thread was a very good topic, I am sure some of us may really face this type of situation in real life, so it may be very helpful for others.

 

[Milo187]

I believe the pilot in command always has the authority to deviate from the regulations if an emergency requires it. This scenario would certainly appear to be an emergency. Keeping in mind flying low over a river would probably not be much of a threat to manned aircraft. I would tell the cop to have his dispatcher immediately notify the airport and then proceed with the search.

That's only to avoid interference with manned aircraft not an emergency to rescue a life. This situation is a scenario on some 107 tests where a person you are working for orders you to violate FAA rules and doing so shows poor judgment BUT most of us, myself included would take the risk to possibly save a human life! There's a big difference between real life and a 107 test answer.

 

[Lawman]

Do it. Good Samaritan law. It's the right thing to do. Remember most of the FAA rules are rules with fines, not laws. Makes them easier to over look by those enforcing them. Everybody wants to over look possible improper actions by a Good Samaritan trying to save a life.

 

[brett8883]

Page 118-119 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018


SEC. 353. EMERGENCY EXEMPTION PROCESS.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the use of unmanned aircraft systems by civil and public operators— (1) is an increasingly important tool in response to a catas-
trophe, disaster, or other emergency;
(2) helps facilitate emergency response operations, such
as firefighting and search and rescue; and
(3) helps facilitate post-catastrophic response operations,
such as utility and infrastructure restoration efforts and the safe and prompt processing, adjustment, and payment of insur- ance claims.
(b) UPDATES.—The Administrator shall, as necessary, update
and improve the Special Government Interest process described

This doesn’t say anything concrete but I think it explains the the “intention” of the Law which to my “non-lawyer” eyes is that “Congress’ sense” of this matter is that you SHOULD be allowed to fly in situation described in the OP but they don’t really know the best way to write that into law and want the FAA to let them know if it figures out a way to do it or if it has a good reason why they shouldn’t.

 

[sar104]

Page 118-119 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018


SEC. 353. EMERGENCY EXEMPTION PROCESS.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the use of unmanned aircraft systems by civil and public operators— (1) is an increasingly important tool in response to a catas-
trophe, disaster, or other emergency;
(2) helps facilitate emergency response operations, such
as firefighting and search and rescue; and
(3) helps facilitate post-catastrophic response operations,
such as utility and infrastructure restoration efforts and the safe and prompt processing, adjustment, and payment of insur- ance claims.
(b) UPDATES.—The Administrator shall, as necessary, update
and improve the Special Government Interest process described

This doesn’t say anything concrete but I think it explains the the “intention” of the Law which to my “non-lawyer” eyes is that “Congress’ sense” of this matter is that you SHOULD be allowed to fly in situation described in the OP but they don’t really know the best way to write that into law and want the FAA to let them know if it figures out a way to do it or if it has a good reason why they shouldn’t.

This is not yet regulatory law - it's just an instruction to the FAA, and you are making an assumption that the OP's scenario would fall under it. Even if it did, until the FAA has figured out and codified what those SGI process improvements might be, it has no regulatory impact.

 

[Texzin]

Not a chance I would stay on the ground, if it was possible to save someone’s life. Regs would not even enter my thinking.

 

[Montana John]

Boo...

I’d do it in A airspace if the dang thing would fly. Really, saving a missing kid would be worth the wrath of the FAA later on. Im speaking from personal experience here, too.

There was a small kid that fell into a river where I worked as a river ranger, and the lead guy wouldnt let anyone recover him until they could do it with a boat. It would have been an easy rescue as a certified lifeguard; the water was still and clear in the pool the kid ended up in, but he said no. I regret not doing it anyways.

The FAA has does not employ enough people to check who ran a drone up and down a river for a half hour on a given day. They are not like fish and game wardens who check licenses at boat put-in points. But even if one did happen to come along while you were involved in saving a life, do you think that such a person would want to bring shame on his employer by citing a rescuer? Not if he likes his job he won't! The whole anxiety about the FAA as patrolling drone police seems to me to be misplaced.
I would be very open to hearing other points of view with other information.