Looking for the actual regulation that prohibits interference with drone pilot

[CaseyGuy]

I've read many stories about dealing with Karens and Kens who try to disrupt sUAS flight operations. Now I'm looking for the actual regulation that says the pilot in command must not engage in conversation with a member of the public while piloting a drone. I don't see anything about that in Part 107.

Is this the regulation I'm looking for:
Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter F Part 91 Subpart A
§ 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

Or this...
Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter G Part 121 Subpart T
§ 121.580 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

 

[Vic Moss]

Unfortunately, since the word “on” is in those regulations, we are not covered.

We are hoping to change that this year.

 

[lookout]

Part 91 or part 121 is not even us to begin with, but much of the legislation on part 107 is borrowed from it.

 

[Chip]

I've read many stories about dealing with Karens and Kens who try to disrupt sUAS flight operations. Now I'm looking for the actual regulation that says the pilot in command must not engage in conversation with a member of the public while piloting a drone. I don't see anything about that in Part 107.

Is this the regulation I'm looking for:
Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter F Part 91 Subpart A
§ 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

Or this...
Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter G Part 121 Subpart T
§ 121.580 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

The FAA received many comments on the Remote ID rule expressing fear and concern that the FAA has put all drone pilots (especially recreational) at heightened risk of harassment, theft and violence. The FAA scoffed at the notion claiming that community outreach and exisiting state criminal laws adequately protect everyone and if you are not yourself a criminal then you have nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately, since the word “on” is in those regulations, we are not covered.

We are hoping to change that this year.

What would you hope to change it to? Will this be with the FAA's support?

If an aircraft is an aircraft is an aircraft, then what about 18 USC Sec. 32:

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities--Excerpted

(a)Whoever willfully—

(1)sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States...

...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

....Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) or any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section, with an apparent determination and will to carry the threat into execution shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

[Meta4]

If an aircraft is an aircraft is an aircraft, then what about 18 USC Sec. 32:

Do you want your "aircraft" subject to all the other regulations that apply to real planes, or just those that are convenient for you?

 

[frcaloy]

I've read many stories about dealing with Karens and Kens who try to disrupt sUAS flight operations. Now I'm looking for the actual regulation that says the pilot in command must not engage in conversation with a member of the public while piloting a drone. I don't see anything about that in Part 107.

Is this the regulation I'm looking for:
Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter F Part 91 Subpart A
§ 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

Or this...
Title 14 Chapter I Subchapter G Part 121 Subpart T
§ 121.580 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

We are not aboard an aircraft.

 

[Vic Moss]

What would you hope to change it to? Will this be with the FAA's support?

If an aircraft is an aircraft is an aircraft, then what about 18 USC Sec. 32:

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities--Excerpted

(a)Whoever willfully—

(1)sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States...

...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

....Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) or any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section, with an apparent determination and will to carry the threat into execution shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Our aircraft are covered under 18 USC 32, but we are not. That's the disconnect. ANd we're either going to push for a revision of 18 USC 32, or a full new law and try and get it put into the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act. There is already one written. We're just going to see where we can shop it around. We have contacts in DC, so we'll see who wants to put their name on it.

 

[Vic Moss]

Do you want your "aircraft" subject to all the other regulations that apply to real planes, or just those that are convenient for you?

We are already aircraft as per the 2014 Pirker s. Huerta ruling.

And not all aircraft are subject to the same rules. They're use and classification specific. So that's not a valid argument.

 

[CaseyGuy]

I see that we're talking about two different sets of laws/regulations here. My original post referred to regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sometimes referred to "Federal Aviation Regulations" -- and which include Part 107. I believe this thread now makes references to laws in Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Transportation) -- and specifically §46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants. Until I looked up all that this morning, I was not aware there are two sets of laws/regulations on aviation. I'm always learning stuff on this forum.

 

[Chip]

Do you want your "aircraft" subject to all the other regulations that apply to real planes, or just those that are convenient for you?

What do you mean by convenient? I was just asking Vic whether 18 USC 32 was relevant to the discussion since drones are in fact defined as aircraft. I believe Vic just said it was in fact relevant and is in fact under review.

 

[Meta4]

What do you mean by convenient? I was just asking Vic whether 18 USC 32 was relevant to the discussion since drones are in fact defined as aircraft. I believe Vic just said it was in fact relevant and is in fact under review.

I thought it was obvious.
I mean that if your toy drone was dealt with like a real aircraft, there would be lots more regulations you'd have to deal with, not all of them to your benefit.
Do you really want that?

 

[frcaloy]

I thought it was obvious.
I mean that if your toy drone was dealt with like a real aircraft, there would be lots more regulations you'd have to deal with, not all of them to your benefit.
Do you really want that?

Well, I own a real aircraft and there are annual inspections, insurance, pre-flight checklists and maintenance every 25 hours.

Then there are requirements before a pilot gets certified.

 

[Chip]

I thought it was obvious.
I mean that if your toy drone was dealt with like a real aircraft, there would be lots more regulations you'd have to deal with, not all of them to your benefit.
Do you really want that?

I am not sure what conversation you are having or what point you are trying to make with me exactly. If you think that 249 gram + drones are "toys" and not "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation or protection, then by all means take it up with the FAA. If you believe that Title 18 of US Code 32 has no application to drones, then good for your opinion. I personally have no objection to someone arguing otherwise which I believe the FAA may have itself done.

 

[frcaloy]

1. That plus 250 g drones are considered by the FAA as aircraft is not disputed.
2. The two regulations cited under Title 14 do not apply to drone pilots because we are not on board the aircraft.

What the OP was suggesting is that there should be a regulation protecting the drone pilot from interference because such interference impacts flight safety. Personally, I think that the drone operator or pilot must be protected and I am for it.

Meta4 is suggesting that such protection or recognition from the FAA is a privilege and privilege comes with attached responsibilies stemming from that privilege, responsibilities that come in the form of regulations concerning flight safety of drones.

As of this writing, the FAA is already introducing such regulations like remote ID, drone registration, TRUST certificates and Part 107. There may the be more regulations in the future. The OP just wants protection for the drone operator who is flying his drone in accordance to established safety rules and regulations coming from the FAA and government security agencies like the police.

 

[Meta4]

I am not sure what conversation you are having or what point you are trying to make with me exactly. If you think that 249 gram + drones are "toys" and not "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation or protection, then by all means take it up with the FAA. If you believe that Title 18 of US Code 32 has no application to drones, then good for your opinion. I personally have no objection to someone arguing otherwise which I believe the FAA may have itself done.

I think it's ridiculous to expect that all regulations that apply to a manned aircraft would be applicable to a 249 gram toy.

 

[SkyeHigh]

I am not sure what conversation you are having or what point you are trying to make with me exactly. If you think that 249 gram + drones are "toys" and not "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation or protection, then by all means take it up with the FAA. If you believe that Title 18 of US Code 32 has no application to drones, then good for your opinion. I personally have no objection to someone arguing otherwise which I believe the FAA may have itself done.

As I have mentioned previously, it is far easier to use existing regulations, restrictions and laws with any new ‘device’ that appears on the market rather than take the prohibitively expensive and slow process in creating new regulations from scratch.

As a small UAV is a flying device it naturally comes under the FAA’s umbrella and existing ‘aircraft’ regulations. Obviously there are many, many aircraft regulations that don’t apply to our sUAVs but changes in regulations more appropriate to sUAVs have been and will continue to be made with input from the FAA, industry and those helping to represent us such as our very own VIC Moss from this forum.

The situation is far simpler in other countries whose legal system isn’t quite so complex but the process of integrating appropriate regulations is slow.

 

[Beet]

I suppose it all depends on what you see as a toy. To me the Mavic Mini is a long way off being a toy. I agree that it's crazy to class it with a manned aircraft.

 

[frcaloy]

I suppose it all depends on what you see as a toy. To me the Mavic Mini is a long way off being a toy. I agree that it's crazy to class it with a manned aircraft.

I have a Mini 2 and I don't see it as a toy. It is a brave little drone, an aircraft. It flies better than most piloted aircraft and is more stable. It is in a class of its own.

 

[SkyeHigh]

It flies better than most piloted aircrafts and is more stable. It is in a class of its own.

Assuming you’re referring to model (radio controlled) aircraft.

 

[frcaloy]

Assuming you’re referring to model (radio controlled) aircraft.

Nope. Real aircraft. I own a Cessna 150 and I am certified for the Cessna 152 and 172.

I don't fly RC Aircraft.