Whats the best way to handle negative encounters?

[SethB]

This seems confused and unclear. I have no idea what's being said.

FAA can indeed advise people. I think what we're talking about is law (The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018), regulation (14 CFR Part 107.7), and advice to law enforcement (Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety, Supplement to the Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety.)

To my reading they all say the same thing.

...Kinda sucks that people don't follow along the conversation and maybe only read one post but I guess you have to sometimes keeping repeating stuff. Or maybe I missed it and was only thinking it and didn't actually type it or put it in my post:

I am a recreational pilot

If "people" refers to me, I can assure you that I've been following this entire thread closely.

The requirement to present certificate documentation on demand applies equally to a recreational pilot's TRUST certificate and a non-rec pilot's Pt. 107 Remote Pilot certificate. This means me, and it means you if you're in the USA.

 

[mavic3usa]

..............

Ok no problem, I am confused as well; without posting a bunch of pictures and links, please just tell me the law (the one passed by Congress) that tells the recreational pilot he MUST show his TRUST certificate to a sheriff deputy when asked. Not a link, not the verbiage or a description, just the law (meaning the statute number). Just post the reference to the law and I'll take it from there; thanks.

 

[SethB]

Ok no problem, I am confused as well; without posting a bunch of pictures and links, please just tell me the law (the one passed by Congress) that tells the recreational pilot he MUST show his TRUST certificate to a sheriff deputy when asked. Not a link, not the verbiage or a description, just the law (meaning the statute number). Just post the reference to the law and I'll take it from there; thanks.

Sure, enjoy!

Public Law No. 115-254 (10/05/2018), Title III, Subtitle B, SEC. 349, Sec. 44809 (a)(7) is the law, which reads:

The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and
safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of
test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law
enforcement upon request.

Note that Sec. 44809 is the authority for the recreational exemption.

Maybe someone else wants the link to read the law:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22PL+115-254%22%5D%7D&r=1

All this info is readily available. FAA bashing seems largely undeserved.

 

[mavic3usa]

Sure, enjoy!

Public Law No. 115-254 (10/05/2018), Title III, Subtitle B, SEC. 349, Sec. 44809 (a)(7)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22PL+115-254%22%5D%7D&r=1

"Law enforcement" = Federal law enforcement
"Law enforcement" ≠ State and local law enforcement

 

[mavic3usa]

FAA bashing seems largely undeserved.

Not bashing at all. When dealing with state and local law enforcement which have broad arrest powers, I want to make sure my rights are recognized and preserved and that I can exercise them freely. In America, no one can demand your papers without a good reason even if the FAA (Congress) puts in a law and tries to extend it to every law enforcement agency in the country. Not in my opinion; others may have different ideas about it. I'm coming from a good place.

I've already explained how I would handle these situations, what specifically is wrong with my approach to way I would handle my own personal situation for myself? Do you object? Are you provided with a part 107 license and you have obligations and you would prefer the recreational pilots to be under those same obligations? Just asking.

 

[SethB]

"Law enforcement" = Federal law enforcement
"Law enforcement" ≠ State and local law enforcement

On the basis of “because I say so?” Is there some other authority?

The text of the law makes clear that Congress uses all these terms:
Law enforcement.
Federal law enforcement.
State and local law enforcement.
State, local and tribal law enforcement.
Which one do you think refers to them all?

Not bashing at all. When dealing with state and local law enforcement which have broad arrest powers, I want to make sure my rights are recognized and preserved and that I can exercise them freely. In America, no one can demand your papers without a good reason even if the FAA (Congress) puts in a law and tries to extend it to every law enforcement agency in the country. Not in my opinion; others may have different ideas about it. I'm coming from a good place.
(emphasis added)

I've already explained how I would handle these situations, what specifically is wrong with my approach to way I would handle my own personal situation for myself? Do you object? Are you provided with a part 107 license and you have obligations and you would prefer the recreational pilots to be under those same obligations? Just asking.

This is FAA and Congress bashing as I read it. You’ve clearly stated that you disagree with Congress’ authority to make the law, FAA’s authority to draft regulations per the law, law enforcement’s obligations under the law, and your own responsibilities as a citizen.

My objection to what you’ve written has nothing to do 44809 vs. Pt. 107 flyers. It’s got to do with publicly promoting one’s own privilege to fly unlawfully… just because.

 

[mavic3usa]

The text of the law makes clear that Congress uses all these terms:
Law enforcement.
Federal law enforcement.
State and local law enforcement.
State, local and tribal law enforcement.
Which one do you think refers to them all?

Law enforcement in this context is anyone who has the ability to enforce Federal law.

If a city police officer says "Hand me your drone license immediately!" and I say "No thank you, sir" then he is free to issue me a summon if he can find a state law or a county/city ordinance that I am violating. If he want to forward my description to the Feds, fine; but I will not accept a police officers summons with a Fed Code violation written on it, I don't care if a Congressman (law-maker) called him and told him to write the ticket himself. If a police officer told me the FAA gives him authority in the Act to collect my details, then I might laugh at him but probably not. I am describing the 1% case because 99% of the time I'm willing to give consent. But my rights will remain intact. I've already explained why I am interested in preserving my rights; it's self-explanatory in today's climate.

Maybe you can check the guidance given by the FAA to local law enforcement (do I really need to spell out who these are) and let me know if you see it there where the FAA tells the officers if they can go beyond observe, detect, document, and/or report to demand/cite.

Not sure why you are getting so worked up over this, I'm described how I may or may not handle my personal situation; not sure why it bothers you that I'm legal and within my rights.

By the way, in my opinion, the inability to cite is defacto unable to enforce.

 

[mavic3usa]

You’ve clearly stated that you disagree with Congress’ authority to make the law

Wrong. I believe Congress has the authority to make the law.

FAA’s authority to draft regulations per the law

Wrong. The FAA has the authority to draft regulations per the law.

law enforcement’s obligations under the law

Congress/FAA can obligate federal law enforcement officers however they wish. Their ability to obligate state and local law enforcement with regards to drones (the Act) is severely limited and superseded by the Constitution.

own responsibilities as a citizen.

My responsibility is to first obey the Constitution and then obey the law. That's it.

It’s got to do with publicly promoting one’s own privilege to fly unlawfully.

Flying a drone is a privilege. Fortunately I don't have to give up my rights for the privilege of lawfully flying a drone.

 

[SethB]

@mavic3usa has made their views clear, ultimately stating that in their belief it's not required under the constitution that a remote pilot show a TRUST or Pt. 107 certificate to a state or local law enforcement officer on demand.

Apparently they feel that their understanding of the constitution trumps FAA regulations and congressional legislation.

Except that they expect to comply 99% of the time, while reserving the right to not do so.

I don't agree with any of these views. I believe that the regulations are clear. The law is clear.

Not much more for me to add. I do hope that none of our members end up on the wrong side of an enforcement action. Though these regs are relatively new and untested I would not want to be in the test case for constitutionality of this regulation and law.

The TRUST certificate is easy to get and free of cost.

 

[mavic3usa]

It's ok I am a he.

....ultimately stating that in their belief it's not required under the constitution that a remote pilot show a TRUST or Pt. 107 certificate to a state or local law enforcement officer on demand.

I believe there is no federal law which requires the recreational drone pilot to show any paperwork to a state or local law enforcement officer on demand.

I believe that the regulations are clear. The law is clear.

They are clear to me, too. Plus the state laws, the local ordinances, are clear also. Most importantly, I'm know the Constitution which understandably, most citizens and police do not.

The TRUST certificate is easy to get and free of cost.

I have completed the free TRUST certificate and I have it in my possession.

 

[SethB]

…Congress/FAA can obligate federal law enforcement officers however they wish. Their ability to obligate state and local law enforcement with regards to drones (the Act) is severely limited and superseded by the Constitution…

As I read the Law Enforcement Playbook & Supplement, the current FAA regulations, and the 2018 law passed by Congress there is not an “obligation” of state/local law enforcement to do anything.

My read is that the provision obligates *pilots* to present their remote pilot certificate on demand by law enforcement.

This would likely relate to an LEO responding with reasonable suspicion of a violation. Demand of a pilot certificate, like other related identification, would be justifiable only with reasonable suspicion, most likely of violation of state/local laws related to trespassing uses of public property, trespassing on private property, invasion of privacy, harassment, etc.

…My responsibility is to first obey the Constitution and then obey the law. That's it…

I would be interested to know what provisions of the U.S. Constitution supersede these authorities. Do tell…

 

[MS Coast]

"Law enforcement" = Federal law enforcement
"Law enforcement" ≠ State and local law enforcement

Cite a reference, please.

 

[mavic3usa]

Cite a reference, please.

No thanks.

Everybody knows that state law when it says law enforcement does not include federal officers and everybody knows federal laws that says law enforcement does not include state and local law enforcement. Outside of our special little drones, how about you pick any of the 100,000 federal or state laws on the books where it says law enforcement and that means both federal and state law enforcement?

BTW, the citizen is free to interpret this to mean anyone with a badge including security officers and private investigators on private property. That's the beauty of the legal system in America, you don't know the law and you're not sure what to do, you are free to consent. But I know what it means to me.

 

[MS Coast]

No thanks.

Everybody knows that state law when it says law enforcement does not include federal officers and everybody knows federal laws that says law enforcement does not include state and local law enforcement. Outside of our special little drones, how about you pick any of the 100,000 federal or state laws on the books where it says law enforcement and that means both federal and state law enforcement?

No, everyone does not.

Per your request, here's one example. The rangers in the Gulf Islands National Seashore certainly do enforce state game and fish laws. I've had first-hand experience with them counting and measuring my fish.

But let's stick to drone regulations. If my memory is accurate the FAA regs requiring production of documentation on request by law enforcement includes federal, state and local authorities, at least for Part 107 pilots.

I'm curious about the facts for Part 107 and 44809 UAS operations, as supported by valid references, if anyone else is better informed.

 

[mavic3usa]

No, everyone does not.

Per your request, here's one example. The rangers in the Gulf Islands National Seashore certainly do enforce state game and fish laws. I've had first-hand experience with them counting and measuring my fish.

But let's stick to drone regulations. If my memory is accurate the FAA regs requiring production of documentation on request by law enforcement includes federal, state and local authorities, at least for Part 107 pilots.

I'm curious about the facts for Part 107 and 44809 UAS operations, as supported by valid references, if anyone else is better informed.

Agreed, there are always few cases where there is overlap in enforcement.

 

[SethB]

…I'm curious about the facts for Part 107 and 44809 UAS operations, as supported by valid references, if anyone else is better informed.

Posts #41 and 43 (above) include links to all the FAA guidance for law enforcement, FAA regulation, and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

…(The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018), regulation (14 CFR Part 107.7), and advice to law enforcement (Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety, Supplement to the Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety.) …

…Public Law No. 115-254 (10/05/2018), Title III, Subtitle B, SEC. 349, Sec. 44809 (a)(7) is the law…

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22PL+115-254%22%5D%7D&r=1

Note that Sec. 44809 is the authority for the recreational exemption.

 

[MS Coast]

Posts #41 and 43 (above) include links to all the FAA guidance for law enforcement, FAA regulation, and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

Yes, I have those. I did a quick look for requirements for UAS operators to show documentation to law enforcement officers but didn't find any references to 44809 operators. You?

 

[SethB]

Yes, I have those. I did a quick look for requirements for UAS operators to show documentation to law enforcement officers but didn't find any references to 44809 operators. You?

It’s been an interesting bit of exploration…
Public Law No. 115-254 (10/05/2018), Title III, Subtitle B, SEC. 349, Sec. 44809 (a)(7) is the update for Sec. 44809 recreational exemption pilots.
The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and
safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of
test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law
enforcement upon request.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22PL+115-254%22%5D%7D&r=1

The FAA regulations guidance for that law for 44809 flyers is in AC-91-57C Section 2.2.7:

2.2.7 Section 44809(a)(7). “The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test ... and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.”

2.2.7.1 A list of FAA-approved test administrators for The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) is provided at https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flier s/knowledge_test_updates/.
2.2.7.2 The proof of test passage may be in any format (e.g., paper or electronic) so long as it is readily accessible, legible, and can be presented to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1041362

 

[kiley]

Depends on the person, if they approach you angrily, ignore, land, and walk away. If they talk respectfully, deal with the situation.

Good advice. If they appear angry, things could escalate resulting in assault on the drone pilot and perhaps the Karen. Not a situation we would want to get into. Best to land and leave. Find another place or go back later.

 

[mavic3usa]

Good advice. If they appear angry, things could escalate resulting in assault on the drone pilot and perhaps the Karen. Not a situation we would want to get into. Best to land and leave. Find another place or go back later.

Yep, I agree; I call that live to flight another day.