Charges dropped against Kentucky Man Who Shot Down Drone

[SHR970]

carguychris wrote: AFAIK there are no laws specifically against shooting at an aircraft.

The FAA has already made it clear that in their opinion 18 USC 32 says it is and have held that position since at least 2013 in regards to drones and has long held that as far as aircraft in general.

[JohnKSa]

This 2014 ruling seems to suggest that small drones may not be considered aircraft in the conventional sense.


http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...erDecision.pdf

1. Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition.

2. Model aircraft operation by Respondent was subject only to the FAA's requested voluntary compliance with, the Safety Guidelines stated in AC 91-57.

3. As Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel, they are not a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91 FAR enforcement authority on model aircraft operations.

4. Policy Notice 07-01 does not establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91, Section 91.13(a) enforcement on Respondent's model aircraft operation, as the Notice is either (a) as it states, a Policy Notice/Statement and hence non-binding, or (b) an invalid attempt of legislative rulemaking, which fails for non-compliance with the requirement of 5 U.S.C, Section. 553, Rulemaking.

5. Specifically, that at the time of Respondent's model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation, applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS.

[Boogershooter]

I'm a little late joining this conversation and I'm not going to debate legalities or others opinions. Just here to state my own opinion. If Russia, China, or any other country flies over our border we immediately react in a defensive manner if it was unannounced. I live on 88 acres with well marked property lines. Any man or man operated machine inside of these property lines can be considered trespassing. If I consider this a threat to my family in anyway I will act quickly and decisively. I'm from the deep south and I understand if some people from other parts of this great nation would act differently.

[ThesNazud]

Originally Posted by Boogershooter

I'm a little late joining this conversation and I'm not going to debate legalities or others opinions. Just here to state my own opinion. If Russia, China, or any other country flies over our border we immediately react in a defensive manner if it was unannounced. I live on 88 acres with well marked property lines. Any man or man operated machine inside of these property lines can be considered trespassing. If I consider this a threat to my family in anyway I will act quickly and decisively. I'm from the deep south and I understand if some people from other parts of this great nation would act differently.

That's actually a good way to look at this... IMHO

[Sevens]

I would say that is definitely not the WORST way to look at this however, for a slightly different angle of view... replace "Russia or China" with "Canada or Great Britain."

Not that this is all easy and clear (it isn't) but it's something to consider.

[Boogershooter]

Sevens, that definitely throws a kink in my post but I also view Canada or Great Britain as close allies. If one of my neighbors tells me hey I just bought my kid a drone for his/her birthday, I wouldn't feel alarmed the first time or two I saw it. If it was a constant thing than I phone call would surely handle the situation. If I don't know it's my friendly neighbors then of course my sense of alarm would be higher.

[Boogershooter]

I do expect to see timber companies and power companies take advantage of drones in the near future and of course they will become part of everyday life. Me and the neighbors may eventually use one to swap a cup of milk or a couple of eggs n the future but as a simple country boy I hope that day is further away than I think it will be.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by carguychris

AFAIK there are no laws specifically against shooting at an aircraft.

Well, now I know there is a law. Kewl.

I missed that because I was concentrating on the FAR/AIM.

Has the FAA issued any sort of advisory letter regarding 18 USC § 32?

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

This 2014 ruling seems to suggest that small drones may not be considered aircraft in the conventional sense.

It IS rather absurd to treat very small drones using the same standards as full-size aircraft. However, this gets into another unanswered question regarding where the line is drawn.

This ruling also predates the enactment of the official FAA sUAS operating rules, although those rules specifically preserve the Model Aircraft Operating Standards in AC 91-57A. Recreational pilots may still fly small drones under the Model Aircraft Operating Standards, but commercial pilots are supposed to follow Part 107 rules. However, I'd surmise that Part 107 operators are unlikely to create a nuisance for the general public because of the fact that pilots will hold FAA certificates, and are thereby easier for the FAA to discipline.

[KBP]

I read that Drones must be registered to fly in most cases. IMO. this means it is considered an aircraft(it flies)Lots of debate over how high is considered to be part of an owners property. You are looking at this wrong. Safety should be the PRIMARY factor. A drone crashing into your face could easily injury or kill you. I like to keep things simple. What is considered the minimum safe distance for AIRCRAFT to fly over private property(houses etc) This is already determined by the FAA. Drones are now considered aircraft. Unless the property owner has given written permission for the Drone operator to fly lower, this established distance should be enforced. This will simplify the question of "Was the Drone flying too low for safety or invading my privacy?"

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by KBP

You are looking at this wrong. Safety should be the PRIMARY factor.

Why is he looking at this "wrong"? What is your basis for stating that someone who is more concerned with his and his family's privacy than with the possibility of a drone crashing onto his roof is "wrong"?

Why must safety be the PRIMARY factor? That's the FAA's primary focus, and safety may be more important to you than your family's privacy, but other people may have priorities that differ from yours.

[5whiskey]

Why must safety be the PRIMARY factor? That's the FAA's primary focus, and safety may be more important to you than your family's privacy, but other people may have priorities that differ from yours.

Not to be too contrarian, but I would argue that safety should always be a primary factor when using a firearm. Even in a legit SD scenario, I have chosen not to engage because of what lay beyond my target. Even though I feel I would have been justified. I'm confident in my abilities, but confidence also includes discretion and judgement.

With that being said, chucking some #8 birdshot in the air at a drone invading your privacy (i.e., in #8 birdshot range) is not something I would consider unsafe. Unless there happens to be a skyscraper like 10 feet away with someone standing on the balcony. I've had birdshot rain down on me numerous times. It's not a great feeling, but it never so much as left a mark.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 5Whiskey

Not to be too contrarian, but I would argue that safety should always be a primary factor when using a firearm. Even in a legit SD scenario, I have chosen not to engage because of what lay beyond my target. Even though I feel I would have been justified. I'm confident in my abilities, but confidence also includes discretion and judgement.

In the context of the post to which I responded, safety was not related to shooting at a drone but to the safety of flying a drone over someone else's property, and whether or not the FAA has jurisdiction over same.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by KBP

What is considered the minimum safe distance for AIRCRAFT to fly over private property(houses etc) This is already determined by the FAA.

I discussed this issue piecemeal earlier in the thread.

14 CFR (FAR/AIM) § 91.119 establishes minimum altitudes for conventional manned aircraft. For fixed-wing airplanes, balloons, and airships (i.e. "blimps"), it's 500' AGL or 500' clear of persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures in "other than congested areas," and higher in other areas; takeoff, landing, and in-flight emergencies are exempt. However, for helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft, there is NO minimum altitude provided that "the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."

However, 14 CFR (FAR/AIM) § 107.51 prescribes operating rules for small drones; it does NOT prescribe any minimum altitudes, and in fact prescribes a MAXIMUM altitude of less than 500' (my emphasis in boldface):

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.

[Subsequent sections discussing flight visibility and cloud clearance limitations omitted]

Additionally, this ONLY applies IF the small drone is being operated under Part 107. A drone flown "strictly for hobby or recreational purposes" may be flown under AC 91-57A (see my last post) and the Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, and the FAA's statutory to enforce § 91.119 with regards to model aircraft is unclear, as discussed in JohnKSa's last post.

Originally Posted by KBP

Drones are now considered aircraft.

This is not necessarily true if they're MODEL aircraft.

The Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft briefly discusses the minimum-altitude issue:

...the FAA regulates low-altitude operations to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” Id. Therefore, although such low-altitude operations may pose a lower risk to aircraft flying much higher, the operation may still pose a risk to persons and property on the ground warranting enforcement action when conducted unsafely. See, e.g., Adm’r v. Kachalsky, NTSB Order No. EA-4847, 2000 WL 1072332 (July 24, 2000) (affirming a violation of § 91.119(c) for operating within 500 feet of a dwelling in a sparsely populated area); Adm’r v. Beissel, NTSB Docket No. SE-19436, 2013 WL 7809754 (Dec. 11, 2014) (ordering suspension of a pilot certificate when pilot flew a helicopter less than 40 feet above the surface of a lake).

Reading the broad reference to the NAS, along with Congress’ clear interest in ensuring that model aircraft are safely operated, we conclude that Congress intended for the FAA to be able to rely on a range of our existing regulations to protect users of the airspace and people and property on the ground. Therefore, regardless of whether a model aircraft satisfies the statutory definition and operational requirements described above, if the model aircraft is operated in such a manner that endangers the safety of the NAS, the FAA may take enforcement action consistent with Congress’ mandate.

In a nutshell: "We BELIEVE we can enforce § 91.119 against model aircraft for safety reasons, even though Congress really doesn't make this clear."

However, this ploy didn't work when they tried it in 2013-2014 against Raphael Pirker (the court case linked by JohnKSa).

And once again, the FAA is dancing around the property-rights issue, as they assert this authority in order to "...protect... people and property on the ground..," in keeping with their well-established statutory authority to protect the safety of the general public. The document never discusses trespass.

[carguychris]

Just to add more fuel to the fire, the Oklahoma state legislature has proposed 3 bills that basically endorse the shooting down of drones. Here is a link to a discussion on the Academy of Model Aeronautics blog, with links to the bills' texts.

[JimPage]

I cosnsider protecting my family's privacy as a safety issue. Who knows why someone is spying on me and my family. Perverts, robbers, assassins, etc.

[Itsa Bughunt]

I used to fly model helicopters, one of them being a 600 class TRex that could inflict considerable harm. There have been fatalities. The rules were that these should never be flown anywhere near people, and preferably at a designated flying field. I don't see why similar rules should not be applied to drones, whether recreational or commercial.

[jdc1244]

I cosnsider protecting my family's privacy as a safety issue.

Whatever one’s subjective perception of privacy and safety might be, it doesn’t justify attempts to safeguard that privacy or safety with reckless, irresponsible, and potentially criminal acts such as shooting at drones.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Itsa Bughunt

I used to fly model helicopters, one of them being a 600 class TRex that could inflict considerable harm. There have been fatalities. The rules were that these should never be flown anywhere near people, and preferably at a designated flying field. I don't see why similar rules should not be applied to drones, whether recreational or commercial.

If the drone is being flown under the model aircraft rules, wouldn't that already be the case?

[Itsa Bughunt]

Drones are being predicted to be used for all sorts of purposes from delivery to surveillance. Hobby rules aren't law, and stuff happens.

[44 AMP]

To stir the pot just a bit, I saw an article where some bright fellow mounted a 9mm pistol on a drone. SO, drones CAN BE ARMED!!!!

Don't you feel safe now!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Itsa Bughunt

Drones are being predicted to be used for all sorts of purposes from delivery to surveillance. Hobby rules aren't law, and stuff happens.

You mentioned the model aircraft rules, I didn't.

See post #63 by CarGuyChris. If they aren't flying under the model aircraft rules, then they're under the other rule.

[carguychris]

^^^ One of the underlying complications is that "model aircraft" effectively operate in a deliberately constructed regulatory void in which the applicability and enforceability of standard aircraft operating rules isn't clear. I say "deliberately" because the Academy of Model Aeronautics—the NRA of the model aviation world —and some other hobby groups have worked hard over the years to keep it that way, in return for enforcing voluntary operating rules themselves. They don't want the model aircraft hobby to be stifled by the regulatory structure that has (IMHO) stifled inexpensive general aviation over the last 50+ years.

Basically, the AMA has promised that its flyers will play nice, and in return, the FAA (and Congress) have left them largely unencumbered by the FAR/AIM, aircraft registration requirements, airworthiness certificates, annual inspections, and so forth.

The problem is that the proliferation of inexpensive, easy-to-fly "RTF" (industry jargon for "Ready To Fly") drones has totally changed the calculation. No longer do hobbyists need to network and learn from other more experienced hobbyists in order to avoid totally destroying their expensive labor of love within 15 seconds of takeoff. This has reduced the influence of the AMA and their voluntary operating rules, and we've seen that some new hobbyist drone owners feel no compulsion to "play nice."

This is not only a privacy issue; as I discussed earlier, IMHO it's only a matter of time before one of these drones gets sucked into the engine of an Airbus, or worse.

Also as previously discussed, this sort of thing is likely to prompt states to step in and test the limits of federal airspace preemption with regards to "model aircraft." It's gonna wind up in the federal courts.

I think it's time for me to stop writing on this topic. I'll just say in summary that IMHO the basic answer to the original question – Is it legal to shoot down a trespassing drone? — is that IT'S UNCLEAR. Whether it's prudent or safe to do so is another matter. I'd advise that it's better to be safe than sorry.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Less than lethal drone ammo for Armed Forces:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...i-drone-amtac/

Drones with grenades with badminton like grenades from Iraq

Just a matter of time until someone makes an exploding drone here for a terrorist attack.

[porkchopper]

I'm a professional photographer who often does aerial photography jobs from a helicopter and, less often, uses a drone.

In order to obtain the composition that the client needs, say for example, showing a business in relation to the property surrounding it—giving the shot context, I may need to fly some distance away from the actual subject I'm shooting.

Just because I'm in a helicopter, with a camera, hovering over your house, doesn't mean that I'm taking photos of you or your property.

[2ndsojourn]

^^^ porkchopper,

Everyone has privacy rights. Hovering a noisy helicopter over someone's property at an intrusive height will be construed by most as an invasion of privacy. Even though in your mind your intentions aren't bad. If you're going to do that over my house, I'd appreciate advance notice, as would most everyone else. The same goes for drones, which is the topic of this thread.