Charges dropped against Kentucky Man Who Shot Down Drone
- Thread starter dakota.potts
- Start date
Here is where things get sticky with US law / Regulation and the tortoise nature of our Elected Officials and the Bureaucrats.
Drones: Most people think in terms of .MIL AIRCRAFT and so does the FAA. In reality we are mostly talking about Consumer R.C. Aircraft.
Jammers: Here we are talking about F.C.C. regulations as well as Internationally agreed upon Spectrum Management.
Shoot at a drone you may well be considered to be shooting at an AIRCRAFT. Think shooting at a Cessna.
Jam a drone and you may well be violating FCC / International regulations.
Jamming a drone is problematic even for the Aerospace Community due to FCC. They have the means, but FCC denies them the ability.
My gut feel is that you're probably better off shooting them down then running a jammer. Discharge of a firearm in city limits is a relatively minor charge/offense/penalty compared to running afoul of the FCC.
I'm not claiming to have done any study on the topic, but at the same time I'm not aware of any legislation or rulings equating RC planes or commercially available drones of the type under discussion on this thread with more conventional aircraft. I'd be interested to see anything along those lines to get a feel for how they read.
Honestly, if you had access to an "instant-on" jammer that could disrupt a drone... how on Earth would you -ever- get caught by the FCC or anyone?!
You would have to broadcast your signal often and for drawn out periods of time to even garner any attention in the first place and only after someone at the FCC even believes someone has broadcasted a jamming signal could they even travel nearby you to attempt to localize the source.
A GUNSHOT is a better idea?!?!
In any case, I know what my first attempt would be... IZH-46. This thing is ridiculous!
You would have to broadcast your signal often and for drawn out periods of time to even garner any attention in the first place and only after someone at the FCC even believes someone has broadcasted a jamming signal could they even travel nearby you to attempt to localize the source.
A GUNSHOT is a better idea?!?!
In any case, I know what my first attempt would be... IZH-46. This thing is ridiculous!
carguychris
New member
AFAIK there are no laws specifically against shooting at an aircraft. That being understood, consider that in the past, if you shot at an aircraft, you were generally also shooting at a PERSON inside the aircraft, or directly and gravely endangering that person by potentially disabling critical aircraft systems. In a populated area, a potential crash would also seriously endanger people on the ground. Hence, laws against aggravated assault, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and so forth were adequate to ensure prosecution of an offender.SHR970 said:
Case in point: http://www.startribune.com/rural-mi...licopter-now-faces-federal-charges/389798121/
Again, the ballgame changes when it's a 2 lb drone with electric motors rather than a 1,200+ lb aircraft with a pilot, a gasoline engine, fuel tanks with gasoline in them, and a rapidly spinning propeller or rotors.
Last edited:
Let's see, a drone not hovering but mearly flying over his property and he had time to go inside, open his gun safe, choose the appropriate weapon, go to his ammo storage vault, retrieve some #8 shotgun shells, load the shotgun and go outside and shoot down a high flying drone with miraculous shot.
He must be a great shot and it must have been a really s l o w moving drone to be able to do that. I'd guestimate it probably was almost "standing still"...
Yup, I'm assuming and commenting on a bunch of facts but no more than anyone else on here that hasn't seen\heard the evidence presented in the case.
I fly drones. I know others that do also and there's a bunch of them with the attitude that they can do what they want and there's little or nothing you can do about it.
They might get the hint if a few more were removed from the sky.
Just my opinion
He must be a great shot and it must have been a really s l o w moving drone to be able to do that. I'd guestimate it probably was almost "standing still"...
Yup, I'm assuming and commenting on a bunch of facts but no more than anyone else on here that hasn't seen\heard the evidence presented in the case.
I fly drones. I know others that do also and there's a bunch of them with the attitude that they can do what they want and there's little or nothing you can do about it.
They might get the hint if a few more were removed from the sky.
Just my opinion
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm talking about the difference in penalties if you do get caught.
Again, I'm talking about the relative penalties of two illegal activities.
One could also attempt to choose a "winner" by trying to guess the chances of being caught instead of focusing on the penalty.
All I'm saying is that if you are going to break the law, you're probably better off ending up in trouble with a municipality vs. in trouble with a federal agency.
Just in case it's not clear, I'm certainly not advocating that anyone take either action.
This 2014 ruling seems to suggest that small drones may not be considered aircraft in the conventional sense.
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.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.
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
New member
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.
Boogershooter
New member
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
New member
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
New member
Well, now I know there is a law. Kewl.carguychris said:
I missed that because I was concentrating on the FAR/AIM.
Has the FAA issued any sort of advisory letter regarding 18 USC § 32?
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.JohnKSa said:
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.
Drone clearance
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?"
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
Staff
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"?KBP said:
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.