For the First Time Ever, the FAA Is Trying To Fine a Drone Hobbyist

Jason Koebler writes: "For the first time ever, the Federal Aviation Administration is trying to fine a hobby drone operator, a development that threatens to throw the whole hobby into disarray if the agency successfully levies the fine. While the FAA has explicitly said it doesn't want anyone flying drones commercially, it has never issued similar suggestions about hobby flight, which is why it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado, but illegal, in the FAA's eyes, for a journalist to do the same. That has changed, according to the agency. A spokesperson for the FAA told me that the agency 'has proposed a civil penalty against an individual in New York City. The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person (video).'"

Comments

Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

There is quite a lot of difference between fining someone for behaving in a way that puts other people in danger and fining someone for operating a drone.

The only problem I have with this is that FAA is involved.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. If he violated any restricted airspace, bring in the FAA. A few dented buildings, a frightened bystander, and a broken drone? Call the cops and haul him away for reckless endangerment and destruction of property. Make him pay for being an idiot that way.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[jandrese]

Who else would be involved? This is the FAA's jurisdiction. I agree that this is a non-story as well. If you're recklessly operating an aircraft and might be putting people in danger, then yes, that should be against the law and a fine is quite appropriate.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This. The FAA should be concerned with intrusion into air lanes and restricted airspace, not some ass crashing it onto a bicyclist. The BATF generally does not concern itself with people misusing guns in general as that is a local police issue.

In any case, are the Regulation-4-Everything Yes!!! types starting to see an issue with agencies adopting new memes to self-authorize control in new areas, outside normal political channels, which is to say, channels directly responsive to the voter?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[tlhIngan]

I agree. If he violated any restricted airspace, bring in the FAA. A few dented buildings, a frightened bystander, and a broken drone? Call the cops and haul him away for reckless endangerment and destruction of property. Make him pay for being an idiot that way.

Technically, the airspace IS restricted - by FAA rules. Typically you're not allowed to fly anything below 1000' AGL in a populated area. And a city is definitely a populated area.

There's a reason the light RC aircraft you see sold in stores are marketed as "Park Flyers" - you may not need to fly them at an RC park, but you should be flying them in a less populated park.

Granted, the FAA is unlikely to prosecute hobbyists that don't endanger lives or property (they could, mind you, but probably won't), but be an idiot and they can come down.

In fact, hobbyists often have unofficial governing bodies for that reason - while every one participating doesn't have to be "licensed" by the body, the body exists to help keep the sport in good reputation by creating processes, procedures and regulations to ensure they can coexist with others who may not share the same love of the sport. And yes, they may also try to restrict people's ability to fly "complex" RC vehicles until they've shown the skill to do so (again, it's all voluntary).

RC hobbyists aren't dumb, they know it only takes a couple of idiots to screw them over, which is why they subject themselves to voluntary regulation. It's also a lot easier to do advocacy when you can prove you're on the up and up, and disavow anyone who flouts the rules.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[dywolf]

We've had this exact conversation already two months ago.
The FAA regulates ALL US airspace, and ALL flying machines.
It really is that simple.

Reposting my post from http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:

-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.

-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.

-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas

-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)

-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.

http://www.faa.gov/news/update...

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[dywolf]

We already covered ALL this ground 2 months ago in http://news.slashdot.org/story...

It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[koan]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration’s only fine against a commercial drone user on the grounds that the small drone was no different than a model aircraft, a decision that appears to undermine the agency’s power to keep a burgeoning civilian drone industry out of the skies.

Patrick Geraghty, a National Transportation Safety Board administrative law judge, said in his order dismissing the $10,000 fine that the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Em Adespoton]

OK: so that means they're the ones who control http://www.poweruptoys.com/ paper airplanes, as well as gliders, parachutes, kites and flying squirrels.

But then, the FAA is responsible for tall buildings as well (buildings that penetrate US Airspace unduly) and other tall structures -- they mandate blinking lights and radio beacons so that pilots can avoid the obstacles.

Basically, they're in charge of ensuring that objects don't run into each other in an unsafe manner. This looks like a case of someone flying into something in an unsafe manner. Flying within a certain distance (height or horizon) of a heavily populated area is also their ballpark. Anything flying indoors is not.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[BitZtream]

No, you call the FAA.

FAA regulations require ALL aircraft, Radio controlled, ultralight or Commercial airliner to observe safety protocols.

By flying within 20 feet of people he's ALREADY breaking FAA regulations. Flying in NYC limits is almost certainly a violation as well as there just aren't that many places where you can be the required 500 feet away from a building other than central park.

The police have reason to be involved as well, but it most certainly is also an FAA matter.

The police don't police the sky, the FAA does. You don't call the cops when on water either in most cases, its a wildlife officer or coast guard issue depending on the body of water. Police DO get involved in both cases as typically what happens in the sky or on the water has implications on the ground near by as well.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Em Adespoton]

This does raise a question though: if you commit a crime while in the air over New York, that's not NYPD jurisdiction -- it's federal jurisdiction and handled by the FAA. But the FAA doesn't have policing powers; they can only levy a fine. So does that mean if someone robs me while I'm in a helicopter over NYC, the FBI get involved?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

So are they going to start restricting the path of bullets?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Albanach]

Probably because the FAA has much much more experience of the applicable laws, and experts that are better capable of describing the actual endangerment incurred. Otherwise some NYPD cop has to spend days reading about drones before appearing in court.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

Who else would be involved? This is the FAA's jurisdiction.

No, there is no reason for FAA to be involved.

Who would deal with it if it was a RC-car instead of a drone? Or if someone threw basketballs into oncoming traffic?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

I don't really see how the FAA has the authority to do anything if he does not operate across state lines.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

I'm sure there's some Supreme Court precedent for this, but what gives the FAA the power to regulate all airspace? Particularly, flights that don't involve interstate travel.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[msauve]

Technically, the FAA has no jurisdiction. It's not a matter of Interstate Commerce.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Mullen]

Technically, the sky does cross state lines.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

I don't really see how the FAA has the authority to do anything if he does not operate across state lines.

Because the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) make no distinction between flights that cross state lines and ones that don't.

Wouldn't that be a wonderful situation to have: to be flying an aircraft that can cross city/county/state boundaries faster than you can count them (and not always obvious that you have crossed such a boundary), subject to a different set of city/county/state regulations for each place you're in? Conflicting/contradictory regulations based on knee-jerk nutcase reactions (like the Deer Park Colorado "hunting license" for drones) and fear-mongering, exacerbated by small-town politics and petty fiefdoms.

Sure. Kill the entire aviation industry by replacing federal regulation with local. Have at least fifty different sets of requirements for a pilot's license. If you want to cross a state line, you better have a pilot's license from that state, too.

Keep in mind, those flights that don't cross state lines have to use the same airspace as those that do. Do you really want a situation where a long-distance airline pilot has to keep track of which rules apply to those other aircraft based on which state he happens to be in, and whether the other flights are also crossing state lines or not? What a wonderful thought process it would require. "Gee, I'm in Colorado right now, and their rules say that pilots can fly in the clouds without an IFR clearance or communicating with ATC, they're requiring Mode C transponders by 2023, so I can't expect any useful separation services from ATC here." (Oh, and the ATC center controllers -- they have to issue different instructions to different pilots because some of their flights are in certain states or over certain counties ... what a mess that would make. And managing the training they'd have to take to qualify to cover different states with different rules...)

No, sir, there are good and well established reasons for federal preemption of airspace regulations, and that means that drones are part of that system.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

Technically it does. But the FAA is trying to regulate drone operators, not the sky.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

Basically, your answer boils down the the FAA has the authority to regulate intrastate airspace, because they do! What gives them the authority and constitutional power? Has it ever been tested in court?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

Basically, your answer boils down the the FAA has the authority to regulate intrastate airspace, because they do!

One paragraph out of the entire posting says "the rules say they do", the rest giving excellent reasons why they do, and you boil it all down to that. Why bother asking of you're going to ignore the answers?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[slomike1]

Based on this logic it would be fine for anyone to jump in a plane with no training and start flying, as long as they don't fly across state lines.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[ZombieBraintrust]

It is a matter of interstate commerce. Lots of flights cross state lines. Your flying your aircraft in airspace shared with interstate flights. Or your flying your aircraft near interstate roads. Or your flying your aircraft near an airport. Now flying your aircraft of local roads might be out of faa range.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Jane Q. Public]

It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.

Sounds like more "settled science" BS.

From the earliest days of Common Law, up to and including the present, landowners control the airspace above their property.

The FAA has lawful authority only over interstate and international flights. It might claim authority over more than that, but that doesn't mean that authority actually, legally and Constitutionally, exists.

This judge understands that. Apparently you do not.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[ZombieBraintrust]

Technically they are restricted in what they control by the US Constition. The FAA is concerned with commercial activity because they get their power from the interstate commerce clause. Flying away from roads, airports and interstate airways is mostly regulated by state laws. Your local state probably requires you to be licenses with the faa. Because you local state doesn't want to regulate it.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

You gave reasons why they should, many of them valid and reasonable, but you did not say what gave them the power. I did not ignore your answers, you avoided the question. I can give you lots of reasons why the federal government should regulate speech, but I cannot tell you why they have the power to do so, because they don't.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[ZombieBraintrust]

The word Federal is more important than the word Aviation. Federal agencies are only supposed to get involved in interstate or national security related issues. A local issue should be handled by local police. If they hit a federal building, or flew over a interstate road, or flew near an airport then thats Federal. Since this is New York the plane likely did two of those things. In any city in America your likely a few miles from an airport. Fly any distance you likely fly over an interstate road.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[jandrese]

RC Cars and Basketballs are not aircraft.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[bberens]

By flying within 20 feet of people he's ALREADY breaking FAA regulations.

That's troubling since every person that has ever flown a quadra-copter would be in violation of that one.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Jane Q. Public]

So are they going to start restricting the path of bullets?

It's just real easy for people to say "The Federal government has control over everything." That way they don't have to think.

And it helps the cause of those who don't want YOU to think, either.

That doesn't make it true, though.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[msauve]

Flying between buildings in NYC is "airspace shared with interstate flights?" Uh, OK.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

Interesting point.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

One quibble. They have the power to do so, just not the authority.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

No. Based on that logic, it would not be breaking any federal laws which are supposed to be restricted by the constitution.

I'm not completely sure where I stand on the issue but as someone who believes in a restricted federal government, it's food for thought.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

True. But you need to take that somewhere.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

That's an interesting point. I would quibble further and say they have the ability to do so, but not the power or authority.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[JJJJust]

A state retains concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed contrary to state law in that state, even within the "special aircraft jurisdiction". Also, not all criminal offenses committed on an aircraft within the "special aircraft jurisdiction" can be prosecuted as a federal offense.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Em Adespoton]

Technically they are restricted in what they control by the US Constition.

Which part? The constitution has a lot to say about land, but not much to say about airspace from what I've read, other than in how it relates to land or personal freedom.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[vux984]

Flying between buildings in NYC is "airspace shared with interstate flights?" Uh, OK.

So full size manned helicopters flying from building to building in New York are exempt from FAA oversight?

Uh. OK.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[viperidaenz]

From the earliest days of Common Law, up to and including the present, landowners control the airspace above their property. >quote>That just meant they could cut the strings on peoples kites that flew over their property. Times have changed.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

You gave reasons why they should, many of them valid and reasonable, but you did not say what gave them the power.

You're right. Nowhere in the constitution did the founders of the US write the words "Congress shall have authority to regulate national airspace". We should ignore the fact that when the Constitution was written there was no concept of "airspace" or "aviation" to be regulated. We should ignore the fact that a large part of aviation is interstate and was driven explicitely for the purposes of interstate commerce (carrying the mail). We should forget that early barnstormers who brought "local" aviation to the local masses traveled from state to state while doing so -- even Orville and Wilbur traveled from Ohio to North Carolina to test their flier. We should ignore the fact that mixing regulated interstate aviation with unregulated local aviation would be a disaster (for the many reasons I've already given). Yes, let's ignore "equal protection" and the inherent interstate nature of much of aviation and difficulty in isolating inter from intra state aviation, and the fact that both inter and intra state aviation use the exact same airspace.

Prove to me that the FAA really has no authority, and that you yourself believe your claim. Go buy yourself an airplane and start flying from your local airport -- but don't bow to the fascist federal aviation pigs and bother getting a license. You don't need one because clearly the FAA has no authority to regulate your totally intrastate activity, and your state has no regulations on the matter! If you don't happen to live in a state with a Class B airport move to one that does (but don't FLY there) and start flying in the controlled airspace surrounding that airport without a transponder or communicating with the ATC facility that controls it. I'd suggest, just to make sure you get the biggest bang for your buck (so to speak) you select Illinois (Orchard Airport, now called O'Hare), Georgia (Atlanta), or maybe California (takes your pick between LAX and SFO). When the fascists at the FAA start enforcement action based on your complete lack of regard for federal aviation regulations, take them to SCOTUS and argue that they have no authority to put their jackboots on your throat.

Pretty much everyone accepts that federal preemption of state regulatory authority on aviation and airspace issues is a good thing, but hey, maybe you'll convince them they are wrong. I mean, were your argument valid, I'm POSITIVE someone would have tried using it before. Pilots get dinged for violating FARs for local flights and at least one of them would have gotten off the hook (and then all of them would do it), were it true.

This discussion is stupid. The FAA regulates the airspace and users of same under consent and guidance of the Congress, President, and US courts, and arguing that they don't have the authority because you want to fly your toy airplanes in that airspace without regulation or consideration for other users is a waste of everyone's time.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

Hey, don't get testy. I'm just saying the constitution grants some very specific powers to the federal government. The most relevant is that it has the power to regulate interstate commerce. I'm still trying to understand what gives the FAA the authority. You still have not presented that item, and you actually seem to be arguing that we should ignore the constitution. We've been doing a lot of ignoring the constitution lately, and I don't think it's been working out very well for us. I'm going to assume, because you created an exact language strawman, required me to prove a negative when in fact the default condition is that the State has no power unless it is granted, that you either don't know what gives them the authority, or that possibly they don't even have the authority. The ends do not justify the means. The 10th amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Maybe the solution lies therein?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

No. Based on that logic, it would not be breaking any federal laws which are supposed to be restricted by the constitution.

No. Based on that logic, since there are no state laws prohibiting it, it would be perfectly fine to jump into an airplane and start flying around the local airport without any license at all.

Here's a good starting point for a demonstration of your legal philosophy. Take an airplane from someplace in SoCal and fly into LAX. Land on whichever runway you want. Taxi around for awhile, then pick a runway and depart. Ignore the FAA ATC controllers because we all know they have no authority to control anything but interstate aviation and you are clearly and obviously inTRAstate. There are no state controllers at LAX so there's nobody who has authority to tell you to stop. The Center controllers who will be watching you on their radars are all FAA ATC controllers, so they, too, have no authority to tell you you can't fly around what they mistakenly believe is their airspace.

And if you want a real thrill, get down to about 500' AGL and fly around downtown LA. The view will be spectacular. Get lower and you can actually look UP at people in the high rise buildings as you zip by. Those F15s or F16s that come up on your wingtips are FEDERAL aircraft and obviously have no authority to intercept you, so ignore them.

As a pilot, I am perfectly happy to have NATIONAL regulations concerning flight activities because it means I don't have to memorize fifty (or more) different sets of rules for what I can and cannot do in an airplane, or what OTHER people can and cannot do. Not so much because I want to limit their fun, but because I would really not want to find out that the neighboring state has no rules regarding flight in IMC (in the clouds, e.g.) and one of their pilots has wandered into my state where I'm flying in the clouds legally and expect ATC to provide separation services. And I even would not want to be flying into an airport in some other state and find out the hard way that the state rules there for airspace allow people to fly fifty pound drones in the approach corridor to that airport and that one is doing so while I'm using it.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[kwbauer]

And that is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to warrants being necessary to search a safe deposit box or storage rental but not for searching dropbox or for intercepting and reading snail mail or eavesdropping on phone conversation but not fro reading emails.

The world would be a far better place if we weren't so quick to jump out with "it is new so the old law no longer applies."

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

I'm just saying the constitution grants some very specific powers to the federal government. The most relevant is that it has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

If you think the ICC is a "very specific power", well, I can't fix that problem. If you want to discount the existing interstate commerce nature of commercial aviation, I can't fix that problem either. And if you want to ignore all the issues that make different regulations for inter and intra state operations a complete and horrible mess, I can't fix that.

We've been doing a lot of ignoring the constitution lately, and I don't think it's been working out very well for us.

I think the existing federal regulatory system for aviation fits very well in the constitutional framework and has done very well for us. I'm a pilot. I use it. Do you have any experience in using the system or are you just an observer with opinions?

The 10th amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Maybe the solution lies therein?

So you truly have ignored everything I've said about the difficulty of trying to regulate a national airspace at the state level. I can't fix that, I can only write off the wasted time.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[viperidaenz]

Yeah, people would be shooting down commercial airlines that fly over their property.
Or blinding the pilots with laser pointers.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

We are talking about private drones and rc airplanes, not commercial aviation. I come from a family of pilots, and have flown quite a bit in small aircraft, but I am not a pilot. We are not talking about mixing traffic, we are talking about traffic that is inherently separate. I have not ignored anything you have said. My point is that the case has not been made that small drone traffic infringes on national airspace or involves interstate commerce. In my mind you have not sufficiently made the argument that it does, and that the FAA has the power to regulate it. And so far it would appear that at least one judge agrees. Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[kwbauer]

"as someone who believes in a restricted federal government" that right there is your first mistake. It seems that most in these parts have dismissed you as some sort of certifiably insane whack-job based on that statement alone. My impression of the populace here is that the Federal Government has absolute authority to do anything it wants and must control every aspect of our lives and anything less is complete anarchy. Right up until they do so in relationship to a computer or computerized communications, then they have absolutely no authority to even know that such things exist. Except for they are supposed to be regulating the transmission of such data to force all carriers to not differentiate transit times based on the contents of such data. It gets a bit confusing as to when we have to much government and when we have to little. We should probably form a government agency tasked with deciding what the appropriate level of regulation is and another agency to convince us that they are correct.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Jane Q. Public]

Was there powered human flight "from the earliest days of common law"? The willful obtuseness of libertarians/property "rights" zealots....

I'm tempted to laugh, but instead I'll just say: look it up. I first learned about it in a law class in college.

I'm wondering how believing what is in a legal textbook is "obtuse".

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Jane Q. Public]

Yeah, people would be shooting down commercial airlines that fly over their property.
Or blinding the pilots with laser pointers.

How does that follow? As was mentioned before, the FAA does have authority over interstate flights (which is probably most of them). Why would you want to violate Federal law? Or harm a pilot?

Technically, a landowner has a legal right to declare the airspace above his property airplane-free, or else you're trespassing. EXCEPT for international and interstate flights. As a practical matter, this would probably require filling out State forms.

In my state, the law says in general you can't fly something over someone else's property without permission. Where's the problem with that?

Are you trying to say that it should be okay for me to hover my drone a foot outside your window without your permission?

Where would you draw the line, other than where it has already been legally drawn?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

We are talking about private drones and rc airplanes, not commercial aviation.

And the FAA regulates general aviation along with other commercial aviation, and has for decades, and for exactly the same reasons already covered.

We are not talking about mixing traffic, we are talking about traffic that is inherently separate.

That is patently absurd. The argument that the FAA has no authority to regulate aviation that isn't interstate in nature implies an ability to differentiate that traffic, and it is NOT INHERENTLY SEPARATE. When I go flying around the pattern I'm using the same airspace used by someone who is arriving from or going to an airport in another state. ATC has no way to differentiate between traffic that is inter and intra state. That aircraft they see departing the local airport may be staying local, or it may be going somewhere in state, or it may be going two states away. They don't know.

My point is that the case has not been made that small drone traffic infringes on national airspace or involves interstate commerce.

It uses the same airspace. You keep ignoring that point. And here's another point: licensing has to deal with the things that the licensee is authorized to do, not just with the subset of things he's actually going to do. I have federal licenses that permit me to do things I never intend on doing, so the rules have to cover those things, too.

Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.

And who is creating straw men?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

That is patently absurd. The argument that the FAA has no authority to regulate aviation that isn't interstate in nature implies an ability to differentiate that traffic, and it is NOT INHERENTLY SEPARATE. When I go flying around the pattern I'm using the same airspace used by someone who is arriving from or going to an airport in another state. ATC has no way to differentiate between traffic that is inter and intra state. That aircraft they see departing the local airport may be staying local, or it may be going somewhere in state, or it may be going two states away. They don't know.

The FAA regulates space around airports, because it is interstate. The FAA does not have authority to regulate airspace that is not interstate, like 300' above my backyard. It is ridiculous to claim they use the same airspace. How many times when you are flying have you had to compete with airspace with RC airplanes?

Either the FAA is going to have to start regulating RC airplanes, which is preposterous, or they are going to have to leave drones alone.

And who is creating straw men?

Not I, because a judge found the same thing. I'm sorry but the caselaw is in agreement with me. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Rich0]

We've had this exact conversation already two months ago.
The FAA regulates ALL US airspace, and ALL flying machines.
It really is that simple.

The FAA has jurisdiction to regulate these things, but to date I'm not aware of them passing any regulations that impact drones. Thus, officially the FAA has no problems with people flying drones anywhere.

If you disagree, please cite the relevant law or regulation. I don't care about press releases, advisory circulars, or anything that isn't in the US Code or the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the sum total of the Federal rules people need to follow in the US.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Rich0]

Technically, the airspace IS restricted - by FAA rules. Typically you're not allowed to fly anything below 1000' AGL in a populated area. And a city is definitely a populated area.

Please cite the rule, including the part of the rule that indicates that it pertains to drones. Note that AC's are not regulations, and are not legally binding unless incorporated by reference into a regulation.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[fuzznutz]

So you truly have ignored everything I've said about the difficulty of trying to regulate a national airspace at the state level. I can't fix that, I can only write off the wasted time.

Herein lies GP's exact argument in a nutshell. "Because it's easier" is not a justification of legal authority. That is the same reason why we are left fighting warrantless searches and seizures.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[fuzznutz]

No. Based on that logic, since there are no state laws prohibiting it [...]

There are no laws prohibiting it precisely because the FAA has taken it upon themselves to regulate ANYTHING in the airspace from the ground up. Had they not, there would be state laws. Do any states allow a free-for-all on local roads?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[fuzznutz]

Perhaps the NTSB then? The point being that this is an overreach of power by an overzealous agency. There seems to be a lot of that these days.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Xicor]

"violated air traffic rules as well". seems like he went into restricted air space to me

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

Congress wrote the legislation creating the FAA and the president signed it. It's federal law and federal law preempts state law. This has come up numerous times with respect to local banner towing ordinances, and every now and then some local nutjob judge asserts the town/county's police power as applying to planes towing banners. Always, and quickly, they properly get sense slapped back into them by a more competent higher judicial authority.

The real question is to what degree is a drone an aircraft, vs a toy like a model airplane or a kite. If it's the former, the FAA will regulate it. If it's the latter, they won't. Since Congress has already said the FAA needs to come up with rules for commercial use of drones, it seems pretty clear they're going to have some authority over drones, possibly something along the lines of how it regulates ultralight aircraft already.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

The FAA has authority over all "flights" inter- and intrastate. Flights being by ultralight, glider, airplane, rotorcraft, lighter than air and several others that do not include kites and model airplanes. If you want to pilot a hot air balloon from your yard to your neighbors yard you have a pile of FAA regulations to adhere to starting with medical certification. The pilot certification is exclusively the domain of the FAA, there is no state that issues pilot certificates.

If your state says airplanes can't fly over someone's property without permission, it's void. It's no different than the concept of mineral rights which you do not automatically own either, just because you own surface rights. Imagine how impossible it would be for pilots to get the permission of land owners to overfly their property. This is the regulation that applies to property overflights. A flight in a sparsely populated area can't operate closer than 500 feet to a person or property.

A drone outside your window is a nuisance, so at least police power should surely apply to that.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

Congress. Everything related to flying (one or more persons inside an aircraft) is regulated by the FAA. It isn't just the airspace, it also has sole power to certify pilots.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

"Powers not reserved... "?

Easiest zing ever.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

As a pilot, you suck. and your mother wears army boots. See how that works?

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

Ok replace the FAA with congress or the federal government in general.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Richy_T]

True enough. I actually don't really oppose the FAA and think they are probably one of the few forces for good (on average) in the US government. I just have questions about the way their authority is constituted. It would be fairly easy to flip them over to a properly legal authority with very little change. For me, it's very much a "choose your battles" scenario.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

FAA has no jurisdiction over small commercial drones, judge rules A few things are problematic. One is the FAA's idea that a "model aircraft" and "drone" are the same thing, except the former is private use and the latter is commercial use. I think that's absurd. They should distinguish based on their momentum (mass times speed) because that's how people get hurt. The things that won't hurt people should operate only below 1000' AGL, and the things that do hurt people should operate only above 1000' AGL except when taking off or landing. The other thing it ought to be based on is how autonomous it is. If it's always operated within direct visual range of a human, by remote control, then at least historically that's a model aircraft. And if it's something that can accept a program to fly somewhere (warehouse in Queens to a landing pad on top of a building in lower Manhattan) then that's a drone. And I don't see why a private flight vs a commercial flight would differ when it comes to the categorization of the aircraft. Commercial operations, however, just like in pilot certification, should require more experience and training on the part of the operator. So the FAA is probably going to have to certify operators for at least commercial drone flight operations.

The reality is, the number of stupid people with more money than sense is what's going to dictate the amount of regulation

Anyway, the judge merely rejected the FAA's claims because the FAA has no regulations for model airplanes or drones. Not because they don't have the authority to create such regulation.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

Yes it has been tested in many state courts. In a handful of cases it ends up going to the state supreme court, like this one, where they basically get irritated that lower court judges don't understand federal preemption.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

Flight is a federal government interest, even before powered flight, because it's been a military concern. Then came the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Then came airmail, operated by the Post Office which of course is overseen by Congress. Then the Air Commerce Act as a result of two things: aeronautical accidents and the states demonstrating complete ineptitude at dealing with the problem, and commercial interests in aviation convinced the federal government it should be federally regulated. Then comes the Civil Aeronautics Act, creating the Civil Aeronautics Authority which is the precursor to the FAA. So it's always been federal.

It only really made sense to regulate it at a federal level.

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

I don't understand the comment. Congress created the FAA. That's how it got the power to regulate. The FAA is one of these many entities we have that are quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and quasi-judicial, all in one department. If you're a strict constructionist, you argue that the constitution doesn't allow Congress to delegate their power to make laws to another body. The political reality that's accepted, however, is that the many government departments don't make law, they make regulations. And in this case that's what Congress has done, they've delegated it. And in the handful of cases it gets challenged by local governments, like noise ordinances (from stupid whiners who build houses next to airports) and banner towing, they eventually are rejected by the courts as unenforceable by the state, due to federal preemption which actually explicitly is in the constitution.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[hvm2hvm]

So if you jump and hit someone or if you throw a rock at a window it's the FAA's turf?

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

My point is if there is not constitutional power granted to the federal government, congress cant just create it. Short of amending the constitution of course.

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

Like others have said, it gets it from the interstate commerce clause. And judicial justification goes as far back as Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) when the Court said "the power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce' ." Also during the Marshall court it interpreted the clause to grant intrastate, interstate and non-commerce powers to Congress.

Then in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) the court clearly states federal authority in all matters of aviation. And it's not just the Supreme Court but also numerous state courts that find the same when local governments try to assert the right to regulate airspace. There's really no controversy here.

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

Is 300' above my backyard, airspace? Is a 3 pound flying electric platform with a camera attached, aviation? There is controversy here, and you are being deliberately obtuse about it.

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

300' above your backyard is definitely airspace, it has a specific classification and it has specific (and different) rules depending on whether the pilot can or can't see where the aircraft is going. Your flying platform meets the definition of an aircraft, and flying or operating aircraft is the definition of aviation. The person being slow to understand these things isn't me.

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[Bartles]

How about a kite 300' above my backyard? Is that a violation of FAA rules?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Agripa]

Like other federal powers, it will be justified as affecting interstate commerce:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Parts of the drone "moved in or otherwise affected interstate commerce", right?

Re: Pretty big differencfe

[cmurf]

FAR 101 subpart B applies to moored balloons and kites. It can't be flown more than 500' above the ground, must be at least 500' below the base of a cloud, and not in less than 3 miles visibility, nor within 5 miles of an airport. If intended to be flown above 150' then you have to give the FAA 24 hours notice, and you also need streamers on the line every 50' (or less).

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Robb Swanson]

I agree. If he violated any restricted airspace, bring in the FAA. A few dented buildings, a frightened bystander, and a broken drone? Call the cops and haul him away for reckless endangerment and destruction of property. Make him pay for being an idiot that way.

+1

Wrong Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the fine is more directed about the person's flying skills since he nearly injured a person, than about the overall drone regulations for commercial usage.
Being allowed to use/do something, doesn't mean there are still laws to abide.

wow

[Charliemopps]

So we're surprised when a government agency uses common sense when enforcing a law now? This sounds exactly like what the FAA should be regulating...

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I support your comment, just not sure if you serious or being sarcastic. From what I have been reading it is okay to fly a hobbyist helicopter, or a plane but not okay to fly a drone? I'm not trying to start any arguments or disagree since this hobbyist nearly injured, perhaps could have killed someone/people.

I should STFU, before they outright ban old hobbyist from flying are primitive helicopters/planes as well. Yes I am aware there is a difference between a drone, and old hobbyist aircraft, for one you need any skill to fly, and the weight of a drone. But there have been numerous injuries even deaths from hobbyist aircraft and the FAA let it go.

I use to use hobbyist aircraft for surveillance by the way....

Re:wow

[interkin3tic]

I agree, which is why I'm glad this doesn't appear to be arbitrary at the moment. The guy did something that should be prohibited.

Also, laws aren't made instantly and perfectly. The drone flying hobby is pretty new, there's going to be a period of finding a balance between too restrictive and too lax. It's likely going to be more restrictive than hobbyists would prefer, and it's going to be more lax than the regulators would prefer. Additionally, hobbyists need to realize that if someone dies, and someone else can blame it on not enough laws, there are going to suddenly be a lot more restrictions in place.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one was the hot blonde with big boobs?

Re:wow

[dreamchaser]

The question shouldn't be if there should be punishment. There should. The asshat could have injured people. The question should be whether or not the FAA should be involved in a matter that local law enforcement can deal with.

Re:wow

[Wycliffe]

Arbitrary enforcement of a law is NOT a good thing.

it is. IFF the enforcement only punishes the extreme cases, but not the harmless ones.

Then it's not really arbitrary is it? If you always pull someone over for 20 miles over the speed limit but
never pull someone over for 5 miles over the speed limit then the law probably needs to be changed to
reflect reality but the enforcement is not arbitrary.

Semi trucks actually have this codified. The weight limit is 40k. If you are over less than 5K then
you get a warning but no ticket. If you are over more than 5K then the fine you $1 per pound
STARTING at 40k not at 45k.

(note: numbers are somewhat arbitrary, not exactly sure what current limits and fines are but it gives the general idea)

Re:wow

[BitZtream]

There is no question.

Airspace, ALL OF IT, is under FAA jurisdiction, no one else has any say, certainly not local police.

Re:wow

[VortexCortex]

Airspace, ALL OF IT, is under FAA jurisdiction, no one else has any say, certainly not local police.

Yep. However, don't be too rough on the citizens. They're still under the delusion that they live in a democratic-republic, for fuck's sake.

Re:wow

[I'm New Around Here]

Yes Susan. But don't worry, they'll grow out after your first baby.

Then your husband will never leave them alone.

Re:wow

[operagost]

Right. It's a shame we don't have any departments at the state or local level that could handle incidents where people cause property damage or injure people.

Re:wow

[rochrist]

What is it about having a Federal agency in charge of regulating all air traffic that makes this suddenly not a democratic republic? The FAA was put in place by a government of elected representatives.

Re:wow

[Bartles]

Flamebait? I must have struck a nerve.

Re:wow

[Rich0]

So we're surprised when a government agency uses common sense when enforcing a law now? This sounds exactly like what the FAA should be regulating...

What law are they enforcing, specifically? I'm not aware of any laws or regulations that regulate drones, and the only Federal Court to actually rule on this issue wasn't aware of any either.

OK... so the devil is in the details

[PeterL.Berghold]

Drones are not the only way to get in trouble with the FAA. If you are into LDRS (Large Dangerous Rocket Ships) there is a maximum altitude your rocket can go and if you expect it to exceed that altitude you need to clear it with air traffic control before launch. It only makes sense given the obvious potential for havoc. The person cited in this article did commit some questionable acts. Crashing into buildings and crash landing the drone were people were milling about and going about their day is not cool. It only takes one "oops" where property damage or personal bodily injury occurs and the hobby will end up being heavily regulated.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[ColdWetDog]

LDRS craft, by definition, are the responsibility of the FAA - they fly into controlled airspace. This thing did not.

Put the drone in front of an runway - FAA has jurisdiction.'
Put the drone in front of a balcony - not so much.

Unless this is an end run to see just exactly what they can get away with.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[Andy Dodd]

I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.

They just say, "Keep within these limits and we won't care what you do." So the question is whether this guy's recklessnes exceeded those limits.

Kind of similar to how the FCC has jurisdiction over the ISM bands - they just say "stay below this power level and and a few other limits and you can do anything you want in that band"

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[Missing.Matter]

To add to Andy Dodd, the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that can potentially fly outdoors. Fly a drone in your garage with the door closed: fine. Fly a drone in your garage with the door open: FAA technically has jurisdiction. According to some FAA guys I know, they tell me they technically have jurisdiction over paper airplanes, but you'll never see them enforcing any kind of regulations on them.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[bigpat]

I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.

I think that we need Congress to step in and limit the FAAs jurisdiction to above 500 feet and above a certain size. Giving the FAA jurisdiction over frisbees, bows and arrows or toys with propellers is an absurd use of Federal government regulations and a complete waste of resources for them to be trolling You Tube for videos for accidents with toys that didn't actually cause any serious harm.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[fnj]

So you would let them fly above a busy runway as long as they are at 499 feet or below? I didn't think so. Would you have a weight limit? What if it's only 4 feet long but weighs 50 kg? I thought so. How about flying above a military base or a nuclear power plant to gather intelligence?

I have an idea. Let's leave the FAA alone. They are doing exactly what they were created to do, and they are doing a good job.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[dywolf]

we dont need congress to do anything.
the FAA is neither in the wrong, nor overereaching.
you're an idiot.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[azadrozny]

I don't know much about this subject, but why does the FAA need dominion over all thing above the ground? If I am flying a device under a certain altitude (250 ft?) under a certain mass, at less than a certain speed, more than a certain distance from an airport, why does the FAA care? Are they worried that there will be too many drones in the air? Seems a bit far fetched for the near future, and you can begin to regulate when there is a problem. Are they worried that my toy drone will fail, and fall on a house? I would be just as liable if I threw a rock at the same house, and as long as the drone is not too massive, the potential for serious harm is not all that great.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[mark-t]

According to some FAA guys I know, they tell me they technically have jurisdiction over paper airplanes, but you'll never see them enforcing any kind of regulations on them.

It would be nothing less than hilarious to see them try.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[BitZtream]

There is no such thing as uncontrolled airspace as far as the FAA is concerned in the manner you are speaking.

Uncontrolled airspace to a pilot means the area where you are not required to be in contact with air traffic controllers, not that its a free for all.

In the USA:
ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FAA as far as physical objects are concerned, that includes BUILDING, which the FAA has regulations that apply to them, such as how they must be marked and lit at night.

ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FCC as far as electromagnetic regulation is concerned, and again, that includes BUILDINGS.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[BitZtream]

Depends on the paper plane. The record sized paper plane from a few years back is most certainly something they would regulate as it is large enough to be a serious problem. It didn't fly for shit so they probably won't ever care, but none the less they do have the ability to do something about it.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[GrumpySteen]

Giving the FAA jurisdiction over frisbees, bows and arrows or toys with propellers is an absurd use of Federal government regulations and a complete waste of resources for them to be trolling You Tube for videos for accidents with toys that didn't actually cause any serious harm.

Except the FAA isn't doing any of those things. The guy who was nearly hit by the drone recovered the video and gave it to the NYPD. The NYPD found the pilot of the drone, arrested him and charged him with reckless endangerment. The FAA only got involved after all that showed up in the news and they're proposing a further fine for the violations that he committed.

The FFA is not trolling YouTube. The only trolling here is your post.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[Rich0]

I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.

They just say, "Keep within these limits and we won't care what you do." So the question is whether this guy's recklessnes exceeded those limits.

The thing is, Federal agencies aren't allowed to "just say" things and then enforce them as if they are laws.

For something to be legally binding you need one of two things:
1. Congress must pass a law that outright makes some activity illegal.
2. Congress must pass a law giving authority to a regulatory agency (like the FAA) to create regulations within some domain, and then the agency has to create a regulation.

In the case of the FAA, Congress has given it the power to regulate air traffic, but the FAA has not created any regulations that pertain to drones. They've issued all kinds of threats, press releases, and advisory statements. However, the only thing that is enforceable in court are regulations, and they don't have any of those. The only court case to go to judgment so far went against the FAA for this reason (FAA vs Raphael Pirker).

Politics is a bigger problem

[RogueWarrior65]

Right now, we're running into a road block with using UAVs for search & rescue with our local Sheriff. Given that his position is an elected one, he doesn't want to run the risk of alienating the electorate.

Re:Politics is a bigger problem

[BitZtream]

No, the sheriff isn't your problem, you're ignorance is.

Its not his call, its the FAA's jurisdiction and the fact that you don't know that shows that you aren't qualified to be flying aircraft in the first place.

You don't get to pretend you're qualified to have an argument about safety issues when you don't even know the rules, which are simple to find, with a quick Google search ... or the many times its been posted here (with citations) on slashdot.

As a formerly licensed pilot, and an R/C pilot of 20 years, you are EXACTLY the type of person that I don't want in the air.

If you had a clue, you'd get a waiver and you'd know the sheriff's opinion is irrelevant. Again, its not his call.

Re:Politics is a bigger problem

[Rich0]

You don't get to pretend you're qualified to have an argument about safety issues when you don't even know the rules, which are simple to find, with a quick Google search ... or the many times its been posted here (with citations) on slashdot.

What FARs pertain to drone operations, specifically? The only court to rule on this issue declared that the FAA did not actually set any rules governing commercial drone operations.

The FAA has done a lot of talking and publishing on this subject, but they've yet to do any actual rulemaking.

Re:Politics is a bigger problem

[RogueWarrior65]

Actually, you, sir (spelled with a c and a u) are the one who is ignorant. The Sheriff is the highest ranking authority of any county in the United States with law enforcement authority that supersedes every other agency including all federal agencies. Most people don't know that so I'm not surprised that you don't.

As a matter of fact, I am a licensed pilot and have been flying both full size aircraft and radio controlled aircraft for 30 years so don't presume to think that you know more than I do on the subject.

The reality is two-fold: First a foremost, the FAA has NO regulatory authority in these matters. They are simply using a "POLICY" written in 2007 to intimidate people. Read that word again: Policy. Policy is not regulation. The FAA knows they have no legal leg to stand on here otherwise they would have made a real regulation. Second: Sheriff's are elected officials and have to balance perception with pure law enforcement. Around here, there are too many people (read: growers and tinfoil hat types) who are worked into a lather about government surveillance.

The real question will be whether or not the FAA wants to risk the negative publicity when a lost 5-year old kid dies because they wouldn't allow a search & rescue UAV to be used. I personally would enjoy seeing Bill O'Reilly rip them a new one.

NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

"why it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado, but illegal, in the FAA's eyes, for a journalist to do the same. "

It is illegal for anyone without special permission to fly a drone over(sic) a tornado without a lot of special clearance. The "top" of a tornado will be well above the altitude limits on RC aircraft. It would also be in the realm of dangerous.
Flying over a disaster area is a different matter to take pictures is a different issue.

" A spokesperson for the FAA told me that the agency 'has proposed a civil penalty against an individual in New York City. The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person (video).'""
  And this is a good thing IMHO.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[FlyHelicopters]

There is totally room to do weird stuff...

Right up until you endanger someone else (like me!)

Now, I don't like tons of regulations either, but I also don't want people crashing drones into me.

So yea, if someone is an idiot and crashes a drone in a city, that should be a crime.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's a good thing reckless behavior can be punished, to say nothing of damaging someone else's property.

But the FAA?!?!?. This is the realm of local laws and government, responsive to politicians and actual voyers, not unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away passing law by decree.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[CanHasDIY]

Land of the Free. Lol.
Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line regarding what the FEDERAL government can and cannot ban? Is the goal for no one to stand out, everyone go to work 9 to 5, watch TV, pay our taxes, and die after reaching retirement age, or is there some room left for people to do weird stuff?

You're free to do lots of "weird stuff," provided you're not damaging other people or threatening their well-being.

This guy failed to meet those two criteria, and thus is being punished appropriately. It's one of those "right to swing your fist" kinda things.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Responsive to voters I mean. Drone use responsive to voyers is still in its infancy.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

The simple answer is that which needlessly endangers people and property.
Flying a drone in controlled airspace around an airport is a great example. Hitting a 5 Kg drone at 200 knots or sucking it into a turbofan could cause someone their life or an airline hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Flying a drone over crowds of people where it could hurt somebody is another good example. Ever been to an airshow? You will notice that the performers in the US do not overfly the crowd during maneuvers.
These rules are no different in nature than you can not drive 70 mph in a school zone or 150mph on the interstate.
Using it for pictures of a disaster area is another issue. Instead of flat out ban the FAA might want to consider a commercial RC license. Idealy they would take note for way Ham radio works and allow the AMA to do the testing.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

If it flies it is the FAA. Do you really want every city and county in the US to make a patchwork of laws? Plus you have the violation of controlled airspace which is pure FAA.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[kimvette]

> Land of the Free. Lol.

You're not free to damage other people's property or to cause injury to someone. Such restrictions are preservation of others' freedom to enjoy their property and life.

Your natural rights end where another's natural rights begin. My right to move my fist ends with your right to not have a broken nose, and vice versa. If you don't get that. I'm afraid there is no hope for you.

Unfortunately libertarians catch a bad rap because there are idiots who call themselves libertarians but are really anarchists because they want the right to crap up the environment, hurt others and damage others' property and make the idiotic claim that not being allowed to do so is an infringement of their rights. Libertarianism will never gain traction exactly because of those idiotic nihilistic anarchists.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Missing.Matter]

Ever see the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" episode "Charlie Goes America All Over Everybody's Ass" ? The problem is when you give people absolute freedom to do whatever they want, society devolves and you blow right past "weird" and end up at "lunacy" very quickly.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

That is my view on most libertarians. It maybe that it is the idiotic nihilistic anarchists that I notice.
I believe that we need enough laws but not too many. Probably most people feel the same way. The key is workout the solution without getting nasty.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[kimvette]

I've had some of these nihilists tell me I'm not a libertarian because I think banking tightly regulated (remember in the fractional banking systems, banks actually create money) and also companies' impact on the environment and public utilities should also be tightly regulated because everyone depends on them, and anything they do affects everyone in that society. The reason they should is so that the rights of the people at large are preserved. Society needs rules, even (or perhaps especially) in a libertarian "utopia." People read too much Ayn Rand and don't think critically, and worship her as some sort of god and take her work as gospel when really she was a writer of fiction.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Type44Q]

It is illegal for anyone without special permission to fly a drone over(sic) a tornado without a lot of special clearance. The "top" of a tornado will be well above the altitude limits on RC aircraft.

So you're saying that it's illegal to do something that you can't possibly manage to do anyhow...?

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[sjames]

To be fair, if I had to rank the danger on a scale of 1 to 100, (lower number = greater danger), I'd place the drone at 100 and the tornado at 1. I'm undecided about air cows and the flying pigs, but they would fall somewhere in between :-)

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

Ayn Rand is just the flip side of Karl Marx IMHO.
Maybe you are not a libertarian? Maybe you are a centrist. Some one that believes in a balance between rules and anarchy. Don't worry there is no organized group that called centrists but I think their are a lot more of us the anyone knows.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

No you could build an RC airplane that could fly over a tornado. All it would take money and a good engineering team. A turbocharged engine and a high aspect ratio wing is all you really need along with a good control systems.
I believe that someone did launch a glider from a weather balloon at an altitude above most tornados. I do not think it was in the US and well outside any urban areas but still probably a violation of regulations but I am not sure.

The law for RC aircraft places a legal altitude limit. So that statement was wrong in that it is illegal for both of them, no news station or hobbiest has flown over a tornado, and the story was not about flying over a tornado.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[operagost]

Too bad cities don't have some kind of personnel who watch for dangerous behavior and prevent or apprehend those who might harm people or property.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[FlyHelicopters]

While I agree with you in principle, in practice you are mistaken.

The whole idea of states rights and limited federal government ended after the Civil War and during Reconstruction.

We really aren't the same country that we were when we were founded, even if we use the same name and the same constitution.

The South fought exactly what you're talking about, and lost. It will take another war to change it. I'm not suggesting that is a good thing, I'm just saying that is what it would take.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Richy_T]

I agree. he does not sound like a libertarian. Which is fine but he needs to recognize that. There are too many people who want to claim to be one thing but their beliefs and actions prove them to be something else. Often, introspection can help them resolve internal contradictions. Freedom does not mean "Freedom for me but not ye".

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Space Grrrl]

Sorry there is no law about R/C altitude limits, there are guidelines generally related to proximity airports. Public Law 112-95, signed into law by President Obama in February of 2012, establishes criteria for defining a model aircraft and operating conditions under which no additional FAA regulation is required. The operating conditions do not include an altitude ceiling. The key criteria to qualify as a model aircraft is that it is flown strictly for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the pilot. To-date, the FAA has not enacted a process through which AMA and the modelers it represents may proceed to operate under the new federal guidance, so for the time being, modelers continue to operate under the provisions of AC 91-57 and the AMA Safety Code. So big model and good eyes is pretty high!

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Rich0]

It is illegal for anyone without special permission to fly a drone over(sic) a tornado without a lot of special clearance. The "top" of a tornado will be well above the altitude limits on RC aircraft. It would also be in the realm of dangerous.

If this is illegal, please cite the relevant law or regulation.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

" So big model and good eyes is pretty high!"
Not over 10,000 meters.
Plus over 18,000 ft is mandatory IFR airspace operating an RC in an IFR area is illegal.

Obvious

[TWX]

The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person.

If I engaged in reckless behavior that posed serious threat to others or to their property then I too would expect to be fined if caught.

The FAA probably figured that the press and the paparazzi would be all over the use of drones if they were allowed to, and the ban was to prevent a bunch of people that had no interest in the technology itself from attempting to poorly use it. Hobbyists, on the other hand, are by definition interested in the technology, and are more likely to learn how to master its use. This particular hobbyist obviously wasn't in control, hence the fine, but he was also dumb and used the device where he shouldn't have been, ie, a congested urban environment with bystanders.

Play with this stuff where there's room and a lack of people to hurt and one should be ok.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it a rest you twit. I'd love to put all you morons on an island so you can have a toy drop on you from a few hundred feet up at random.

Flying Objects and Buildings...

[JJJJust]

We're supposed to be okay with crashing flying objects to buildings? Did Al-Qaeda have it right all along? Should we give them medals instead of killing them? Is Bin Laden due a wrongful death payment?

These are legitimate concerns when you start complaining about a fine for a moron who caused his drone to fly into a stationary object.

Re:Flying Objects and Buildings...

[thegarbz]

We're supposed to be okay with crashing flying objects to buildings?

Why not? If they chipped the render off the outside make him pay to patch it up, and if he didn't pick up what was left of his drone given him a littering charge. But what is so intrinsically bad about hitting an object with another the objects in question aren't damaged.

Maybe we should start attacking people playing tennis. After all that poor tennis ball just spends all day getting beat around.

No!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a God-given, constitutional right to fly drones into permanent structures and crash them into crowds of people, and any attempts to restrict my ability to do this represent a tyrannical attack on my freedom.

Don't tread on me!

Re:No!

[Rinikusu]

You know.. we already have assholes who refuse to stop pointing lasers at airplanes and helicopters.. wait until these geniuses start trying to fly drones into the aircrafts' flight paths.

Re:No!

[Copid]

I am sure you being funny, but exactly where do you suppose the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to regulate airspace? In what twisted way will they imagine a drone operator, flying a home built drone, in the airspace of 1 state, involves interstate commerce?

You jumped from "regulate airspace" to "regulate drones" there. Having the feds regulate airspace makes good sense, given that a huge portion of air travel is interstate and having 50 different regulatory bodies for something that almost always crosses state lines would be a disaster for interstate commerce over the air. Once you have that, it's pretty straightforward to say that their job is to regulate flying things that may occupy or present hazards to that commercial airspace. Maybe small drones that stay out of airspace used by regular aircraft should be exempt, but I don't think that's the same as "not regulating airspace."

Re:No!

[jklovanc]

In what twisted way will they imagine a drone operator, flying a home built drone, in the airspace of 1 state, involves interstate commerce?

Because airspace does cross state lines and aircraft do cross state lines and a home built drone can cross state lines. Due to this state line crossing it is interstate commerce that allows Federal jurisdiction over airspace and everything in it. Do you really think it is viable for the FAA to regulate aircraft but not UAVs that use the same airspace?

Just look at HAM operators.

HAM operators have a very important role to play during civil emergencies. If regular communications go down HAM operators can still keep communications open. Not so much for RC aircraft operators.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you have no concept of General Aviation. By it's nature, it has to be interstate. Otherwise, I could fly a corporate jet into commercial airspace and block an international flight path because I "never left my state".

You need cohesive rules that cross local jurisdictions for General Aviation to even function. For an example of what happens if you don't, take a look at what happened in China when they opened up General Aviation for about a month or two without the prerequisite national airspace regulation. Incidents galore!

Planes didn't exist when the constitution was drafted, in case you didn't realize.

Re:No!

[DarwinSurvivor]

HAM operators are also licensed and registered, unlike most other hobbyists.

Re:No!

[radarskiy]

"wait until these geniuses start trying to fly drones into the aircrafts' flight paths."
No need to wait. The article says that also happened in this case.

Re:No!

[I'm New Around Here]

I'm pretty sure the space between those tall building in that video footage is not "commercial airspace". As in, no commercial flights are routed through there.

Please correct me if commercial flights are routed between those buildings. Specifically, interstate commercial flights.

Re:No!

[Bartles]

It might make sense, but he has a valid point. What gives the FAA the authority and constitutional power to regulate all airspace?

Re:No!

[operagost]

Having the feds regulate airspace makes good sense, given that a huge portion of air travel is interstate

Was this?

Re:No!

[deadweight]

I am a commercial pilot. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare of 50 FAAs regulating 50 chunks of airspace. Oh look! Virginia has a 238 knot speed limit and we're doing 245 because we missed the 10,000 foot tall sign at the border.

Re:No!

[Copid]

I'm pretty sure that I didn't say anything like that. Rereading my post, yes, I'm completely sure.

Re:No!

[Copid]

All airspace? Nothing. Can they regulate the airpsace inside your house when flying paper airplanes, or the airspace above your house when you're throwing a frisbee? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would knock that one flat.

The practical airpsace used by most aircraft? If they didn't, it would be an unholy mess for a particular aspect of interstate commerce. That's pretty much exactly what the commerce clause is for. I'm not arguing that they can regulate "all airspace." I'm just noting that the implication that the feds shouldn't regulate airspace at all is false for practical purposes and almost certainly false for constitutional purposes.

Re:No!

[Copid]

Was this?

Ummm... Maybe?

Re:No!

[I'm New Around Here]

You did say:

Once you have that, it's pretty straightforward to say that their job is to regulate flying things that may occupy or present hazards to that commercial airspace.

So, yes you did say something like that, considering this /. discussion is about a remote controlled toy flying over, around, and into buildings in a city.

Maybe I'm adding meaning to your specific post from reading dozens of others that state the FAA controls, and rightly so, everything in the air because it is all commercial airspace. If so, I stand corrected.

Re:No!

[Bartles]

You managed to pretty much totally avoid the question. What gives the FAA the power and authority to regulate intrastate airspace?

Re:No!

[Copid]

Let me highlight an important part:

Once you have that, it's pretty straightforward to say that their job is to regulate flying things that may occupy or present hazards to that commercial airspace.

I don't think I said anything about this particular case falling under that jurisdiction. My point is simply that the idea that the feds have no place regulating airspace in general is silly.

Re:No!

[jklovanc]

The first question is whether or not something should be regulated. Obviously farts should not be regulated and airspace should be. Without airspace regulation we would have aircraft falling out of the sky regularly. The second question is what level of government should regulate it. I have shown how it is a Federal responsibility due to Interstate Commerce.

Re:No!

[Copid]

You managed to pretty much totally avoid the question. What gives the FAA the power and authority to regulate intrastate airspace?

I answered the question you asked in the post I responded to, not the one one you're asking now. To clarify further:

1) The feds can regulate airspace as it applies to interstate commerce. That's a whole shitton of airspace. The same way the feds can build highways even though a lot of highway travel is intrastate and the same way they regulated railroads even though there were plenty of intrastate routes. The same way the FCC can regulate the radio spectrum even though most transmitters probably don't cross state lines. It's an interstate medium with a huge interstate commerce problem.
2) That doesn't mean they can or should regulate "all" airspace. Airspace that is never involved in interstate commerce shouldn't be included.
3) But we also can't draw fine lines like, "These are the air regulations for aircraft in this major commercial air lane unless the aircraft isn't crossing state lines. If it's staying within the state, a whole different set of rules apply, and we'll just cross our fingers and hope that they're not dangerously incompatible with the rules being followed by the aircraft that are crossing state lines." So there needs to be a lot of leeway, for regulations to apply to things that affect those air lanes.
4) I'm not saying at all that the leeway applied in (3) applies to this case.
5) The original question I responded to before yours was "What gives the feds the authority to regulate airspace [airspace in general, not all airspace]?" The answer to that is pretty clear.

Is that clear now?

Re:No!

[Hognoxious]

Especially over New England.

Pilot: Goshdiggety darn, we should have checked in with Rhode Island ATC a 45 seconds ago!

Copilot: No worries, we're due to check out ... umm ... now, actually.

Re:No!

[ZombieBraintrust]

No commercial flights are routed between buildings because the FAA regulates that airspace.

Re:No!

[I'm New Around Here]

Ok. I was reading your comments and mentally adding the arguments in the posts I had just a few moments earlier. Sorry for my confusion.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

It really isn't. The constitution was written a long time ago and while the similar arguments about the FFs not being aware of the weapons of today is specious, they really did have nothing to compare to give them any idea of powered flight (constitution, 1787, first manned balloon flight in North America, 1793).

Now, completely arguably, the feds should have this regulatory power but it should be added as an amendment with appropriate constitutional convention.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

I challenge you to cut and paste that amendment here and actually read it.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

You do need these regulations and the constitution should be amended appropriately to accommodate them. Until it is, they are unlawful regulations.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

Well, it would likely be SAAs. But it's not like it's hard. Europe and other amalgamations of countries manage it and my gosh, the US even manages to coordinate reasonably well with Europe and other political entities.

The truth is that state legislatures are lazy and would simple cut & paste each others rules in any case.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

Add che sticker and you can get first as well.

Re:No!

[Copid]

Does the same hold true for railroads and their associated federal regulations in the 1800s? Or regulation of commercial shipments by river? Gibbons v. Ogden established a pretty similar precedent very early on. I think there's a good reason why the founders didn't say, "Interestate commerce via roads" or something similar. They really meant interstate commerce in general, whether conducted on foot, by horse or by boat. I doubt they would have carved out an exception for air travel if they had been aware of it.

Personally, I'm thankful that we don't have a constitutional convention for these types of things when established precedent will do. For one thing, it would be fabulously inefficient. For another, our constitution would probably start looking like the California state constitution--an unholy mess full of stuff that has no place in a document that's supposed to describe how the government operates.

Re:No!

[jklovanc]

I challenge you to read a little and see how the very few words in the Constitution are interpreted and applied.

Re:No!

[fuzznutz]

Does the same hold true for railroads and their associated federal regulations in the 1800s?

I will be glad to accept your analogy when the Federal Railroad Administration starts fining people for operating unsafe garden and model railroads.

Re:No!

[Copid]

:::sigh:::

Are we still going back and forth between "the FAA doesn't have the authority to fine this one guy in this one case" and "the FAA is unconstitutional and shouldn't exist"? Because you people are really going to have to pick one to talk about and stick with it for a thread or at least let me know when you're moving the goalposts.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

You are mistaken if you think I'm not aware of that.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

They really are inseparable. But I'm quite happy to agree that as things currently stand, the FAA rules the roost in this case. That triviality out of the way, I think the constitutionality is the more interesting question.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

I'm sure it's nice to ignore the niceties of constitutional law. But surely, if they weren't actually supposed to mean anything, no one would have bothered putting pen to paper.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

Or, indeed, getting shot at.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

Fabulously inefficient is what the US government *does*. Would you have these fine people out of a job?

Re:No!

[jklovanc]

Do you believe that your ability to interpret the Constitution is more accurate that the Supreme Court of the United States? Here is some information about how the existance of the FAA is based on the Commerce clause;

In the context of Federal regulation of airports, however, the Commerce Clause has been applied to ensure that voluntary entrants into interstate commerce, i.e., the airlines and passengers, will not be obstructed by a web of disparate local regulations. In upholding this application of the Commerce Clause to voluntary entrants into the air transportation system, as it has done consistently since the passage of the Federal Aviation Act in 1958, 49 U.S.C. 40101, et seq., as amended, the Court held:
“The Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency, [cite omitted], and the protection of persons on the ground. . . The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled.”

I think you also miss the point that the FAA is regulating the airspace rather than the aircraft. Anyone can own an RC aircraft and the FAA has nothing to say about it.. When it flies the RC aircraft comes into the airspace regulated by the FAA and is therefore regulated by the FAA.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

Yes, I believe the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to cover way more than a plain reading of it allows. Supreme court decisions frequently are split, often along partisan lines so it's not like even internally that they agree that they are always correct so why should it be wrong for me to be on the dissenting side?

Re:No!

[jklovanc]

You might want to look into this even further. According to this even the dissenting judges agreed that once an aircraft is in the air it is a federal responsability.

The four dissenting Justices in City of Burbank did not view the Burbank
ordinance at issue as trespassing on the federal domain, but,speaking through Justice
Rehnquist, they made it plain that they shared the majority’s assessment of the
comprehensive preemptive impact of the FAA:

The 1958 Act [the FAA] was intended to consolidate in one agency in the
ExecutiveBranch the control over aviation that had previously been diffused
within that branch. The paramount concerns of Congress were to regulate
federallyall aspects of airsafety,see, e.g. 49U.S.C. 1422 and, once aircraft
were “in flight,” airspace management,see, e.g. 49 U.S.C. 1348(a).

So there was actually no dissention on wheter or not airspace is a federal responsability.

Re:No!

[Richy_T]

I was talking in general rather than in specific. That there is a long history of dissension within the supreme court is an easy way to explain that it is not invalid to disagree with the supreme court on any issue, even when they are unanimous. There are other arguments that support this position to, of course, it's just the easiest way to demolish this appeal to authority.

Re:No!

[jklovanc]

From your post

why should it be wrong for me to be on the dissenting side?

I was pointing out how in this case there was no dissenting side so therefore you can not use the fact that the Supreme Court does not always agree to support your baseless argument.. Sure, take the dissenting side when there is one but that is not the case here.

There are other arguments that support this position to, of course, it's just the easiest way to demolish this appeal to authority.

"Appeal to authority" is when someone says that a scientist is always right on science. In this case the rulings of the Supreme court are binding. They make what they say true. If there are other arguments then show them. Saying there are arguments without putting them forward is generally a comment from some who has no arguments.

We need more governent controls!

[whizbang77045]

We just can't have things flying in populated areas without hte proper goverment controls. Pigeons and starlings are next!

Let me get this straight

[rebelwarlock]

Guy recklessly operates remote control machinery in populated area, causes property damage and comes close to causing injury or death in innocent bystanders, and this dipshit reporter pretends the FCC is the devil for coming down on him?

Re:Let me get this straight

[marciot]

I think the point is that the buildings had carelessly invaded his airspace and the pedestrians had trespassed his landing field. Obviously, these are the ones who should be punished.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that the FCC came down on him is because in addition to the dangerous behavior that you describe, his drone was also broadcasting the word "cocksucker" over public airwaves.

This is NOT a fine for "Flying a Drone"

[EmagGeek]

This is a fine for willfully putting someone in danger and destroying property. The pilot should be thanking his lucky stars that the FAA gets to process this in administrative law court rather than the State process it through criminal court.

Classes and Permits

[Oysterville]

Drones in the private sector are getting to the point where the only way to really resolve some of this dangerous behavior is to require operators of the drones that go over a set height take classes and get some sort of certification. I don't know aviation enough to know what height that would be.

It can be a fun hobby, but if they aren't flown responsibly and safely, eventually a mid-air collision with a helicopter is going to cause a fatality. At least with proper training it would lessen the chances of that.

Good

[PvtVoid]

Some douchebag sending a flying lawnmower into the air over downtown Manhattan should be charged with reckless endangerment, at the very least. How long before somebody gets killed by one of these assholes?

Re:Good

[Richy_T]

flying lawnmower

Want

"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[shortscruffydave]

Everyone seems to be getting all gussied up about drones, but (excuse my ignorance here) what's the difference between drones and remote control aircraft? People seem to have been playing happily with the latter for years, but when they get called "drones", they're seen as evil?

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[wonkey_monkey]

From my limited understanding, isn't in something to do with the line-of-sight requirement and/or capability of autonomy?

Either is capable of falling out of the sky and killing you, of course, so I'm not sure how much the distinction really matters.

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[neilo_1701D]

An RC Aircraft requires line-of-sight control; if you can't see it you can't control it.

A drone has some level of autonomous control. For example, I can instruct a drone to fly to waypoints. Drones can also return home by themselves.

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[fnj]

Anyone flying an RC aircraft has to follow precisely the same regulations. You can't violate airspace rules or operate recklessly. It's just that typically RC aircraft hobbyists have much more care and intelligence than random flaming assholes.

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[JStyle]

Definition:
a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.
b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.

I'm an RC hobbyist myself. I don't do anything with multirotors, but I know many that do. Most of them have a control board that includes a "return to home" feature, so if they lose sight of the model (wind, equipment failure, etc), or even just lose visual orientation of the model, they can flip a switch and the multirotor will automatically rise to a pre-defined altitude, and return to the launch site, with no intervention. These systems are available for ~$100 and can fit on any size model. It can also be used for planes. I consider the use of these tools to be a safety feature and am very glad people use them. Also very helpful for FPV (first person view) flying, which can go well beyond line of sight.

Regardless, it's pedantic to distinguish between the RC aircraft and drones. What is important is regulating the capability and who gets to use them. Obviously weaponizing is a big no-no, and being used by the government for spy or surveillance operations must have some additional oversight (say, a court issued warrant).

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[bobbied]

Anyone flying an RC aircraft has to follow precisely the same regulations. You can't violate airspace rules or operate recklessly. It's just that typically RC aircraft hobbyists have much more care and intelligence than random flaming assholes.

Us RC hobbyists also don't fly above 500', over populated areas, in restricted airspace, or near airports... At least the RESPONSIBLE ones don't. This nutcase deserves to be accosted by the FAA, as well as the local police for being a public danger, not to mention the owners of the property he damaged. Have fun with your toys, but do it responsibly.

Above a tornado?

[wonkey_monkey]

it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado

I suspect that might be out of most drones' capabilities. The article has that link linked to another article, but it's about drones flying over a train crash. That article has a link to what appears to be the relevant story, which is about someone flying a drone over the aftermath of a tornado.

Are you a company or rich?

[houghi]

If not, we will sue you. And by company, we mean a big company, not some mom and pop store.

Re:Pilot Error

[wonkey_monkey]

Agreed. But I can't help being impressed by how quickly the drone stabilised - let alone stayed airborne - after the first collision.

Practice safe flying people...

[freak0fnature]

I've heard pilots complain (@ LiveATC.net feeds) on approach at JFK of drones entering their visual range while landing on at least 2 occasions. That stuff rarely makes the news, and I don't listen to that stuff often, mainly for work purposes.

Re:Practice safe flying people...

[Rich0]

Wow, seriously? If they were talking to ATC, that sounds like a drone was flying into class D (or C or B) airspace without clearance... that's a big no-no regardless of what type of flying object it is.

Approach at JFK would be class B - class D wouldn't technically be considered approach.

As far as it being a "no-no" I don't think the FARs actually govern unmanned operations, but I agree that it is foolish to operate a drone in such airspace without taking care to ensure that it will not be in conflict with other traffic.

I'm fine with this

[PPH]

Its not a hobby vs comercial issue. Although legally, all private drones are by definition hobby (in this country). Its an issue of unsafe operation and the loss of control of the aircraft. Fine his ass.

It appears that the FAA might be taking a "no harm, no foul" approach to some drone operations. The person who filmed the tornado destruction technically might be in violation of the no commercial use regulation. But not having caused any trouble or run into anything or anyone, they don't appear to be doing much about that incident. Had that drone goen in the way of other aircraft (rescue ops, for example), they could have added that charge to the list. This seems like a reasonable approach as well.

There needs to be clear jurisdictional bounds

[davidwr]

Hobbyist or not, manned or not, there needs to be some clear jurisdictional bounds so that anything flying high enough to be in "airplane space" or anything close to the ground near an airport, blimp base, registered helipad, or other fixed-location registered aircraft take-off or landing-site is under either federal FAA rules or similar state rules.

Anything else should either be unregulated, regulated by the states if they so choose, or if it is over a place where the feds already have jurisdiction such as a navigable waterway, non-FAA federal jurisdiction.

Operators of aircraft such as crop-dusters, stunt planes, etc. flying close to the ground away from designated take-off and landing-areas will be "on notice" that they are sharing the airspace with devices not operating under FAA rules.

Operators unmanned aircraft operating without FAA approval will be "on notice" that they need to steer clear of regulated take-off and landing-zones and stay below "FAA regulated airspace" or they will be subject to fines or other sanctions from the FAA.

Re:There needs to be clear jurisdictional bounds

[EmagGeek]

There are many places where "airplane" space goes all the way to the ground. One inch off the ground puts you in FAA controlled airspace in these areas.

Class B, C, and D airports all have controlled airspace to the surface within a few miles of the runway center, and some Class E (non-towered fields) also have Class E airspace "to the surface."

I don't know where this occurred, but it's entirely possible that he was flying in controlled airspace.

Re:There needs to be clear jurisdictional bounds

[bobbied]

I would only add that Operators MUST be non-commercial to be subject to your rules. Meaning that the activity must not be part of a "for profit" business, or additional requirements from the FAA may apply. If you are a hobbyist, flying for personal fun and stay away from populated areas and full sized aircraft, you should be able to fly your toy.

Re:There needs to be clear jurisdictional bounds

[BitZtream]

This has already been done ... 30-40 years ago, in voluntary cooperation with the R/C model industry, to avoid this very situation from becoming a problem and resulting in retarded regulations against the industry.

First off, the FAA regulations everything that flies, including baseballs and rocks your sister throws at you.

They already allow you to 'do what you want' in certain circumstances, which are easy to find out. For instance, a baseball is not something the FAA will take an interest in as it falls under the rules that allow operate without anything special from the FAA.

These rules are already defined and are very clear cut. Flying within 500 feet of a building with a radio controlled aircraft is flat out prohibited without exception.

The feds also define rules for ALL US water ways even if you aren't aware of it, which is why we have standard navigation buoys and lighting requirements for instance.

You do not want random laws defined by random cities as they see fit when everyone needs to play by the same rules or lives may be lost.

Even buildings fall under FAA regulations, which determine how they must be lit and announce themselves to aircraft with proper beacon lights.

Re:There needs to be clear jurisdictional bounds

[davidwr]

I would only add that Operators MUST be non-commercial to be subject to your rules.

Why?

Even today, many for-profit enterprises that "go more than one inch off the ground" do not fall under FAA jurisdiction.

For example, a hobby store which does a model-rocket or radio-controlled-toy-aircraft demo in the shopping mall's remote (far from buildings, power lines, etc.) parking lot in a town far from an airport, using only low-flying rockets or planes is no more subject to FAA rules than if the same demo were done by one of its customers.

Re:There needs to be clear jurisdictional bounds

[bobbied]

I would only add that Operators MUST be non-commercial to be subject to your rules.

Why?

Because commercial use of airspace is squarely in the FAA's wheelhouse. Conducting business in the air is what the FAA is about, and their primary focus. Hobby use of the airspace is something they won't care about if you are low enough and far enough away from people and structures.

But you are asking the wrong question.... What you should be asking is how should the regulations be different for the business?

I don't imagine that there would be much of a difference, mainly because I don't figure the FAA is going to care much if a business decides to fly under 400' away from populated areas, but it's likely going to limit the business usefulness in that case. I imagine that the business use of the airspace over populated areas is going to require licenses, inspections, minimum equipment features, and operating rules. But with that, businesses will get the privilege to work in areas that will be more profitable.

RC Helicopters/Planes vs. Drones?

[HockeyPuck]

I was an avid RC Helicopter hobbyist as a high school kid and I'm wondering what's the difference between a drone and a remote controlled helicopter/plane?

Is the drone 100% autonomous vs. the RC line of sight? Though you could fly an RC with a nose mounted camera..

Does the FAA define what a drone is?

Re:RC Helicopters/Planes vs. Drones?

[BitZtream]

Drone is what the public uses since they heard it on CNN, thats all.

My 'drone' as everyone calls it, is a quadcoptor ... which is funny, because my R/C Heli's (one electric, one nitro) and my fixed wing airplane ALL use the same hardware for flight control.

No one calls the heli's or the fixed wing a drone because it doesn't have a camera attached that they can see, the camera on those is inside a tinted canopy. On the quad, there are 3 cameras, one for First Person View while in flight, one still camera for hi-res images, and a HD video camera which are easy to see as they stick out like a sore thumb.

The FAA doesn't define a drone. It defines what is allowed to fly under the rules of a 'hobby aircraft', anything else is a Unmanned Aerial System and regulated far more strictly. I know of no FAA regulation that uses the word 'drone' anywhere.

499

[Anonymous Coward]

"as long as they are at 499 feet"

below 500' is (or at least should be) considered private property, in this case you'd be trespassing on airport property which usually results in a quick response from armed, uniformed & angry individuals in cars with flashing lights. Also airports usually get easements over adjoining property effectively buying the airspace above those properties, so flying anywhere near an airport would be trespassing on the airport. A few people arrested, charged with trespassing and their drone/RC craft confiscated by regular everyday police would get the message through far more clearly than the FAA fining someone. Giving the FAA cart blanch authority over anything that flies is idiotic. Next they'll be wanting to regulate those little $20 electric helicopters that you fly in your house, if they manage that next will be paper airplanes.

Re:499

[rochrist]

Yes, because of course they will. After all, they're all totally nuts right? Not professionals with a job to do.

FAA and drones

[koan]

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration’s only fine against a commercial drone user on the grounds that the small drone was no different than a model aircraft, a decision that appears to undermine the agency’s power to keep a burgeoning civilian drone industry out of the skies.

Patrick Geraghty, a National Transportation Safety Board administrative law judge, said in his order dismissing the $10,000 fine that the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...

Re:FAA and drones

[BitZtream]

And its already been appealed, and the FAA will win, the presiding judge fucked up in multiple ways. There isn't any question about this.

On the other hand, the story here is that a moron flew his r/c aircraft dangerously and he's going to get spanked for that.

Do you think its okay to let people fly into your house or car or you because its some random douche with an R/C airplane he bought and knows absolutely nothing about? 2 of my 4 aircraft can EASILY kill you, the other 2 can EASILY maim you, and I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by one of them as that could kill you as well, though less likely than the others. We're talking airspeeds of 150 and 300 mph for the rotor tips of my RC helicopters and 70 for my airplane, the props on my quad can easily cut a finger off, so the right impact from them would certainly be capable of killing you as well.

Re:FAA and drones

[Rich0]

And its already been appealed, and the FAA will win, the presiding judge fucked up in multiple ways. There isn't any question about this.

How did they mess up? What regulation has the FAA passed which does govern drones? Please note the word "regulation" has a specific legal definition, and it doesn't include things like letters, press releases, or "AC's." Congress has established processes that agencies have to follow when creating regulations, and the FAA has not followed these with regard to drones.

Re:FAA and drones

[fuzznutz]

Do you think its okay to let people fly into your house or car or you because its some random douche with an R/C airplane he bought and knows absolutely nothing about?

And if someone hits a baseball into your house, do you want the FAA involved? Or if you are involved in a wreck should the NTSB fine you? The failure is in scope and suitability. If your hypothetical "douche" endangers someone or damages property, local authorities should be involved, not the Feds.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:flying drones is a hobby?

[JStyle]

You would be surprised at the capability of small RC aircraft today. For ~$100 you can retrofit just about any RC aircraft to be fully autonomous. Drones (unmanned aircraft) will just keep getting smaller and smaller. Not to mention there are RC enthusiasts that fly scale airplanes of that size, they cost thousands of dollars though.

Source: RC pilot.

Re:Oh sure. Let's make drones illegal...

[BitZtream]

No.

There are NO rules that define anything called a 'drone'. Just people using words they heard on CNN.

The FAA has rules for hobby aircraft, which this man violated multiple times, and those rules have barely changed since the 60s! They will spank your ass for flying your 1960s vintage r/c airplane into a building as well as that is a violation of the rules that have existed since then, you can't fly within a close proximity to buildings OR people, and you can't fly in an unsafe manner ... EVER.

All of the things you mention ARE regulated by the FAA. Anything that flies, even a rock is regulated by the FAA. The regulations of them are different depending on which thing you are referring to.

But hey, why don't you go ahead and stay completely ignorant and act like the big bad government is personally making your life a living hell rather than growing the fuck up and getting a clue before spewing random shit out of your pie hole, eh?

Re:Seriously, this.

[PvtVoid]

What's next? "You mean I can't bludgeon you to death with my garden shovel? This is all Obama's fault, the damned communist!"

This would be funny if it weren't for Sean Hannity trying to make a hero out of the dude in Minnesota who executed a couple of teenagers for burglary.

Can cops issue tickets?

[tekrat]

To illegally parked remote control cars?
I mean, if you're going to operate an RC car on a street where there is also legitimate vehicular traffic (even a suburban street), then the RC enthusiast should have a driver's license and the RC car should be insured and registered.

I mean, if they are going after people with a hobby for RC planes, then RC cars are the next target.

Re:Below 500'?

[JimFive]

You are confusing "Controlled Airspace" with FAA jurisdiction. Unless otherwise classified (by the FAA) airspace below (I think) 700 feet above ground level is uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. Each airspace classification has specific rules for its use. The FAA still has jurisdiction even the airspace is uncontrolled.
--
JimFive

Mod parent up.

[bussdriver]

Mod parent up.

Re:2nd Amendment

[ZombieBraintrust]

Robots don't have 2nd amendment rights. I think a Judge would look at the words "keep and bear" arms. Your not holding a drone. So your not really bearing it. Technically the drone is bearing arms.

Some of these regs are probably unconstitutional

[davidwr]

Some of the regulations you mentioned are probably unconstitutional on 10th-ammendment grounds.

Let's take regulation of waterways, for instance. There are many grounds for the feds to be able to regulate these, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't at least one waterway in America that is "outside the scope of federal regulation" under our constitution. In fact, I would expect many waterways would be found exempt if a lawyer who knows what he's doing took it to court.

For those outside the USA, the US constitution give the federal government many enumerated powers and it also gives the federal government the power to do other things that are necessary and proper to carry out the listed powers.

Here is an incomplete list of justifications for federal regulation of a waterway:
* It is a navigable waterway - that is, a boat can go from it to the ocean without having to go on dry land.
* It can be used in interstate commerce, that is, a boat can go from a point in one state to a point in another state without having to go on dry land.
* It affects a postal road.
* It affects federal government property, such as passing through a national park.
* It is used in interstate commerce
* It is used by plants are animals whose protection or regulation is regulated by the federal government (and where those regulations themselves are constitutional)

A hypothetical example of a waterway that is probably exempt from federal regulation:
* Private landowners and state and local governments own all the land that contains and surrounds an "inland sea" (think: mini-version of the "Great Salt Lake" in Utah) as well as the land under and around all tributaries of this inland sea. There are no protected species and no pollution issues that would bring any legitimate federal interest. There are no interstate commerce issues. It is not used as a water supply, so there is no regulate-able health issue. The water doesn't seep into an aquifer but just sits there until it evaporates.

Already fixed in appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

That has already been fixed in appeal. And no, the gruonds was that hte rules were inadequately clear.

Re:Already fixed in appeal

[Space Grrrl]

It has been appealed but the has been no ruling on the appeal. That appeal remains to be heard. So hardly "fixed". Many folks think the appeal is likely to fail. So the authority of the FAA over model aircraft is still up in the air. At the moment most serious R/C modelers voluntarily stay within the guidelines establish working in an advisory capacity with the AMA. and the FAA.

Repeating something does not make it true

[Warhawke]

Pretty much every third comment in this thread has someone claiming that all U.S. airspace falls under the control of the FAA, but that is patently untrue. The FAA, as a regulatory agency, only has the authority that Congress has granted it in the CFR under the FAAA. That authority extends to overseeing the safe operation of interstate aircraft travel. That concept extends the FAA regulation to in-state travel as it reasonable affects interstate travel through U.S. airspace. However, this is not without limitations. The FAA does not control buildings under a certain height, ground operations, municipal airport operations until planes enter federal airspace, and more. Additionally, the FAA does not control non-aircraft. The FAA cannot regulate your vehicle, or a flying bullet, or even an rc flyer. The only regulatory statement ever published about RC (drone) operations is an advisory opinion published in a circular. The industry has self-policed under a different, unofficial ruleset published by the Academy of Model Aeronautics. The FAA, other than through an advisory opinion - which is not authoritative as a rule of law - has never attempted to regulate R.C. operation below 250 feet. Nor did it ever insist that it had the authority to do so. As such, until the FAA issues administrative laws regulating the operation of drones and Congress authorizes those rules, assuming those rules are even constitutional (which they won't be if they promote the same blanket prohibition standards the FAA is applying now), the FAA has absolutely zero authority over recreational drone use and arguably no authority over commercial drone use. Please learn administrative law before posting blanket false statements about what federal agencies can and can't do.

Re:Repeating something does not make it true

[Rich0]

Mod parent up - the only court ruling on this matter said as much.

If the FAA wants to regulate drones, there is a legal process they need to follow.

Looks like the EPA disagrees with you

[drainbramage]

EPA's Air Pollution Target: Flatulent Cows
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ep...

SpaceX

[mknewman]

So how is SpaceX doing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Aren't they commercial?

RTFA

[jklovanc]

"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.

Another tempest in a teapot caused by misinterpretation of a regulation.

Re:Oh sure. Let's make drones illegal...

[Rich0]

The FAA has rules for hobby aircraft, which this man violated multiple times, and those rules have barely changed since the 60s!

Actually, the FAA does not have rules for hobby aircraft. They have an advisory circular that recommends certain behaviors when operating remote control aircraft, but it does not have the force of law, and even the circular itself uses words like "recommend."

As a pilot and long time R/C pilot

[Space Grrrl]

So a lot of folks seem to think there are more laws about R/C models than there really are. The AMA has worked with the FAA and established a lot of guidelines. There are guidelines, not laws. Thank god most serious modelers use common sense and follow them. The drone crowd to me however really seem to lack any common sense. I had a conversation today with a drone enthusiast that thinks it is a good idea to have self guiding drones flying around in data centers looking for servers with thermal issues or fans failing while folks are in there working. Sorry, not interested in autonomous drones in my work space! Will I be expected to where a hardhat at work? I've also seen so many examples of photo ops ending with drones failing and plummeting to the ground over people. I think this will eventually hurt someone seriously and I fear those guidelines we modelers have worked with so long will turn into laws. Most of the drone folks I've met have no R/C background and really fail to see just how wrong drones can go. Very worried about some badly behaving drone folks ruining it for other modelers.

Using drones to deliver viruses, etc

[ronsavagegoog]

This is all a bit petty. When someone starts using drones to deliver viruses, poison gas, or even sleeping gas, you'll really have something to worry about. I've written a book on this subject: http://savage.net.au/The-Drone... Sweet dreams.

Re:Repeatinghttp:/ something does not make it true

[bongey]

The AMA also provides insurance if you are following all there rules, it is part of the membership.

Re:Oh sure. Let's make drones illegal...

[Slashdot Parent]

Anything that flies, even a rock is regulated by the FAA.

So you're telling me that if I throw a rock through a window that the FAA could fine me? I'm skeptical.