Slashdot Mirror
FAA Scans the Internet For Drone Users; Sends Cease and Desist Letters
An anonymous reader writes with this news from Government Attic: "The FAA has released a set of cease and desist letters sent in 2012 and 2013 to people operating drone vehicles for a variety of purposes including: tornado research, inspecting gas well stacks, aerial photography, journalism education, and other purposes. Drone cease and desist letters sent during 2014 are available from the FAA upon request." The text of the letters (bureaucratically polite, but bureaucratically firm) often starts with notes indicating to the UAV operators to whom they were sent that the FAA became interested in them because it "became aware of" their web sites, or even because someone tipped them off about an article in a community newsletter. The letters go on to outline the conditions under which the FAA allows the operation of unmanned aircraft, and specifically notes:
Those who use UAS only for recreational enjoyment, operate in accordance with Advisory
circular 91-57. This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas away
from airports, persons and buildings, below 400 feet Above Ground Level, and within
visual line of sight. On February 6, 2007 the FAA published UAS guidance in the Federal
Register, 14 CPR Part 91 / Docket No. FAA-2006-25714 I Unmanned Aircraft
Operations in the National Airspace System. Toward the end of the docket it says,
''The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS
with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC
91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes Its use by
persons or companies for business purposes."
Update: 09/07 02:16 GMT by T : Pray forgive the OCR that turned "persons" into "pecions" and "circular" into "arcular"; updated to fix those. Update: 09/08 11:07 GMT by T : Correction: Carl Malamud is not affiliated with Government Attic as this story originally described: sorry for the error.
"This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas" So who's doing this populating remotely? We have a right to know...
I, for one, welcome our new pecion overlords. I'd also welcome some better OCR software.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Is the government worried it has competition for "spying"?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
What, exactly, is controversial about this? The FAA is responsible for the safety of aviation, and a lot of corporations are deliberately, flagrantly breaking the law. Sounds like a good idea that the FAA enforce the law.
On the one hand, UAV's represent a potential danger to people on the ground, and to airplanes - not to mention the privacy implications.
On the other hand, (if my understanding is correct), military and law enforcement agencies are free to fly UAV's whenever and wherever they please. This represents a further un-levelling of the playing field - the government is steadily acquiring powers which make it impossible for citizens to control/hold responsible/overthrow their own elected leaders.
I honestly don't know the answer - I only know that it both scares me and pisses me off that the government can do whatever it wants with UAV's, while my ability to use them is very, very restricted.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Remember now, the internet was a military project. The power of the state to influence and track its citizenry is the most powerful feature of the internet.
~~~ There is no Wikileaks.
Slashdot posters should run spell check, in my pecional opinion.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=86c87220-27dd-4a0b-99cc-16df96d833a9
The FAA can bite my shiny metal ass.
Let's confuse them.
Form an "Association of fake drone operators"
Request some volunteers who operated drones in the past or in the future to donate some unidentifiable footage to use as "Stock drone operator" photographs and videos.
Publish hundreds of thousands of websites for the FAA to look at.
Provide a number of stock "bullshit" explanations of how the drone is being used that would violate all the FAA's supposed rules. Claim being used for rescue, research. Talk about how you received $100 for running the drone for a friend; delivering the paper, delivering goods.. whatever.
Get the FAA writing "Cease and Decist" letters to hundreds of thousands of folks who never operated drones.
It will be too much time and energy, so they'll never be able to figure out the difference between the thousands of fakes and the small number of participants who actually flew drones.
maybe they'll be cheap enough for a one-time use. just like "burner" cellphones.
Making a commercial vs recreational distinction is completely idiotic.
taping a phone to a helicopter isn't illegal.
Here is the real quote;
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes Its use by persons or companies for business purposes."
The funny thing is that when I coped the first instance of the quote from the site I get "pecoins" and had to change it to "persons". It looks like the OCR screwed up.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?CATID=1995
This isn't about the FAA protecting you from drone flights. Right now, you're well protected from drone flights over your private land because the airspace over your land is yours, up to the lower limit of flight space, generally 500-1000ft above the tallest structures.
With these actions, the FAA is effectively trying to gain the power to regulate airspace that previously was either entirely private (over private land) or entirely public (over public land).
In part, that will likely mean actually allowing commercial drone operators to fly over your land at heights where they currently can't fly. Whether that's their intent right now or not doesn't matter; lobbying down the road will force that to happen. So, far from protecting you from drones, this is likely a prelude to be able to force you to let drones pass at low altitude over your property.
or at least Real Capitalism instead of the Corporatist Fascism we have now.
The UK plan is not very different from the US plan. In the UK you still need permission from the CAA under certain conditions.;
You must request permission from the CAA if you plan to:
- fly the aircraft on a commercial basis (i.e. conducting ‘aerial work’)
or
- fly a camera/surveillance fitted aircraft within congested areas or closer (than the distances listed within Article 167) to people or properties (vehicles, vessels or structures) that are not under your control
I don't know, but I hope we don't have to send troops back to Dafuq.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You should see all of the discarded and abandoned remotes out here in the Alaskan bush. Hundreds of thousands of them scurrying around looking for AAA batteries and an IR beam. It's really sad.
What that has to do with UAVs isn't clear.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Given that permission is given is to ' own only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.', taking steps to prevent noise on your property to ensure your enjoyment of it seems a reasonable use...
Not help the general public in any way.
Actually seem to think they can stop technology that anyone can build in their garage.
Next they'll be trying to claim that I can't use my flying car as a taxi.
First of all AC91-57 is an advisory circular on model aircraft standards dated 9 June 1981 and signed by R. J. van Vuren (Director Air Traffic Service).
Its purpose: "This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators."
So, 1) it applies to any one who is a "model aircraft operator" not just "modelers".
and 2) compliance is voluntary
"Modelers" are mentioned in the advisory circular, but only in the background section:
"Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise good judgement when flying model aircraft."
Sounds like somebody in the FAA is making up their own rules as they go.
Johnny Drone Hunter will save us. We don't need no stinking FAA letters!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I am frequently found wondering about the pace of tech and the abilities it gives us being up against the speed of government, a large organization not known for speed. Designer drugs, fracking, UAVs, etc etc etc... It seems like it you move fast enough you can get away with a lot before anyone notices what you're up to. :D
This is not always a good thing, but... it is interesting.
I am a drone pilot. You don't want to know how many billions of dollars worth of these have dropped out of the sky. The FAA is right here; they're inherently dangerous, and developing safety regulations for something inherently unsafe must be done well.
So who's doing this populating remotely?
sperm donors. I have fathered 12 children from across the world.
bad OCR: persons. Same deal for the "arcular" whatever: circular.
IANAL, but perhaps one could jump in here and point out what other regulations permit the certification, licensing and operation of unpiloted aircraft in the airspace they regulate. Compliance with this advisory might be voluntary. But the alternative might be operation under one of the FAA's type certificate processes for piloted aircraft. And that would include such things as certification, inspections, airframe registration, etc. Or don't fly at all.
Have gnu, will travel.
And what exactly is the legal basis for the FAA's denying commercial operation of "drones"? I don't mean the arbitrarily created regulations that they're quoting but the actual LAW passed by congress and the president? I have a sneaking suspicion that its some vague "ensuring public/air safety" law that they are stretching WAY past its original intent. Something on the order of a hypothetical USDA law to "ensure commercial food safety" being used outlaw all roadside vegetable stands.
The FAA: Keeping the airspace around tornados safe for the public since 2013.
Um, the more relevant part was that it didn't just apply to modelers unlike what the article claimed.
In the near future those cease and desist letters will be sent via drones.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
And what is your personal definition of a model?
> The problem is that they are blocking commercial activities while allowing recreational activities
You can't see the difference between you operating a toy over an uninhabited field vs UPS and Amazon operating a fleet if thousands of commercial drones operating in neighborhoods? With commerce comes scale.
Instead of finding a solution for the problem (drone crashes and public safety) they just remove the problem. Cut off your leg to fix your broken toe.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Well - if FAA goes after those doing tornado research they are essentially just getting bad publicity. It seems to me that they essentially just try to shoot down every operation that is competing with the paperwork path of the FAA.
Better set up a new set of rules instead, since as long as you operate it for other than private use but use it in a way that doesn't invade privacy or on your own property then I don't see a problem with using a drone (which is a RC model anyway.)
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The controversial part is that the FAA doesn't have the authority it is claiming to have and is overstepping.
FAA has already admitted that their C&D letters are not really C&D letters and have no force of law. Look at the Equasearch v FAA case history and findings. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2343...
That is not remotely true. There are no 'air rights'. Let's see you try putting up a tall building or antenna without getting FAA approval and being responsible for lighting it. Once Supreme Court case has essentially said 83 feet is reasonable (US v Causby). You will not find a single citation that supports your 50-100 claim. You just made it up or heard it and think it is true, but it is not.
If this simply caused more folks to read and comment on the Federal Register it would be a great impact on society. But this is an example of the sheeple letting a Federal Regulator post a monologue with no basis in logic or fact, open up law abiding citizens to fines and enforcement and most importantly of all infringement on liberty to engage in lawful business practices of great benefit (aerial photography with consent of the persons involved).
That's pretty impressive. The furthest I can 'donate' sperm is from one side of the bathroom sink to the other...
Set up fake UAV websites, give the FAA a fun ride.
Pretty much all of the populated areas of the USA were done so remotely by European governments...
[The Universe] has gone offline.
It would have been illegal for the Wright Brothers' first flight if we had today's regulations back then...
What if I want to operate Rent-a-Drone? I'd be making money off them but not operating them in any way. I'd even make the renters sign an agreement saying they will use them at the local open field for entertainment and not in any commercial way.
I would bet that there is money involved in this somewhere. Just as every other regulatory agency, they need money to operate. Further, they continually need to justify their existence. Technology can't be uninvented. Picture this: A small group of UAV companies need to make money and keep making money without the fear of Joe-schmo and his home-built UAV cutting in on their territory. The formal companies get together and hire a few lobbyists to convince the FAA that the home-built UAV is dangerous and needs to be regulated in the form of expensive annual certifications. The companies that could afford the lobbyists can also easily afford the annual license fees. The little guy can't so he's forced to go away. The FAA is happy to have the additional revenue and probably some baksheesh from the lobbyists so they go along with it.
Just this year, a Federal judge ruled that the FAA has no authority to regulate drones outside of navigable airways. (Which are clearly specified on aviation charts.)
It doesn't matter whether the use is commercial.
The FAA has appealed the ruling, but since the judge appears to have ruled on solid Constitutional grounds, I doubt very much they'll win the appeal.
It's just a fact: FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over everything in the air. All of their authority is based on the Federal ability to regulate manned interstate airplane flight.
Tht's not the way laws and regulations work. Laws apply to everyone unless a specific exceptino is granted. The FAA is empowered to regulate the public airspace. So unless modelers can cite an exception in some legislation, the FAA can hold them to the same standards as other classes of aircraft. That they don't is (as some people claim) purely a priveledge granted by the kindness of the FAA. If a voluntary exemption turns out to be unworkable, because non hobbyists attemt to skirt the law, then they might just pull the whole hobby exception.
You'll need an airframe certificate, registration and pilot's license to fly anything in any public airspace.
Have gnu, will travel.
Based on my right to bear arms to defend myself against the government, I want "Weapon Equity."
So do I.
Only it doesn't mean some retarded nonsense like "I want a tank".
No, it means that no police force should have any weapon *a citizen cannot*. In short, I don't want a tank or APC - but neither should the police have them.
I am OK with the military being better armed, because they are a professional force with lots of training in using advanced equipment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Really? You can have all the weapons a police force can have?
No Asshole.
The police can have all the weapons *i* can have.
The fact you can't understand the difference is very disturbing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the public comment period and court cases made it clear that that was not helpful.
If they are still doing it, that would be more interesting.
The most annoying part of the FAA's current stance in my opinion is that two identical UAV flights can take place in identical settings, one being legal the other not. Consider someone taking photos at a local park in a safe manner with a UAV. The FAA is fine with this operation. Then, another party asks the UAV operator to take a picture of something in the park and offers payment to the operator. The second flight is just as safe as the first, but is deemed illegal by the FAA as this operation is deemed to be a commercial operation.
Why is this? In my opinion it is the FAA's manner of limiting the number of UAV flights until it figures out what to do with the potentially huge commercial application of UAVs in the US airspace. One can understand this from their perspective. The problem is that they show very little capability to develop reasonable and timely solutions to integrating the UAVs into the US airspace system.
First off, those C & D letters can be ignored. The FAA has no authority to regulate R/C aircraft unless they are constituting a threat to air traffic, like near an airport. Next, 91-57 is just a set of guidelines. It's not even regulations. The FAA's only enforcement authority is through the courts, which seldom rule in their favor. Outside of licensing pilots, certifying piloted aircraft, and airport airspace regulations, the FAA has little or no authority.
R/C aircraft have been around since the late 1940s, and there are tens of thousands of hobbyists. There is no law prohibiting the use of an RC aircraft for commercial use, and they have, in fact, been used for that very purpose many times over the years. It's just that now, with digital electronics, and inexpensive digital cameras, it is within the financial reach of more people, and the internet allows anyone to start a business. The government doesn't like freedom. They are afraid people will realize that they are mostly unnecessary.
For example: When is the last time an RC aircraft caused an airliner to crash? When is the last time an actual crime was committed using an RC aircraft (drone)? Other than minor accidents, when was the last time anyone was seriously hurt because of an RC aircraft? Have any government secrets been lost because of RC aircraft? .....I rest my case.