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.

Comments

FAA admits to alien role in populating the world?

[Bruce66423]

"This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas" So who's doing this populating remotely? We have a right to know...

Pecions?

[ShaunC]

I, for one, welcome our new pecion overlords. I'd also welcome some better OCR software.

Re:Pecions?

[sumdumass]

As a native English speaker, albeit a product of public schools, I suffer the same difficulty as you do in regards to this word.

Perhaps the FAA made a mistake and intended to write peons.

Re:Pecions?

[neglogic]

It's about as bad as "arcular". I'm guessing they meant "circular", but who knows.

Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[tepples]

The complaint, as I understand it, is not that the FAA is enforcing the law on the books but that this law is not useful.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[Iamthecheese]

The law itself is bad -- It's crushing innovation that would otherwise create a whole new dynamic part of the economy.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[gweihir]

Apparently, there are forces at work that do not want the US economy to do well...

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[ShanghaiBill]

I don't like the idea of drones whizzing above my head all the time

Yet that is perfectly legal, as long as the drone operator isn't being paid by someone else ... which means the operator is more likely to be an untrained uninsured amateur, rather than a professional.

it makes the odds of being hit by something falling out of the sky much greater than it would be otherwise.

It also increases the odds of dying in a natural disaster, since "search and rescue" is one of the banned services.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[Kohath]

Threatening people unnecessarily is evil -- law or no law.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[ColdWetDog]

That's not true at all. There are a number of laws regulating model aircraft. And the community has managed to stay within the FAA's good graces by (generally) not pushing the limits or rubbing any painful little areas on the FAA's corporate skin. Model rocketry has been the same and it seems to be rather similar to the FCC's relationship with Amateur radio. Play nice, work under the radar, be happy with what we give you. Don't make pests out of yourselves.

But allowing commercial use opens up whole new containers of slimy invertebrates. The FAA has said they will come up with rules for commercial use of UAVs. They're just taking rather a long time to get around to it. Which annoys some people who are hopped up on Starbucks and LiPo batteries (a fairly dangerous combination in my opinion).

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[Rei]

Until I can be sure things are as safe as they reasonably can get I'd rather not have drones delivering packages yet

But that's exactly what drone proponents are asking for - a permitting standard that gives them the right to fly in these conditions and for these purposes in exchange for meeting a set of safety standards. Passive or automatically-engaged active safety features that ensure that "death by falling drone" is effectively an impossibility, whether that things like be cowled propellors, parachutes, an inherently low terminal velocity, fully independent backup propulsion, or whatever the case may be.

And in case you didn't notice, massive objects weighing hundreds of tons loaded with massive amounts of fuel and capable of taking out whole city blocks and/or skyscapers already fly extensively over your head. But you're worried about little plastic helicopters?

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[Ol Olsoc]

The law itself is bad -- It's crushing innovation that would otherwise create a whole new dynamic part of the economy.

There are issues that need to be ironed out. Unless you like the idea of a drone accidentally slicing your head off while in the pursuit of capital.

Can drones be used to monitor people ala a unmanned private detective?

Can a drone go on fishing expeditions, running up and down looking through windows?

What is the liability if a police drone accidentally slices your head off?

What is the liability if a private detective's drone accidentally slices your head off?

Same with a drone crashing into your house and lighting it on fire.

Same with you accidentally crushing a police Drone. Have you committed a crime?

and on and on.

It isn't all a privacy issue though. It might be looked at as similar to the old dreams of everyone flying instead of using cars. It could obviously be done, but most people just aren't capable of doing it without killing half of everyone else. Even a small drone can wreak nasty injuries.

The things are cheap, have been proliferating, and there needs to be some guidelines. The free market settling this thing would look a lot like a war of attrition, as incompetents get weeded out, often by killing innocent people. Nah, maybe we can give it some thought?

Ther are going to be some awesome uses for drones. But we gotta have some ground rules.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[russotto]

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.

The FAA tried to fine one commercial aerial photographer for "deliberately, flagrantly" breaking this law. They lost in court. Not, mind you, a judicial determination: they lost in their own administrative court, where one of their own administrative judges ruled they did not have the authority to regulate these aircraft.

Legally, nothing has changed since then, though appeals are still in progress. The FAA, thus, is attempting to assert an authority that at the present time, they have been told by their own courts that they do not have.

That's what's controversial.

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[jc42]

And in case you didn't notice, massive objects weighing hundreds of tons loaded with massive amounts of fuel and capable of taking out whole city blocks and/or skyscapers already fly extensively over your head. But you're worried about little plastic helicopters?

Very true, but the operators of those have (so far) usually been part of the" cargo". This has ensured that they're interested in their own survival. And the massive flying objects have been sufficiently expensive that corporate bean counters and their bosses actively support serious safety measures (which are mostly successful).

What we're talking about now is the prospect that, when we walk out our door into our yard, we'll find ourselves in the midst of a flock of tiny, computer-controlled flying objects that include bundles of rapidly-whirling blades. These objects will, of course, be trying to deliver all that junk mail that we're finding in our mailbox every day. And they won't know or care about the welfare of those unidentifiable living creatures that are in the way of making their database-ordained deliveries.

It's hard to reassure people about the minimal danger here, especially when there are frequent news reports of those big, expensive flying things crashing into houses or skyscrapers and killing everyone within. The same corporate overlords who can't prevent such incidents will also be the ones sending orders to the databases and onboard chips that control the little thingies with small whirling blades that buzz about without a controlling human mind.

The phrase "What could possibly go wrong?" comes to everyone's mind here. It's gonna take some serious psych research and PR campaigns to overcome this apprehension ...

Re:Responsible Agency Enforcing Law

[penguinoid]

In America, if the law were enforced everyone would be in jail. This probably means that most of the laws are in fact terrible and should be repealed. I suspect that the primary purpose of those laws are so that annoying people can always be jailed for some reason or another. Either that or the bureaucrats are incompetent at updating obsolete laws and passing new ones.

Either way, in the long run people are likely to find that it is not only cheaper, but also safer, to deliver a package via a 5 pound drone rather than via a 5000 pound delivery truck controlled by a faulty meat-computer with poor reaction times.

I understand the FAA's position...

[jenningsthecat]

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.

Re:I understand the FAA's position...

[jklovanc]

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.

That is not true. The FAA issues a certificate of authorization for valid use of drones. Here is a map of authorized drone use in the US. Click on the dots and you will see that their areas of operation are quite restricted. The issue is that commercial aircraft require a COA and the FAA has yet to certify drones for commercial use.

Re:dafuq are pecions?

[DaveM753]

Slashdot posters should run spell check, in my pecional opinion.

Re:Competition

[ShanghaiBill]

Is the government worried it has competition for "spying"?

No, that is not the main concern. The number of people on food stamps and SSDI has tripled in the past decade, creating lots of new jobs for welfare administrators. Private citizens that engage in productive, income generating activity, are a threat to those jobs, so the government is trying to put a stop to it. Using a drone for a hobby is okay. But using a drone to start a business and support your family, is not. If we allow that, it will soon spiral out of control, with the businesses growing, offering more services, hiring more people, including office staff, IT people, accountants, janitors, etc. If we are not careful, pretty soon everyone that wants a job, will have one.

don't kid yourself what this is about

[silfen]

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.

Re:don't kid yourself what this is about

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

That actually isn't true...

Few properties actually own any "air rights". They exist, but are less common than you think. Also, most "air rights" have more to do with the blocking of the view from other properties, than they have to do with aviation or flying.

There is no "lower limit" of flight space, Class B, C, D, E or G airspace goes all the way to the ground, everywhere in the USA.

Where I live, we're in the DFW Class B airspace, starting from 1 foot going up to 10,000 feet MSL (above Mean Sea Level).

Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you're breaking the law standing on your roof, or putting up a TV antenna... such things are understood by the law to be reasonable uses of your home and property.

You cannot generally put up anything taller than 200ft without a permit (and if you do, they'll make you take it down if it can't be permitted). It also has to be lit with a flashing red light at night and marked on the various aviation charts.

This is why Cinderella's Castle at Walt Disney World is just under 200ft tall, so they didn't have to put a big red light on the top.

- more than 10 years of professional aviation experience speaking, certified flight instructor in both airplanes and helicopters, more than 4,000 hours flown, more than 1,000 hours of instruction given

TL,DR - In short, most people think they have more rights than they really do when it comes to their properties, above and below them...

Re:dafuq are pecions?

[istartedi]

I don't know, but I hope we don't have to send troops back to Dafuq.

Re:FAA admits to alien role in populating the worl

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Competition

[knightghost]

OR ...

It could be that the FAA needs to get off it's ass and write some updated regulations instead of turning law abiding citizens into criminals.

Re:Competition

[ShanghaiBill]

It could lead to criminal activity seeing as how it's against the law.

The point being discussed is that the law (actually a regulation) is silly and should be changed. So pointing out the obvious fact that it is currently illegal is idiotic. Pointing out that something is illegal is not a valid argument that it should be illegal.

A Federal Judge Ruled FAA Has No Authority

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Weapon Equity a much better idea than you think

[SuperKendall]

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.