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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
"... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
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.
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.