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.
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.
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.
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...
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.