FAA Opinion: shooting down drone is a federal crime

[johndoe3]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/faa- ... ral-crime/

The FAA issued an opinion that shooting down a drone is damaging an aircraft, and thus is a federal crime with up to 20 years in prison.

Meanwhile, State courts have been far more lenient/understanding concerning snooping drones peeking in windows, etc.

This is an issue that needs to be fleshed out, probably by Congress. It seems to me that a private drone is unpiloted and more of a toy than an aircraft, that operates at altitudes below the FAA's province of 500 above ground level (is that right?). This thought process leads to my own opinion that the FAA is entirely wrong and needs to be reined in on this topic. What's your opinion?

[Gyrkin]

I did some searching and found the FFA defines an aircraft as: "Aircraft. A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."
So are they gonna start throwing people in prison for shooting trap and skeet?

[poikilotrm]

And now you boys understand why each and every one of us is a felon.

[Fulliautomatix]

"Used for flight" is pretty dang vague. Used for transporting people via flight perhaps? With the federal definition you'd get in trouble for damaging a paper airplane.

[LavaRed]

So consensually shooting at cheap remote control airplanes for fun would be a felony?

[renegade]

The issue as I see it is flying over property not your own and not public.

You can legally hover your drone over someone's backyard BBQ, Kid Party, Wedding, etc. WF?T

[doubloon]

...
So are they gonna start throwing people in prison for shooting trap and skeet?

Small difference between being launched and actually flying.

Similarly, an air gun launches a projectile but that doesn't make it a firearm.

[doubloon]

So consensually shooting at cheap remote control airplanes for fun would be a felony?

https://youtu.be/RR5BtXP0s0o?t=111

[johndoe3]

Actually, taking down drones is easy with a jammer. The following company sells many different multi-band jammers that cause small toy-like drones to crash.

http://jammers4u.com/drones-jammer

Also, a person handy with electronics could build their own drone jammer, if they did the homework on finding out all the frequency bands you need to jam.

So...no need to shoot down a drone if there is a risk of Federal prosecution, and jammers can be disguised to look like a harmless object so no one would even know it was done.

[LavaRed]

So consensually shooting at cheap remote control airplanes for fun would be a felony?

https://youtu.be/RR5BtXP0s0o?t=111

That's exactly what I had in mind. It looks like tonnes of fun!

[whiterussian1974]

"Used for flight" is pretty dang vague. Used for transporting people via flight perhaps? With the federal definition you'd get in trouble for damaging a paper airplane.

That would be 'manned flight.'

The Law should have definitions for each section like TX Statutes do. We have over a dozen definitions of a 'child' depending upon Section. IE: Child prior to 2nd Bday, prior to 4th Bday, prior to 7th Bday, 10th, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, etc. So 'child' for car seat and 'child' for smoking are different.

Manned aircraft, Powered, Commercial, Experimental, etc each have their own definitions.

Unmanned, Hobby, non-Commercial, under 1hp should have its own Class where VFR outside Controlled/Regulated Airspace would fall under State Law, rather than 20yr in Fed Prison.

(What are you in for?
Smuggling 20kg of coke and 100lbs of grass, you?
I used a jammer to ground a 12oz hobby drone. )

And jammers can violate FCC Regs. That's why traffic mph radar jammers can only reflect RF rather than blanket jam the source.

Same for cell phone jammers above a certain wattage. FCC-Regulated only over that threshhold, unless Secret Protocols have entered the CFR.

[Capt. Link.]

And jammers can violate FCC Regs. That's why traffic mph radar jammers can only reflect RF rather than blanket jam the source.

Many moons ago I witnessed a radar amplifying repeater in use.The state did not allow radar receivers so a bud invented a device that only amplified the radar signal so it overloaded the radar gun.Either the front end would burn out or the unit would reject the reading.Pretty funny seeing smoke from a police car knowing you just toasted a revenue device for the state.

[whiterussian1974]

And jammers can violate FCC Regs. That's why traffic mph radar jammers can only reflect RF rather than blanket jam the source.

Many moons ago I witnessed a radar amplifying repeater in use...Pretty funny seeing smoke from a police car knowing you just toasted a revenue device for the state.

https://rockymountainradar.com/shop/las ... scrambler/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h285SOxnArY
The 'review' is stacked against the model. In reality they DO work. I've had one (an older model) since 1997 and they aren't perfect, but often scramble the circuitry. Whenever I've passed a roadside unit it flickers and reads 87/23, so an invalid result. Thus, not a good read.

However, there are range limitations. If on a hilly road in OK, it is good enough for a ticket/stop/search and the unit will be confiscated. I know some CDL truckers who rig up aluminum wiring to get a similar effect. The 'antenna' boosts the signal and gives a faulty reading. Commercial Vehicles can't use detector/jammers, so it's a good substitute.

[Capt. Link.]

Aluminum wire.....care to explain the logic of that!

Getting back on track if I see a drone in my back yard its fair game.I think even a .gov drone would be violating a persons rights if used for surveillance even if a warrant was issued for its use. I would exonerate anyone if they blew one out of the sky based on privacy.

[whiterussian1974]

Does shining a laser at the drone's camera = a felony? Seems like protecting one's own privacy is a Federal crime, too.

The Law and CFR really need to catch up to modern technology. And Privacy Protection needs to outweigh giving the Public a False Sense of Security. Just breathing is a threat to Life, we need to except that Life is of its very Nature dangerous.
---
Also, the Law used to protect the airspace for a few hundred feet above one's real property. (Air Rights above as water and mineral Rights below.) VFR is 700'. So shouldn't that height above one's house be protected airspace? And shouldn't 'Hobby' pilots need to file Flight Plans if higher than 700'?

Don't be surprised if drones need transponders and Flight Data Recorders next. Add enough equipment and hobbyists wouldn't be able to afford the powerplant to get them off the ground!

No need to criminalize harmless behaviour. Just regulate it to death.