Drone Law Journal

[jbrumberg]

http://dronelawjournal.com/

This seems legitimate. I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I do know that I do live in a litigious society. I do know that irresponsible owner/operators' flight operations reported in the manner currently in fashion with the news media creating public hysteria and interpreted by our ill-informed governmental representatives does not help responsible owner/operators in this hobby.

 

[Bartman]

http://dronelawjournal.com/

This seems legitimate. I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I do know that I do live in a litigious society. I do know that irresponsible owner/operators' flight operations reported in the manner currently in fashion with the news media creating public hysteria and interpreted by our ill-informed governmental representatives does not help responsible owner/operators in this hobby.

he looks like an opportunist to me, a non-practicing attorney with a DJI Phantom

 

[petersachs]

he looks like an opportunist to me, a non-practicing (edit, removed erroneous statement) attorney with a DJI Phantom

Not sure why you'd call me "an opportunist," or why you'd falsely claim that I "never did practice." I have never stated anywhere online or otherwise that I "never did practice." Nor has anyone else. Would you kindly tell me your source for that false statement?

The fact is I do practice, and I have since 1994. I list myself online as "non-practicing" solely because I don't accept clients. I do legal work only for public interest and never for a fee. That's right, I do it for free. In this instance I am merely trying to assist the R/C flying population by explaining the current state of "drone law," for free. I'm not seeking to represent anyone. It even says that on the site. Not sure how doing public interest law without clients and for free makes me "an opportunist."

If you don't like the opinions I am asserting on the site, you are certainly free to disagree. However, making false statements about me in a public forum is really not the proper thing to do.

You are correct about one thing, however. I do fly a Phantom. In fact I had an interesting flight last week that might change your mind about me being "an opportunist." You might have read about it or saw it on the news. Here's a link to one of the news accounts: Drone Helped Avert Danger In Yesterday's Branford Fire

 

[Emowillcox]

Next time I make a paper airplane I will be thinking about what I just read.

 

[jes1111]

Hello Peter - sorry that you got a negative reaction here - seems the "drone" world is full of cynical ostriches

Any update on the Trappy case? Do you know when anything is due to happen?

 

[Emowillcox]

Peter that was a cool news story how you were able to help the fire department.

 

[jbrumberg]

I posted the link for informational purposes and for feedback from, other owner/operators as to the site link and governmental intrusion on our hobby. It is my understanding that my town has no by-laws, regulations, or prohibitions on RC aircraft flying over open public domain areas following discussions with my local police officials, but the rules of common sense, common courtesy, and personal privacy must still be respected if I were to choose to fly off my property. Even then based on these same discussions that I have had; there are individual citizens within my community if they saw a "drone" flying anyway near what they perceived to be their personal "private airspace" would take defensive measures without prior notification of the local or state police or the FAA. The way the "law" would work around my area, and the way that I interpret this hypothetical situation- as long as the shotgun was owned and fired legally, no one would be in real trouble. I would get a written citation of some kind, the shotgun owner would get a verbal warning, and I would have a shot up quad.

This is a hobby with a technology in its infancy. The technology is developing exponentially and we are all trying to play catch up.

 

[Motopreserve]

Peter,

I am a little confused. While I understand what you stated about the "legality" of flight due to no specific law(s) being on the books - it seems the FAA left a backdoor with their broad and vague wording pertaining to the definition of "aircraft."

“aircraft” means, “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.“

Considering the above statement certainly includes our craft (as well as paper airplanes), does this, or does it NOT allow the FAA to cite this statute, thereby allowing them to "govern" our craft??? I understand there have been no laws written to specifically prohibit the use of our craft - but would the statue you mention on your web site give the FAA the right to exert influence over this matter (perhaps requiring a registration code to be displayed on the side of the craft)?

My other question is: you mention only Federal laws and regulations on your linked page (I didn't get deeper than that yet). Wondering whether state (or local) laws would apply here? I have heard/read a couple things about State officials discussing possible regulations here in Vermont - but I am not sure if this is in conjunction with the Federal mandate to figure this out, or if it is in addition to the Federal?

Scott

 

[petersachs]

...does this, or does it NOT allow the FAA to cite this statute, thereby allowing them to "govern" our craft???

Hi Scott:

Good question. The FAA can and has cited this statute, (in Trappy's case), however if remote-controlled model aircraft are in fact "aircraft," (as defined by statute and regulation), they then are subject to all of the other statutes and regulations that pertain to aircraft— including the legal requirement that the NTSB investigate all "aircraft" accidents. Yet the FAA has not done that, ever. By failing to investigate any remote-controlled model aircraft accidents over a very long period of time, and by failing to require registration, airworthiness certification, pilot certification and medical certification as required for the operation of all "aircraft," the FAA has essentially "admitted" that these types of craft are not "aircraft" as defined in the statute or regulation.

My other question is: you mention only Federal laws and regulations on your linked page (I didn't get deeper than that yet). Wondering whether state (or local) laws would apply here? I have heard/read a couple things about State officials discussing possible regulations here in Vermont - but I am not sure if this is in conjunction with the Federal mandate to figure this out, or if it is in addition to the Federal?

You raise a very valid point regarding State and Local laws. I am purposely focusing on Federal law because it is a federal agency, (the FAA), that is asserting legal restrictions exist that do not in fact exist. Moreover, since there are 50 states it would take way too much of my time to cover all of their statutes. It is also quite likely that, (other than State statutes regulating its own public agencies use of drones), any other attempts by States to assert control over aviation would be pre-empted under Federal Law.

 

[jbrumberg]

but if they are not "aircraft" by definition then the FAA has no jurisdiction and state and local laws and regulations could apply as there is no definition for "aircraft" at a federal level, but there could be on a state or local level? I am just asking here. I already asked my local police.

 

[Motopreserve]

Thanks for the response Peter.

It seems to me the fact that they have not "chosen" to enforce these statutes would not negate the statue itself.

Not sure this is the correct analogy, but : if a police officer sees you pass at 5mph over the limit, and chooses not to enforce the legal limit (within his right to enforce), could we then assume that the speed limit has been raised by 5mph?

I know this is not what you're suggesting, but I fear the absence of enforcement is just that - an absence, and not a negation of the ability to enforce if they so choose.

I'm not familiar with this "Trappy case"???

 

[petersachs]

but if they are not "aircraft" by definition then then the FAA has no jurisdiction and state and local laws and regulations could apply as there is no definition for "aircraft" at a federal level, but there could be on a state or local level? I am just asking here. I already asked my local police.

Very good logic. However, even though the FAA has no regulations in place currently, it doesn't mean they won't in the near future. And the general rules of preemption state that if a federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to “occupy the field” in that area of the law, it preempts state law. The FARs are pretty pervasive. This is called, "field preemption."

That said, your point is very valid, and there is an argument to be made that you are entirely correct. Since the FAA has indicated, (until now), no desire whatsoever to regulate remote-controlled model aircraft, the state or local law might not be preempted.

 

[Motopreserve]

I also like to say, I feel the use of the term "drone" could possibly endanger this hobby/business more than anything pertaining to this issue. And it certainly could help guide/drive the legal statues.

Recently there was a thread started here by a group that put together a site for warehousing aerial photo/video for potential clients. Someone suggested that they change their description to eliminate the use of the word "Drone" (might have even been in the title of the site???). They respectfully declined, citing the public's familiarity with the term. The issue is the public IS familiar - and there is no denying that the public focus is bound to be on the wartime use of this technology - no matter how small and cute our crafts are in comparison, there will be a negative connotation if the term Drone persists for these smaller, non-lethal, non-privacy infringing craft.

I believe there needs to be a concerted effort to change this perception - even if it's starting with something as seemingly small as the commonly known term for hobby-style craft. I fear something as little as a term could help make or break the future stance by the government, in order to quell the public fear. Misperceptions get stuck inside people's minds very easily (just ask the marketing departments of big tobacco and soda!).

Hey, I get it. I don't want "Drones" flying over the USA either. But a small unmanned multirotor hovering over a fire site, potentially saving the lives of firefighters? Have at it!

 

[petersachs]

Thanks for the response Peter.

It seems to me the fact that they have not "chosen" to enforce these statutes would not negate the statue itself.

Not sure this is the correct analogy, but : if a police officer sees you pass at 5mph over the limit, and chooses not to enforce the legal limit (within his right to enforce), could we then assume that the speed limit has been raised by 5mph?

I know this is not what you're suggesting, but I fear the absence of enforcement is just that - an absence, and not a negation of the ability to enforce if they so choose.

I'm not familiar with this "Trappy case"???

Law enforcement does have discretion, yes. And not pulling someone over for traveling 5 mph over the limit is an example of that.

But I believe it would be more analogous to the situation with remote-controlled model aircraft, if, in the entire history of automobiles, law enforcement never once pulled an automobile over for speeding and in addition, there existed no laws whatsoever "on the books" that stated automobiles were even subject to a speed limit.

As for Trappy's case, here's a pretty good summary: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drone-pilot-challenges-faa-commercial-flying-ban/

 

[jbrumberg]

The problem is us, irresponsible owner/operators exhibiting poor judgement in the operation of their aircraft, the media and how they perceive, interpret and present the news, the public and how they interpret what they perceive, and clueless reactionary lawmakers and how they perceive (if they perceive at all) news (or what they believe to be news), interpret this "news" (votes) and initiate legislation (votes) based on ignorance ("news" and votes) and the public's hysteria.

 

[petersachs]

I also like to say, I feel the use of the term "drone" could possibly endanger this hobby/business more than anything pertaining to this issue. And it certainly could help guide/drive the legal statues.

I agree. Most folks consider drones solely as "weapons of war." Unfortunately, I believe the word "drone" is here to say. It's already been embraced by the media and most of the general public. It would be difficult if not impossible to get people to not use it.

 

[petersachs]

The problem is us, irresponsible owner/operators exhibiting poor judgement in the operation of their aircraft, the media and how they perceive, interpret and present the news, the public and how they interpret what they perceive, and clueless reactionary lawmakers and how they perceive (if they perceive at all) news (or what they believe to be news), interpret this "news" (votes) and initiate legislation (votes) based on ignorance ("news" and votes) and the public's hysteria.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Motopreserve]

I agree. Most folks consider drones solely as "weapons of war." Unfortunately, I believe the word "drone" is here to say. It's already been embraced by the media and most of the general public. It would be difficult if not impossible to get people to not use it.

My hope is that it may be early enough to make an effort to change this term - and therefore perception. No question the media has latched onto it - but it's early yet, and there is always the chance that repetitive use of a better term byt those that own/operate them would help sway this tide. I have read articles with the interviewee (operators) using the term themselves. Perhaps a lck of a better term is helping drive this. Of course, I offer no decent alternative. Just recognize the potentially destructive nature of terms that stir emotion. "Obamacare" comes to mind. I know there was another term for it - but for the life of me I can't recall what it was!

This is interesting in the article about Trappy that you linked:

Then, in 2007 the FAA turned its attention to model airplanes once again. Now termed drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), the agency banned their use for business purposes. “We recognized that unmanned aircraft systems [UAS] would expand significantly and [took steps] to make sure UAS operation [did] not adversely affect safety,”

4 different terms used in one paragraph.

I agree with jay as well. The irresponsible use of these craft is not going to play nice in the media either. This is probably the biggest argument for requiring some type of licensing/registration for pilots.

My hope is that repeated news stories, like the one you were involved in, will help keep public perception on the side of the angels...or Drones as it were.

 

[Debian Dog]

Thanks for setting this up Peter... Not sure what your motivation exactly is but... I was glad to see your site was not full of ads or banners.

 

[jbrumberg]

Unfortunately "good" news is not newsworthy enough. It does not draw in viewers. "Bad" news "sells". All the media cares abut are their ratings, news may be a tertiary concern; if that. And we the general public have been dumbed down to simplistic, concrete thinking- "drones". It's all the general public can "comprehend" or want to comprehend.