Arrested for flying like a Kerbanaut

[PB666]

I'm not well versed on the range of these drones and UAV's, but I assume a good one could make it pretty far. That assumption made, I wonder how things will change once people start trying to fly them to places like the desert MOA and restricted area north of Las Vegas where Area 51 is. We've already had someone fly one over the White House.

I imagine these incidences will spark some sort of regulatory backlash that can hamper or cripple hobbyist.

With the FAA nothing has to be done, they are charged with protecting the public safety in the airspace, so they can force airspace over an event. Area 51 is covered by old espionage statutes. The white house is in the DC airspace, other than military its a no-fly zone below a certain alt. Basically if I create an event in the middle of a desert, and there is a reasonable risk that a someone or something could be used to terrorize that event. The FAA might chose to close that space and send out a NOTAM and thats it. They now have the authority. So, this may offend some hobbiest, but ignorance is not a defense, even a model plane hobbiest is responsible for knowing what these are in some contexts.

[J.Random]

I'm not well versed on the range of these drones and UAV's, but I assume a good one could make it pretty far. That assumption made, I wonder how things will change once people start trying to fly them to places like the desert MOA and restricted area north of Las Vegas where Area 51 is. We've already had someone fly one over the White House.

I imagine these incidences will spark some sort of regulatory backlash that can hamper or cripple hobbyist.

Drones are already being used for drug trafficking across the borders and for prison contraband, afaik.

[PB666]

1 - Bet on your team

2 - Go to the game and cheer your team

3 - ????

4 - Get arrested.

This thing about how laws are de facto justifiable is nonsense.

context. This is not about blowing vuvuzuelas at a soccer match, its about intruding into a zone in which non-participnats would not be expected to intrude. Same as streaking onto a field or throwing hazards at the players.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks god for central Europe with just mildly restricted model flights (we can legally fly our drones over any match)

Wait until a terrorist flies an object into Buckingham palace or the Hague and watch how fast that would change. Europe appears to be targeted via the mass transit system (Madrid, london 2x) and the Offices, Ethnic areas. Europe is easy to get into. US is harder to get into (Unless for some bizarre reason you are hispanic, its surpringly easy and staying is even easier) and so the strategy has been get in and do something big fast. Yes, their is illegal traffic over the mexican border, but thier are few public safety risk, I have traveled some of the no man's land on the rio grande, its a really large area with nothig there. I could see copters in 5 years that could literally carry illegals over and drop them off and returns, then another picks them up shy of the 50 mile border station and drops them off on the other side. There are areas in w texas were ther is no border control, its all natural barriers, but if you gyro copter someone over a cliff, they walk 10 miles over the mesa land and they are on 90 and there are no control stations, they are in. I expect the US might have to install automated EMP stations that can drop electronics out of mid-air.

[Camacha]

Would "negatively reinforced" be a better term? At the moment, most of the education on accident prevention while operating a drone is kinda darwinian. Like, people remember that you should switch your transmitter on first and then switch the drone on only after it tries to chop their fingers off.

This is why I was for pushing for effective measures before, not severe measures. Those are profoundly different things. Saying you will punish anyone caught severely seems effective at first glance, but if we have learned anything in the past decades, it often is not. Educating people and making the likelihood of them being caught will probably be much more effective than chopping anyone's head off if he messes up.

Sadly, in politics, having issues with something often means trying to repress something with harsher punishment, even though history tells us that almost never works (and quite often has counter-productive effects).

RICO investigation

I gather you are talking about the US. Again, jurisdiction is everything. RICO does not mean much in any other part of the world, unless the US somehow manages to tie you into an international investigation and requests extradition - but you probably need to be neck deep in some ill-advised plan to get that to happen.

I'm not well versed on the range of these drones and UAV's, but I assume a good one could make it pretty far. That assumption made, I wonder how things will change once people start trying to fly them to places like the desert MOA and restricted area north of Las Vegas where Area 51 is. We've already had someone fly one over the White House.

Weapons have been developed to eliminate this type of drone. They will pose no hazard to such installations. Do not think the relevant agencies did not think of this

[WestAir]

With the FAA nothing has to be done, they are charged with protecting the public safety in the airspace, so they can force airspace over an event. Area 51 is covered by old espionage statutes. The white house is in the DC airspace, other than military its a no-fly zone below a certain alt. Basically if I create an event in the middle of a desert, and there is a reasonable risk that a someone or something could be used to terrorize that event. The FAA might chose to close that space and send out a NOTAM and thats it. They now have the authority. So, this may offend some hobbiest, but ignorance is not a defense, even a model plane hobbiest is responsible for knowing what these are in some contexts.

Weapons have been developed to eliminate this type of drone. They will pose no hazard to such installations. Do not think the relevant agencies did not think of this

TFR's and weapons are excellent and tested deterrents, true, but what about backlash that affects the average hobbyist? For instance: regulations restricting the sale of certain sizes of drones or drones with a certain range. Has that been a discussion now that drones are becoming more infamous in public opinion?

Edited September 5, 2015 by WestAir

[Camacha]

TFR's and weapons are excellent and tested deterrents, true, but what about backlash that affects the average hobbyist? For instance: regulations restricting the sale of certain sizes of drones or drones with a certain range. Has that been a discussion now that drones are becoming more infamous in public opinion?

I think that ship has sailed by now, especially since different nations have different regulations - and probably always will. It is too late to stop the technology now. That means it might get some hobbyists in trouble when regulated, but anyone having malicious intent can get what he needs. That is a reality we will need to deal with.

Though I imagine some nations will have a go at this approach.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Camacha

[PakledHostage]

TFR's and weapons are excellent and tested deterrents, true, but what about backlash that affects the average hobbyist? For instance: regulations restricting the sale of certain sizes of drones or drones with a certain range. Has that been a discussion now that drones are becoming more infamous in public opinion?

Irresponsible behavior by users of "drones" has already resulted in regulatory changes. The FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) which, when passed into law, will give law enforcement the "teeth" to stop people using them in dangerous ways. And in US national parks, UAVs and remote controlled aircraft are already banned outright.

In Canada, IIRC, unmanned aerial vehicles (including RC aircraft) are limited to a maximum of 25 kg and must be flown below an altitude of 125 metres AGL and must stay within a 500 metre radius of the operator. These rules even apply to people who ooerate UAVs commercially, so real estate agents can take photos of a property without having to apply for a permit. Beyond those limits and when flying any autonomous flight to pre-programmed waypoints, a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) is required. The requirements for obtaining an SFOC for a flight beyond the range of unaided vision or for an autonomous flight to waypoints are extremely restrictive and make an SFOC all but impossible to get for the average citizen.

If regulators in Canada and soon the USA really wanted to crack down on much of the crap that goes on, they could. They probably just close a blind eye to most of it, though.

[*Aqua*]

If you want to know how it's handled in Germany, read the spoiler.

General

a) If the drone weights less than 5 kg you don't need a regulatory permit.

If the drone weights 5+ kg you need a regulatory permit issued by the Federal Office of Civil Aeronautics of the state you want to fly in (Germany consists of 16 states).

c) To get a permit you have to be registered at a model aircraft club. The club usually helps at doing all the necessary paperwork for the authorities.

d) You need a liability insurance which covers drone accidents. And you need to carry the insurance certificate or similar proof with you when flying. Without it you could be fined up to 50 000 € (~56 000 US$)!

(source)

Flight rules

a) 1st paragraph of flight order always applies: Always act in a way so that order and safety is ensured and that there's nobody put in danger, harmed, hindered or harassed.

You are not allowed to fly higher than 100 m or the heights given by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

c) You have to keep your drone in sight (usually <200-300 m) without the need for tools like cameras or binoculars.

d) You are not allowed to fly within 1500 meters of an airport. There are also other no fly zones (see next point).

e) In most states it's forbidden to fly above crowds, accident sites, prisons, military bases, industries and power plants.

f) Even if you're issued a permit for flying in a controlled flight zone, it's best to stay out of it. It's easy to make mistakes which have severe consequences. For example if your drone appears on the flight control radar they have to reroute traffic. That alone is reason enough to put you into jail for at least 3 months.

g) If you want to start & landing in an area you don't own you need a permit by the owner (except it accidentally crash-landed there).

h) Usually people have to tolerate drones zipping the skies above their ground, except if you fly really low with a loud drone. Then he can sue you. (Yeah I know it's a bit vague.)

(source)

Areal photos

In Germany personal rights are divided into three parts: intimate sphere, privacy sphere and social sphere.

a) Violation of the intimate sphere (i. e. photographing someone through a window) is always forbidden. You can be sued for that.

Violation of privacy depends on what actually happened. For example photographing a guy who does some BBQ in his garden can be sued. But if said guy is a VIP a court must judge if that's a privacy violation or not because there's "public interest" in what he does.

c) Violation of the social sphere is even more vague. I don't want to give an example because I don't know what a social sphere is. Never heard of that term before.

(source)

First person view (FPV)

a) According to Flight rules point c) you aren't allowed to let the drone fly out of sight. But if it's in sight and you fly by using a camera you're in a grey zone. It's best if there's a second person who watches the drone while you're staring on a screen.

You must abide data protection laws. That means you're not allowed to track a guy with your camera for a prolonged time or something like that. Also keep the data protection law in mind when posting the video to the internet.

(source)

Edited September 5, 2015 by *Aqua*

[WestAir]

Irresponsible behavior by users of "drones" has already resulted in regulatory changes. The FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) which, when passed into law, will give law enforcement the "teeth" to stop people using them in dangerous ways. And in US national parks, UAVs and remote controlled aircraft are already banned outright.

In Canada, IIRC, unmanned aerial vehicles (including RC aircraft) are limited to a maximum of 25 kg and must be flown below an altitude of 125 metres AGL and must stay within a 500 metre radius of the operator. These rules even apply to people who ooerate UAVs commercially, so real estate agents can take photos of a property without having to apply for a permit. Beyond those limits and when flying any autonomous flight to pre-programmed waypoints, a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) is required. The requirements for obtaining an SFOC for a flight beyond the range of unaided vision or for an autonomous flight to waypoints are extremely restrictive and make an SFOC all but impossible to get for the average citizen.

If regulators in Canada and soon the USA really wanted to crack down on much of the crap that goes on, they could. They probably just close a blind eye to most of it, though.

Thanks for the link. I'll be honest I haven't read much into the controversy surrounding drones (mostly due to time constraints), but it's interesting to see how this stuff evolves.

[PakledHostage]

...

It seems that I had some of the details of the Canadian rules wrong. The exemptions from the need to obtain an SFOC from Transport Canada prior to flying aa "drone" are listed here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/standards-4179.html

But the point still stands: Flying your quad copter in restricted airspace or over people and buildings, etc is already illegal. The authorities just have to want to do something about it. And they probably won't unless you're being a real [diminutive of Richard]...