FAA Invites LEO To Investigate UAS

jnmeade

jnmeade

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
1,227
Location
Eastern Iowa
Display Name
Display name:
Jim Meade
From the FAA website:

"Law Enforcement Engagement with Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations

There is evidence of a considerable increase in the unauthorized use of small, inexpensive Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by individuals and organizations, including companies. While the FAA retains the responsibility for enforcing Federal Aviation Regulations, including those applicable to the use of UAS, the agency also recognizes that state and local Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) are often in the best position to deter, detect, immediately investigate, and, as appropriate, pursue enforcement actions to stop unauthorized or unsafe UAS operations. The agency's Law Enforcement Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations (PDF) is intended to support the partnership between the FAA and LEAs in addressing these activities."

The entire text of the process is linked below. I invite you to read it because it gives some of the procedures and processes that the FAA expects to initiate with LEO. In my opinion, we may see an increase in the number of LEO who are partially educated in UAS (including Model Airplane) operations and may interact with UAS operators based on less than complete understanding and knowledge of the privileges and responsibilities of the operator.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf
 
I know one quadcopter guy who was flying at a dam and got jacked up by the Rangers. I guess he was posting all his stuff to Youtube and that's how they got him. No clue if it was criminal or not.
 
It is a difficult subject which needs to be addressed regardless of which side of the debate you fall on. This is a path and has some merit, however, I would agree that by the time this gets into the field the information may be partial at best.
 
Interesting that they'd partner with local LEOs, but makes perfect sense. I've been following the UAS and SUAS thing quite closely. Just took a seminar on it. Thanks for posting.
 
Is it my imagination, or is the regulatory underpinning of that document a little sketchy? They quote statutory authorization for the FAA to issue regulations, but the only regulatory citation I saw was 91.13. It seems like many of the things they are saying are prohibited are not covered by "careless or reckless."
 
Richard, a good number of people share your perspective and we can likely look forward to a number of lawsuits as everything gets sorted out. Read the FAA websites to see their legal basis. It's more than 91.13, but some say it is not very solid in any event.
 
jnmeade said:
...Read the FAA websites to see their legal basis. It's more than 91.13, but some say it is not very solid in any event.
Click to expand...

I read both the PDF document at the link above, and the FAA Web page at the link provided in that document. I saw statutory references supporting their authority to issue regulations, but if there was a regulation cited other than 91.13, I missed it.
 
This won't end well for regular pilots. Nevermind the actual level of menace created by RC toys. Inviting police to police the skies, yeah Murica!
 
They have a particular problem in the DC FRZ. No model aircraft, model rockets, drones, etc. allowed - period.

Elsewhere, some FSDO types are taking the position that they're like aircraft...
 
Unit74 said:
I know one quadcopter guy who was flying at a dam and got jacked up by the Rangers. I guess he was posting all his stuff to Youtube and that's how they got him. No clue if it was criminal or not.
Click to expand...

I blame this on the divergence of common-sense technical knowledge and the current crop of government leadership. Any damn fool that's had a 70's era high school education knows that a quadcopter, worst case, will do about 5 dollars damage to a dam, max. And that if you wanted to fsk something up with your quadcopter, there are far softer targets. Instead, we have a bunch of self-important administrators with no common sense whatsoever, making decisions that cost tax dollars and create felony offenses for the unwary.
 
Now that it has been accepted that a small UAS is an aircraft, can the operator of one of them call the local control tower and get a landing clearance at the airport? After all, isn't there an FAA policy prohibiting airports from discriminating between classes of users?
 
I bet LEO's will turn out to be the worst offenders.......

Ya think they will police themselves.:dunno:......:no::no::no:...:nonod::nonod::nonod:
 
Palmpilot said:
Now that it has been accepted that a small UAS is an aircraft, can the operator of one of them call the local control tower and get a landing clearance at the airport? After all, isn't there an FAA policy prohibiting airports from discriminating between classes of users?
Click to expand...

Unless they make a case otherwise yeah they have to handle it. Funny stuff. Some dinky airports probably welcome the operations count.
 
coloradobluesky said:
What law are they enforcing?
Click to expand...
Careless and reckless(not the 91.13 version the civvy felony version) disturbing the peace, interfering with police brutality, the list is pretty much endless. Inviting the police in is not going to end well for regular pilots.
 
So it is OK for local LEOs to enforce some federal laws but not others (immigration for example)!!!
 
It looks like the FAA is playing Hot Potato with the whole UAS issue below 500'.
 
Inter agency agreement much? Makes you want to go throw a frisbee in class B airspace while talking to ATC on the hand held
 
Old Geek said:
I blame this on the divergence of common-sense technical knowledge and the current crop of government leadership. Any damn fool that's had a 70's era high school education knows that a quadcopter, worst case, will do about 5 dollars damage to a dam, max. And that if you wanted to fsk something up with your quadcopter, there are far softer targets. Instead, we have a bunch of self-important administrators with no common sense whatsoever, making decisions that cost tax dollars and create felony offenses for the unwary.
Click to expand...

The FAA doesn't want the locals to bust anyone for threatening the dam. They want the locals to bust anyone who threatens other air traffic.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
TMetzinger said:
The FAA doesn't want the locals to bust anyone for threatening the dam. They want the locals to bust anyone who threatens other air traffic.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And.....
How will the local LEO's with no aviation experience determine that ???:dunno:..


Can you say " slippery slope "...
 
So the federal government wants local law enforcement to enforce federal laws/regulations?

Just checking, because we have some immigration laws that need the same support of the federal government.
 
Can you fly along with it, keeping it in visual sight from your airplane? Maybe a flight of two?
 
Mason said:
Maybe local LEO could be enlisted to bust Laser-pointing nutcases lighting up aircraft.
Click to expand...

Based on news reports that have been posted, that's already being done.
 
Jim Logajan said:
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED .- In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is-
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/media/PLAW-112publ95[1].pdf
Click to expand...

Of course, section a) is also rather important. a)2) requires that the model aircraft be operated within a set of safety laws AND within the context of the program of a national UAS organization. If you're missing one of these, you're not covered by the exception.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
 
Why in America do we think that a law will make a difference in how people act? Especially one viewed as pithy and trite as this one?:dunno: Are we going to add drones to the list of things we are 'at war' with?
 
Henning said:
Why in America do we think that a law will make a difference in how people act? Especially one viewed as pithy and trite as this one?:dunno: Are we going to add drones to the list of things we are 'at war' with?
Click to expand...


The question applies to a whole lot more things than drones. How many more laws and bureaucracies until we reach utopia?
 
coloradobluesky said:
What law are they enforcing?
Click to expand...

None. LEOs are not being asked to enforce any FAA regulations. I actually read the letter. It's asking that they please collect evidence if it appears unsafe UAS activities are taking place - i.e. field investigators. It notes:
"...most violations of the FAA’s regulations may be addressed through administrative enforcement measures. As with any other civil or criminal adjudication, successful enforcement will depend on development of a complete and accurate factual report contemporaneous with the event"
​
"However, other law enforcement processes, such as arrest and detention or non-consensual searches almost always fall outside of the allowable methods to pursue administrative enforcement actions by the FAA unless they are truly a by - product of a state criminal investigation. We do not mean to discourage use of these methods and procedures where there is an independent basis for them under state or local law. We simply wish to emphasize that work products intended for FAA use generally should involve conventional administrative measures such as witness interviews, “stop and talk” sessions with suspected violators, consensual examination of vehicles and equipment, and other methods that do not involve court orders or the potential use of force by law enforcement personnel."
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top