20 years in prison for shooting down a drone?

As far as I can tell the rules just say aircraft, they don't differentiate between a B-747, C-150, Pawnee, Predator, or Toy'sRus Quadrotor.

Brian
 
Well, the pilots of the Toy's R' Us Quadrotor's out there can sleep easy now...
 
So, since toys are now considered aircraft, they are subject to 91.119 and the operators subject to civil penalties for violating that regulation, right?
 
EdFred said:
So, since toys are now considered aircraft, they are subject to 91.119 and the operators subject to civil penalties for violating that regulation, right?
Click to expand...

Well, they are considered aircaft as far as being subject to 91.13. See:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555

http://geodatapoint.com/articles/view/geospatial_highlights_faa_can_fine_reckless_uas_operation

Since the FAA considers drones/toys "aircraft" and says it can regulate them and fine their "pilots", drone activists have been saying that it should be illegal to shoot them down. And the FAA confirmed that.

Not sure about 91.119. Would they fall under the general rule, or helicopter/powered parachute/weight shift? All of this is happening on the fly with mass confusion until part 107 comes out.
 
brcase said:
As far as I can tell the rules just say aircraft, they don't differentiate between a B-747, C-150, Pawnee, Predator, or Toy'sRus Quadrotor.

Brian
Click to expand...

Is it an aircraft if it isn't registered with a tail number?

The regs do distinguish ultralights.
 
So what does one do when drones are flying around a forest fire and keeping the firefighting aircraft grounded? Wait until the cops figure out who's flying it? A month or two? If ever? And billions in property and resources are burned up in the meantime? I think a shotgun should be a part of the deal there.
 
It's easier to defend shooting the operator. He used the thing as a weapon :)
 
MAKG1 said:
Is it an aircraft if it isn't registered with a tail number?

The regs do distinguish ultralights.
Click to expand...

In Huerta v. Pirker, the NTSB noted the ultralight distinction, but held that every (other) device intended or used for flight in the air is an "aircraft," notwithstanding the ALJ's observation below that this would lead to the "risible" result that paper airplanes are "aircraft."

So it appears it doesn't need to be registered with a tail number for the FAA to go after you for $10,000 for its reckless operation and it's not a stretch from there to conclude that drones are aircraft for other regulatory enforcement purposes. But that was under a regulatory scheme that never contemplated the drones available today. The language of FMRA appears to confirm that FAA still defines a UAS as an aircraft. But I haven't really researched it. Has anybody else here?
 
But the man who shot at the "real" airplane with a pilot aboard received a slap on the wrist. We live in one screwed up country. If you do not remember this story..Some dude was flying over some hunters and these hunters did not like it. They thought he was chasing off their prey or what they were hunting, or some crap like this. Then one of these hunters fires on the small little airplane. I believe it may have been an Ultralight. I also believe I read thison this forum.

Hunter get a slap on the wrist for firing on a manned airplane. But someone shooting a drone gets or could get decades in prison. That is messed up.

Tony
 
Read the story. It is all opinion and conjecture. No one has gotten sentenced or is in the process of getting sentenced to 20 years for shooting down a drone. In fact, the judge dismissed the charges on the one guy who shot down a drone.
 
If not readily identifiable via registration number, how is someone being harassed by an unknown drone operator supposed to seek redress? Any other civilian aircraft has to display a registration number.
These things are more akin to UFO's. The only thing an observer can tell is that it's an object, and it flies.
 
bflynn said:
But they are not considered civilian aircraft, at least according to drone operators.
Click to expand...

"according to the FAA, a drone is considered a civilian aircraft"

That's the quote from the article in my OP.
 
NoHeat said:
"according to the FAA, a drone is considered a civilian aircraft"

That's the quote from the article in my OP.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bad internet sarcasm. The operators would like the protection of being considered a civilian aircraft without the regulation of being considered a civilian aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top