FAA Invites LEO To Investigate UAS

Send the police in you are going to get some policing. They don't need a ticket book from the faa to ruin your day.
 
Jim Logajan said:
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."
​
Click to expand...

No kidding. That was the point of the facetious remark. I read it too. The FAA has no on-the-ground enforcement arm and it has no regs administratively permitting the use of UAS for non-hobby purposes, so it wishes to get LEAs to do its legwork when it encounters (somehow) these unauthorized commercial operators.

So I'd sum this up as saying the FAA wants to be able to call the (local) cops on unauthorized UAS operators. How nice.

Unsafe operations or operations that violate state or local laws were already well within the purview of state and local LEAs so this letter doesn't really address that. It is just asking for LEAs to help by collecting evidence that the FAA can use to enforce its own nonlaws around UAS. That is, if the FAA didn't say you can then you can't. They're going to let local cops do the data collection.

But if it's not unsafe operation or doesn't violate state or local laws, why would local LEAs waste their time on it? Do they get something from the FAA to compensate them for doing the FAA's data collection?

What a great big stinking muddle.
 
petrolero said:
...The FAA has no on-the-ground enforcement arm and it has no regs administratively permitting the use of UAS for non-hobby purposes, so it wishes to get LEAs to do its legwork when it encounters (somehow) these unauthorized commercial operators.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a regulation that requires commercial UAS operators to be authorized...

...That is, if the FAA didn't say you can then you can't....
Click to expand...


That's not the way laws and regulations work in this country.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm still waiting for someone to cite a regulation that requires commercial UAS operators to be authorized...



That's not the way laws and regulations work in this country.
Click to expand...

Looks like you will be waiting a bit longer too...:yes:....:lol:.....:D
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm still waiting for someone to cite a regulation that requires commercial UAS operators to be authorized...
Click to expand...

The FAA is claiming that commercial UAS fall under Part 91 because 91.1 makes that part applicable to all aircraft not otherwise excluded, and UAS are not excluded; presumably if it weren't for the congressional carve-out for amateur aircraft, the FAA would no doubt say that they too fall under at least Part 103.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The FAA is claiming that commercial UAS fall under Part 91 because 91.1 makes that part applicable to all aircraft not otherwise excluded, and UAS are not excluded; presumably if it weren't for the congressional carve-out for amateur aircraft, the FAA would no doubt say that they too fall under at least Part 103.
Click to expand...

Does Part 91 prohibit aircraft from being flown for commercial purposes?
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Does Part 91 prohibit aircraft from being flown for commercial purposes?
Click to expand...

I'm just echoing the FAA position as best I understand it. Trying to view it from their angle. Only way I know to anticipate where they are going. I don't agree with it at all.
That said, i think the following might be how they'd answer:

Normally commercial operation under Part 91 would depend on what certificate is held by the UAS pilot, right?
And normally all aircraft flying under Part 91 must be registered and be airworthy and have appropriate flight instruments, regardless of certificate the pilot holds. I think, but am not sure, that it is the granting of waivers allowing use of unregistered (UAS) aircraft that the FAA is using as basis for controlling commercial flights. All other non-commercial flights seem to be covered by either the congressional exception for "hobby" flying or Part 103, which is why the commercial aspect comes into play. No other regs have applicability tests that apply.

If someone plopped a remote controlled "robot" into the pilot seat of an existing FAA registered aircraft, then had a pilot on the ground do the flying, then as far as I can see there would be no violation of the law as the FAA is claiming it exists. I've seen MythBusters do roughly the equivalent with cars and trucks....
 
Jim Logajan said:
Normally commercial operation under Part 91 would depend on what certificate is held by the UAS pilot, right?
Click to expand...

I've heard that the FAA says a farmer can't use a UAV to inspect his own ranch without FAA permission. However, a private pilot farmer could do so in a manned aircraft no problem.

And normally all aircraft flying under Part 91 must be registered and be airworthy and have appropriate flight instruments, regardless of certificate the pilot holds. I think, but am not sure, that it is the granting of waivers allowing use of unregistered (UAS) aircraft that the FAA is using as basis for controlling commercial flights.
Click to expand...

That sounds plausible.
 
Does the FAA have it's own Law Enforcement Officers? LEO's are generally assumed to be a gun totting, badge carrying officers trained in the law they are to enforce and basic police techniques. I have never heard of or seen an FAA Cop. Do they exist?
Example:
A person flies a drone in the traffic pattern at a local airport,(if this is actually in violation of law), a C152 on a training flight strikes the drone and crashes killing both occupants. Does an FAA Officer exist that can arrest this person or does a local county sheriff's officer arrest him?
 
Palmpilot said:
I've heard that the FAA says a farmer can't use a UAV to inspect his own ranch without FAA permission. However, a private pilot farmer could do so in a manned aircraft no problem.
Click to expand...
There was a recent FAA document which used as an example that a farmer could fly a UAS over his private flower garden which he raised as a hobby legally but he could not use the same UAS to fly over his corn field to scout for pests if the corn is to be sold commercially. I think there is a gray area if the corn is used for feed for his cattle which are sold commercially.

I don't see any difference between UAS and manned aircraft in the above example. My suspicion is the question wouldn't have arisen in the past as we didn't have inexpensive camera and other sensor technology and not so many farmers have their own plane suitable for such flying any more. But, if a farmer flew his plane over his field for crop scouting or fertilizer on his private certificate and the FAA wanted to violate him for some reason, it seems logical to me that they could.

As a farmer, I don't see the immediate utility for most farmers of UAS as they are now configured, but the future may hold realistic ability for aerial pesticide application. Crop scouting sounds neat but at present I don't think it's sufficiently advanced to have a significant advantage over the present method of walking the crop. How do you get a quad copter to turn over the bottom leaves on a soybean plant that has already canopied to count soybean aphids and see if their number has reached the economic threshold for spraying? I will concede that the bigger you get the more capitol can trump labor, so a big, big farmer could maybe employ a sophisticated UAS rather than walk the ground, but a medium or small farmer might not be able to afford one or even make money hiring the service done. My own feeling is the potential for UAS to make a significant affect on agriculture is a bit over hyped at this point. Maybe in the future.

I was at a farm demonstration a few years ago where the UAS guy said the reason that agriculture was being touted as the next big application area was because the UAS community was reacting to the publics reaction to every cop having a drone and to privacy issues; that farms got away from those concerns. We now see a lot of police back to wanting UAS after a period where they laid low.
 
LEOs are involved in the immigration and drug stops now, aren't they? We remember the cops who held up the Kings because of an administrative issue with their N number. We know the cops who busted the Jewish attorney on a fuel stop of his Cirrus 22 in Iowa City were local police. The people involved in the arrest and jailing of the glider pilot who made a pass near a nuclear power plant in the East were local cops.

None of those incidents redounded well for the police.

One gets the feeling that as someone said above, the police may get to where they don't see any positive result for them and be a little less than eager to respond to these calls.

What happens? The police are called because someone is irritiated with a UAS for some reason. The cop makes some notes and passes them in to the desk sergeant or whoever. The FAA gets called in and decides to take administrative action. Now, the cop has to respond to calls for testimony and be a witness in a case that could drag on interminably. The DA says what's in it for us? The Chief of Police is explaining why there aren't enough officers on patrol.

I don't know. I suspect the local police may figure out that they have little go gain and lots to lose by touching this tar baby.

The problem is the Barney Fife who has nothing better to do that day and.......
 
jnmeade said:
But, if a farmer flew his plane over his field for crop scouting or fertilizer on his private certificate and the FAA wanted to violate him for some reason, it seems logical to me that they could.
Click to expand...

According to 61.113...
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me that it would be legal.
 
jnmeade said:
We remember the cops who held up the Kings because of an administrative issue with their N number.
Click to expand...

That was a criminal issue. Bad info that the aircraft was stolen. Did not involve the FAA, except maybe as the source of bad data that were used by law enforcement.
 
jnmeade said:
There was a recent FAA document which used as an example that a farmer could fly a UAS over his private flower garden which he raised as a hobby legally but he could not use the same UAS to fly over his corn field to scout for pests if the corn is to be sold commercially. I think there is a gray area if the corn is used for feed for his cattle which are sold commercially.

I don't see any difference between UAS and manned aircraft in the above example. My suspicion is the question wouldn't have arisen in the past as we didn't have inexpensive camera and other sensor technology and not so many farmers have their own plane suitable for such flying any more. But, if a farmer flew his plane over his field for crop scouting or fertilizer on his private certificate and the FAA wanted to violate him for some reason, it seems logical to me that they could.
Click to expand...

What regulation prohibits a private pilot from flying his own manned aircraft in furtherance of his business, as long as his product is not air transportation? I was under the impression that this was allowed. That is the question that the FAA would have to answer at an enforcement hearing. I don't think "it seems logical" would impress a judge.

As a farmer, I don't see the immediate utility for most farmers of UAS as they are now configured, but the future may hold realistic ability for aerial pesticide application. Crop scouting sounds neat but at present I don't think it's sufficiently advanced to have a significant advantage over the present method of walking the crop. How do you get a quad copter to turn over the bottom leaves on a soybean plant that has already canopied to count soybean aphids and see if their number has reached the economic threshold for spraying? I will concede that the bigger you get the more capitol can trump labor, so a big, big farmer could maybe employ a sophisticated UAS rather than walk the ground, but a medium or small farmer might not be able to afford one or even make money hiring the service done. My own feeling is the potential for UAS to make a significant affect on agriculture is a bit over hyped at this point. Maybe in the future.

I was at a farm demonstration a few years ago where the UAS guy said the reason that agriculture was being touted as the next big application area was because the UAS community was reacting to the publics reaction to every cop having a drone and to privacy issues; that farms got away from those concerns. We now see a lot of police back to wanting UAS after a period where they laid low.
Click to expand...

The issue is not farming in particular. That is just an example. The issue is use of an aircraft in furtherance of a business. Another example is corporate aircraft. As I understand it, they have to use commercial pilots, but each corporation doesn't have to get specific permission from the FAA in order to fly them, as the FAA seems to want business UAS operators to do.

I certainly don't object to the adoption of well thought-out regulations, but is the FAA pretending that existing regulations say something other than what they do?
 
Palmpilot said:
What regulation prohibits a private pilot from flying his own manned aircraft in furtherance of his business, as long as his product is not air transportation? I was under the impression that this was allowed. That is the question that the FAA would have to answer at an enforcement hearing. I don't think "it seems logical" would impress a judge.



The issue is not farming in particular. That is just an example. The issue is use of an aircraft in furtherance of a business. Another example is corporate aircraft. As I understand it, they have to use commercial pilots, but each corporation doesn't have to get specific permission from the FAA in order to fly them, as the FAA seems to want business UAS operators to do.

I certainly don't object to the adoption of well thought-out regulations, but is the FAA pretending that existing regulations say something other than what they do?
Click to expand...
The FAA publication gave a specific example that showed a farmer using a UAS for crop scouting of his own farm was illegal. This doesn't seem to be a case of flying your Cub over your field to scout crops (unless you are flying it as a Sport Pilot, which is illegal). The reference was only to UAS.
 
I almost feel that (ok, I really feel that) the FAA and other government entities will try to profit from this "regulation"

I actually went out and bought a DJI Phantom 2 Vision + and I can only imagine the trouble I could get into with it.. I fly it responsibly and have a blast with it.. I know the dangers of flying into, people, property, aircraft ect. BUT... I think the majority of the people who buy these think airplanes always fly tens of thousands of feet in the air.. They just cannot grasp how a small quad-copter could damage an airplane. I would REALLY hate to run into one of these things in my Cherokee.

In saying that, I do think there should be some regulation for safety reasons. I totally disagree with having to obtain a Commercial license of any kind to take an aerial video of a property I am trying to sell for example. Are they going to make me have a commercial "kite license" next if I put my Go Pro on it ????? :dunno:
 
Richard said:
We pretty much had that. So is insurrection required to gain anarchy utopia?
Click to expand...

No, not required at all. People just have to ignore what they perceive as reality. Humans are the only species on the planet that can take imagination and turn it into reality. We are only in this reality because we decide to be, everything of our existence came from human imagination. The only insurrection required is one of communal thought.

We have been allowing a few bullies to lead our species for a few thousand years now to their greed and aggrandizement. They have attained this wealth and status by claiming Divine Right. They claim, "God gave my ancestors this over yours." The feudal culture has never ended, they still own all the banks. Junious Morgan was Rothschild's man in America.

We just need to stop feeding the lie that makes us Infidels. God gave resources to all of life, not individuals, not states, not nations, not us as a species. However, we do have the stewardship of the planet. It is ours to develop as we see fit. We have not been doing very well at that. Our stewardship is very poor, even towards our own species, what we have inflicted on cattle, chickens, hogs, and other industrial livestock is even worse and quite saddening. The saddest thing is, it doesn't have to be like this, it could be much better and much more prosperous for everyone, if we just give up the feudal lie once and for all. The whole Cold War, we were on the wrong side. The reason communism failed is because feudal masters determined it would and fought it with every dime the western economies could make up.

We got duped by our own greed and a propaganda machine that has no rival.

This is what Islam is trying to defeat as well.
 
Last edited:
jnmeade said:
The FAA publication gave a specific example that showed a farmer using a UAS for crop scouting of his own farm was illegal. This doesn't seem to be a case of flying your Cub over your field to scout crops (unless you are flying it as a Sport Pilot, which is illegal). The reference was only to UAS.
Click to expand...

Now that small UASes have been deemed to be aircraft, it apparently doesn't make any difference whether it's a UAS or a manned aircraft. Someone posted a waiver application for commercial UAS use, and it was all stuff that would apply equally to a manned aircraft - lack of an airworthiness certificate, for example.
 
The FAA can't not investigate every case of UAS misuse. This is a logical way to police the use of these devices. Drones have the potential to be used as weapons and/or used to further illegal activates.

If this is such a problem just ban the manufacture and use of UAS. :rolleyes:

I can think of some good AAA systems. :D
 
Palmpilot said:
Now that small UASes have been deemed to be aircraft, it apparently doesn't make any difference whether it's a UAS or a manned aircraft. Someone posted a waiver application for commercial UAS use, and it was all stuff that would apply equally to a manned aircraft - lack of an airworthiness certificate, for example.
Click to expand...

Here is the present FAA position on UAS.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Here is what it says about crop scouting if the result is the use of the information used in growing a crop that is sold commercially. That includes your own grain on your own farm if you sell it. The formatting is different than the source but the text is copied from it:


Hobby or Recreation

Viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment.

Not Hobby or Recreation
Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of commercial farming operation.

The NPRM does not change the current interpretation for the time being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top