Ya! Dude!

[snerd]

The flyer is a fool for flying over the neighborhood. That's the LAST place to be flying! Go to the park, or the country, or wherever.................. but don't be pissing off your neighbors!

 

[vintagesnaps]

It's not always best to do what you feel like doing. I'd probably feel like getting out a jolly green giant sized fly swatter and whacking the thing but that wouldn't really be a good idea.

Apparently now he's facing felony charges. I think on the news they said it's illegal for one to be flown over someone's property recording video without the property owner's permission. He probably should have called the police, so could his neighbors, which would give authorities something to act on instead of getting himself in trouble.

 

[table1349]

Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Yes, when the new rules come out later this year or next, the drones will be addressed. But the idiot flyers will always be with us.

While that sounds menacing in Huerta v. Pirker, in March 2014 a judge ruled that that model aircraft are not legally classified as "aircraft" and that they are not subject to any current Federal Aviation Regulations. As of now that federal ruling still stands.

 

[snerd]

Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Yes, when the new rules come out later this year or next, the drones will be addressed. But the idiot flyers will always be with us.

While that sounds menacing in Huerta v. Pirker, in March 2014 a judge ruled that that model aircraft are not legally classified as "aircraft" and that they are not subject to any current Federal Aviation Regulations. As of now that federal ruling still stands.

Apparently, you're not current with that case.........

Huerta v. Pirker: NTSB Rules that UAS Are “Aircraft” and Subject to FAA Prohibition on Careless and Reckless Operations
Authors: Kenneth P. Quinn, Jennifer E. Trock, Benjamin M. Berlin, Graham C. Keithley
11/19/2014

On November 18, 2014, in a unanimous decision, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are: (1) “aircraft” within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) statutory and regulatory definitions; and (2) prohibited from operation in a careless and reckless manner under FAA regulations. The decision represents a significant win for the FAA in its attempts to prohibit unlawful UAS operations, and a setback for commercial interests that were hoping to turn the Pirker battle into a broader war against the FAA’s ban on commercial use of UAS. The opinion reverses an NTSB Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision earlier this year that the UAS Pirker commercially operated was a “model aircraft” beyond the FAA’s authority.

The full Board decision affirms the FAA’s ability to regulate both manned and unmanned aircraft operations and seek civil penalties from UAS operators in violation of FAA regulations, but explicitly refused to address whether the actual operation was careless and reckless, remanding the case to the ALJ. The Board also refused to address numerous UAS issues raised in amici briefs, including a challenge to the FAA’s ban on commercial UAS operations, absent an exemption. Ultimately, the decision puts both private-use and commercial operators on notice that UAS are clearly under the FAA’s jurisdiction as many commercial operators seek regulatory exemptions before beginning their operations...........................

Huerta v. Pirker NTSB Rules that UAS Are Aircraft and Subject to FAA Rules

 

[snerd]

And I still say the flyer was stupid for flying in a neighborhood.

 

[snerd]

Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Yes, when the new rules come out later this year or next, the drones will be addressed. But the idiot flyers will always be with us.

While that sounds menacing in Huerta v. Pirker, in March 2014 a judge ruled that that model aircraft are not legally classified as "aircraft" and that they are not subject to any current Federal Aviation Regulations. As of now that federal ruling still stands.

So, in other words, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA and are classified as aircraft, which they now are, they're also afforded all of the protections of the FAA concerning aircraft. They can't have it both ways, which is probably what their thinking is.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't know how much actual thinking was involved here. lol

I've read that they're unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs and are under FAA rules and regs; the radio operated toys that kids and hobbyists used to fly around in their own backyards etc. are just that, toys. These aren't. But toys are probably all some people should be allowed to have!

 

[snerd]

I don't know how much actual thinking was involved here. lol

I've read that they're unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs and are under FAA rules and regs; the radio operated toys that kids and hobbyists used to fly around in their own backyards etc. are just that, toys. These aren't. But toys are probably all some people should be allowed to have!

Yes, we operate under the "Recommendations" of the FAA for model aircraft:

• Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
• Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
• Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
• Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
• Don't fly near people or stadiums
• Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
• Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

These are not "law", just recommendations. For now. The last one is what they're using to slap idiots with fines, and I believe they need to do a LOT more of it. There are some real boneheads out there. It will all be sorted out with the new rules when they decide on them, which is supposed to be soon.

 

[table1349]

Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.

18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Yes, when the new rules come out later this year or next, the drones will be addressed. But the idiot flyers will always be with us.

While that sounds menacing in Huerta v. Pirker, in March 2014 a judge ruled that that model aircraft are not legally classified as "aircraft" and that they are not subject to any current Federal Aviation Regulations. As of now that federal ruling still stands.

So, in other words, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA and are classified as aircraft, which they now are, they're also afforded all of the protections of the FAA concerning aircraft. They can't have it both ways, which is probably what their thinking is.

You are not current with the working situation. The FFA has talked the talk. They have yet to walk the walk. Not one enforcement action covering model aircraft since Huerta v Pirker.

 

[runnah]

 

[mmaria]

people have too much time for stupid things

 

[runnah]

people have too much time for stupid things

That's what America is founded upon!!!

 

[snerd]

You are not current with the working situation. The FFA has talked the talk. They have yet to walk the walk. Not one enforcement action covering model aircraft since Huerta v Pirker.

Oh, absolutely. I've stated many times they need to make some examples of the clowns flying near airports, hovering over people's backyards, flying over large crowds, etc. My quad copter is a serious tool in my photography bag, and of those many, many others using them safely and responsibly. But it's only the "bad" incidents making the news, so there is a very nasty anti-drone sentiment about. A shame, really.

 

[floatingby]

You are not current with the working situation. The FFA has talked the talk. They have yet to walk the walk. Not one enforcement action covering model aircraft since Huerta v Pirker.

Oh, absolutely. I've stated many times they need to make some examples of the clowns flying near airports, hovering over people's backyards, flying over large crowds, etc. My quad copter is a serious tool in my photography bag, and of those many, many others using them safely and responsibly. But it's only the "bad" incidents making the news, so there is a very nasty anti-drone sentiment about. A shame, really.

It is a pretty common, if irrational, for people to blame the tools instead of the behavior of the people using said tools though.

 

[KmH]

The Kentuckian was arrested Sunday evening in Hillview, Kentucky, just south of Louisville and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. He was released the following day. The Hillview Police Department did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

He gets an A+ for arrogance and idiocy in my book!

Being arrested just means the police were doing their job.
He, the drone owner, and the city will get their day in court. Both the drone owner and the city seems to be on not very solid legal ground.
Sometimes, civil disobedience becomes the best course of action.

"We have a lawyer and there's a court date and then there's going to be a hearing," Merideth said. "It's not going to stop with the two charges against me, which I'm confident that we'll get reduced or get dismissed completely."

I agree. It's quite likely the charges will be completely dismissed or reduced.