Remote Controlled Multicopters

[Vision 2025]

Ive not heard of TPD ever enforcing federal aviation law but we'll see...  Might be a lot less hassle to shoot video as a private individual and send out links.

Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA.  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration. 

[Hoss]

Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA.  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration. 

But at this point, not until Feb 20th.  Feb 19th is the last day current owners of UAVs have to register their rigs (if they weight between 251 grams and 54.999999 lbs).  There is still legal stuff going on.

[Red Arrow]

Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA. And NTSB  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration. 

[patric]

while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA. And NTSB  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration.

How does that work, hold it in front of them? 

[Vision 2025]

How does that work, hold it in front of them? 

Yup.

[patric]

http://gizmodo.com/a-drone-hit-a-passenger-plane-and-nothing-happened-1771502262

Earlier today, a British Airways pilot on approach to London Heathrow said that he thought he collided with a drone. It's the nightmare pilots (and drone operators) fear the most, but according to British Airways, the plane didn't get a scratch.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Geneva, Switzerland, to London Heathrow. The pilot reported an object hitting the front of the plane, although it doesn't appear to have caused any damage. A British Airways spokesperson said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."

Research suggests that drone being sucked into the engine would only result in injury 0.2 percent of the time. That's not to say everyone should fly their drones near airports to get some sick photos—it's still dumb as hell—but that perhaps a drone hitting a plane won't result in instant death for all involved.
http://gizmodo.com/drones-might-not-be-dangerous-for-planes-after-all-1765160485#_ga=1.120705352.1311319280.1460778649

[Hoss]

http://gizmodo.com/a-drone-hit-a-passenger-plane-and-nothing-happened-1771502262

Earlier today, a British Airways pilot on approach to London Heathrow said that he thought he collided with a drone. It's the nightmare pilots (and drone operators) fear the most, but according to British Airways, the plane didn't get a scratch.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Geneva, Switzerland, to London Heathrow. The pilot reported an object hitting the front of the plane, although it doesn't appear to have caused any damage. A British Airways spokesperson said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."

Research suggests that drone being sucked into the engine would only result in injury 0.2 percent of the time. That's not to say everyone should fly their drones near airports to get some sick photos—it's still dumb as hell—but that perhaps a drone hitting a plane won't result in instant death for all involved.
http://gizmodo.com/drones-might-not-be-dangerous-for-planes-after-all-1765160485#_ga=1.120705352.1311319280.1460778649

An airline pilot already has stated something similar in one of his blogs.  Hell, I'm lazy, and I may have already posted the link earlier in this topic, but here it is agin.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

But yes, please don't fly these things near airports just for great photos.  It's dumb as hell, not to mention illegal.

[patric]

Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA.  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration.  

http://dronelife.com/2016/06/23/jury-votes-not-guilty-la-anti-drone-laws/


An LA filmmaker who was the first person to be charged under LA's anti-drone ordinance reported that the jury had ruled in his favor.

Arvel Chappell III was both the first person charged under the anti-drone ordinance, and was the plaintiff in the first case to go to trial on a drone-specific criminal charge.  
Chappell was cited and had his drone was confiscated for allegedly flying to close to the LAPD's Air Support Division immediately after the city of Los Angeles enacted a new anti-drone ordinance.

Chappell's challenge that the City could not pass drone-related laws due to the FAA's declared right to be the sole regulators of airspace was upheld by the court.  This led to most of the charges against Chappell being dismissed, leaving only the charge that Chappell – who is an aerospace engineer, in addition to being a filmmaker – operated his drone in a "careless or reckless" way.  The jury voted unanimously that he had not, returning a verdict of "not guilty."


FAA establishes authority over states considering drone legislation
http://dronelife.com/2015/12/18/faa-fact-sheet-establishes-authority-over-states-considering-drone-legislation

[Hoss]

http://gizmodo.com/a-drone-hit-a-passenger-plane-and-nothing-happened-1771502262

Earlier today, a British Airways pilot on approach to London Heathrow said that he thought he collided with a drone. It's the nightmare pilots (and drone operators) fear the most, but according to British Airways, the plane didn't get a scratch.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Geneva, Switzerland, to London Heathrow. The pilot reported an object hitting the front of the plane, although it doesn't appear to have caused any damage. A British Airways spokesperson said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."

Research suggests that drone being sucked into the engine would only result in injury 0.2 percent of the time. That's not to say everyone should fly their drones near airports to get some sick photos—it's still dumb as hell—but that perhaps a drone hitting a plane won't result in instant death for all involved.
http://gizmodo.com/drones-might-not-be-dangerous-for-planes-after-all-1765160485#_ga=1.120705352.1311319280.1460778649

I forgot to follow up on this in the thread after it happened.

It turns out this report MAY have been...wait for it....a plastic bag.

Jeez.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/

Sure made for a lot of memes in my MC group on FB. 

[Vashta Nerada]

Your News Drones Interfere With Our Spy Drones



https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/fbi-video-freddie-gray-protests

[patric]

Your News Drones Interfere With Our Spy Drones

I saw that the video is actually from fixed-wing manned craft a mile up, with false regstrations and spy gear that scoops up cell phones by the thousands.
Apparently the FBI doesnt give a crap anymore that people know that, nor that the bulk of their surveillance was cataloging peaceful activity.

Legal drone operators shouldnt have any worries, though. The FBI said they were just reporting activity to the police below, and I didnt hear of any civilians arrested with a drone, so...

[patric]

FAA establishes authority over states considering drone legislation
http://dronelife.com/2015/12/18/faa-fact-sheet-establishes-authority-over-states-considering-drone-legislation


Never mind that, Oklahoma:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/lawmakers-urged-to-use-caution-in-drafting-drone-laws/article_8141c299-d853-5aad-898e-070195bece54.html

[patric]

One of the new laws that went into effect today was H.B.2599, an essentially redundant bill that mimics federal regulation, but with broader, vague language geared towards the petroleum industry.


http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20ENR/hB/HB2599%20ENR.PDF


Aside from the predictable You May Not Fly Over a Refinery Unless You Are Higher Than 400 Feet, come prohibitions against flying OVER cell towers (again at less than an altitude of 400 feet).  Flying NEXT to one is apparently OK unless you are over a fenced-in area, or the much harder to interpret "close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility."
Police are exempt, as are SOME commercial drone operators.

Also verboten in Oklahoma is flying over rubber manufacturing facilities, wastewater plants, trucking and railroad yards, steelmaking facilities, dams, and oil or gas pipelines... unless you are higher than 400 feet overhead.



And then there's this:
49 USC Paragraph 40103 – Sovereignty and use of airspace
"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."

[saintnicster]

One of the new laws that went into effect today was H.B.2599, an essentially redundant bill that mimics federal regulation, but with broader, vague language geared towards the petroleum industry.


http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20ENR/hB/HB2599%20ENR.PDF


Aside from the predictable You May Not Fly Over a Refinery Unless You Are Higher Than 400 Feet, come prohibitions against flying OVER cell towers (again at less than an altitude of 400 feet).  Flying NEXT to one is apparently OK unless you are over a fenced-in area, or the much harder to interpret "close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility."
Police are exempt, as are SOME commercial drone operators.

Also verboten in Oklahoma is flying over rubber manufacturing facilities, wastewater plants, trucking and railroad yards, steelmaking facilities, dams, and oil or gas pipelines... unless you are higher than 400 feet overhead.



And then there's this:
49 USC Paragraph 40103 – Sovereignty and use of airspace
"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."

Wait a tick, doesn't the FAA say that you aren't supposed to fly _over_ 400 feet up?

[cannon_fodder]

I think the FAA defines class G airspace as 500 feet. So it gives you a window.

It all makes decent practical sense. Cell towers could be interfered with and mess with thousands of customers. Oil refineries could have some idiot drop a sparkler from a drone. Whatever.  Disappointing in that drone camera footage of rail yards, or flying up keystone dam, or across a refinery would be really cool...