FAA Confirms Shooting A Drone Is A Federal Crime

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
But while downing a drone is considered a felony, it’s not clear when anyone will start getting prosecuted for doing so.

According to Loretta Alkalay, an aviation attorney who teaches Drone Law at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone “engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft” and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Since drones are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison under this same statute.
 
I thought the guy in Kentucky that shot a drone was cleared of charges? This is the case where a drone supposedly flew over his property while either daughter or wife was sunbathing. The operator may have been recording while flying the drone.
There was another case in which animal rights folks where flying drones near a pigeon hunting club. Hmm...several dudes with shotguns. Lets fly our drone near them and see what happens! I don't think they were charged either.
Since this was a recent clarification, maybe it didn't apply to these two cases.
 
I guess the Air Force is going to jail for a long time, as they have been using drones for target practice for decades.
 
Does this mean that the glassholes who have now promoted themselves to being drone pilots have a blank check to be a dick?
 
Postalgeist said:
I guess the Air Force is going to jail for a long time, as they have been using drones for target practice for decades.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they aren't shooting down random civilians drones for kicks. Everyone has a right to destroy their own personal property, but they don't have a right to shoot at the neighbor's house, car, or drone.

This should be common sense.
 
It means pretty much nothing for the most part in the short term. Quads will continue to get shot down as long as people use them like idiots. Getting the federal government to actually enforce the law as clarified will be a tough. They will selectively enforce this law as it suits them. As it suits them will most likely revolve around political pressure, and or public pressure in only the most egregious cases. Until they clarify a ton of other things regarding safe use, and what constitutes trespass, they are not going to prosecute every case. They will continue to leave it to the locals. Same as they do for marijuana usage in the various states that have legalized it.
 
Some crazy bish attacked a guy last year on a public beach to the point she was attacking him physically for flying a drone around on a public beach. Her complain was he was violating peoples privacy .... on a public beach .... lol.

The police came and arrested her and I think she ended up serving jail time.

To the kids out, there, just be cool, stay relaxed, and mind your god damn business around drone operators.
 
Well when those god damn operators fly like idiots its hard not to mind your own business. I know some operators who respect people's privacy regardless of the law and others who don't give a shit and bitch when they place a target on themselves.
 
This is why...

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions
FAA guidance also says that model aircraft should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, should be kept within visual line of sight of the operator, should weigh under 55 lbs. unless certified by an aeromodeling community-based organization, and cannot be used for business purposes.1, 2

So it might just be that while the drone on the beach is not actually protected and is technically recklessly endangering the populous, the women properly forget you have to find a local attorney if you want to deal with people violating your rights most cops simply drag off who ever is making a fuss, disturbing the peace is easier to figure out than digging up the rules for uas and figure out who can be used to say who saw what... that said if you see someone using a drone to film people quietly driving to a local police station and filing a compliant likely works better, than slugging a guy and not having on hand what you need to prove you are right.

The ones over the private property are easy, even cesna's are not allowed below a certain height over private property, and film private property with out the person's permission is always illegal, even the cops get in trouble unless they are wearing the cams to keep a video log of their activities in case their is a question and legally you can request a copy of anyone who films you with or without your permission, just like being recorded. If it is the cops you might have to go through a bunch of red tape but the simple you have a right to your own image, if you get asked you are going to have to cite all the cases likely through.
 
Crappy opinion article is crappy.

"Since the FAA considers drones to be aircraft" They do? Where do they do that, article writer?

"But today the FAA in response to my questioning confirmed that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited 18 USC 32. That statute makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft." It would be nice if you had posted your questioning and the FAA's response, article writer. I wonder why you didn't do that.

"According to Loretta Alkalay, an aviation attorney who teaches Drone Law at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone “engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft” and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison." Is she a judge? Has this position been presented in a court of law? Does she have any authority in this issue?

"Since drones are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison under this same statute." Putting together a supposition you won't quote the FAA saying directly and an opinion from a law professor does not define federal law.

"FAA Confirms Shooting A Drone Is A Federal Crime." Headline is a lie. But then, it's Forbes clickbait, so that's just to be expected.
 
Xyrax said:
They have classified all RC models as UAS's. The 'A' actually stands for "Aircraft". This can be confirmed on their website (good starting point linked below).

Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Click to expand...

First sentence of that: "Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft."

The article writer links to 18 U.S.C. 32, Airplane Sabotage, which reads:

"Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. In addition, the United States is authorized under the statute to prosecute any person who destroys a foreign civil aircraft outside of the United States if the offender is later found in the United States or, effective as of April 24, 1996, a national of the United States was aboard such aircraft (or would have been aboard if such aircraft had taken off) or a national of the United States was a perpetrator of the offense. See USAM 9-63.221, et seq."

"Any person on the aircraft" implies that this code is talking about manned aircraft, which I will remind you are inherently different from UAS. A fuller reading of 18 U.S.C. 32 can be found here.

"Special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" means drones, right?

49 U.S.C. 46501:
"(2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States
(B) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States.
(C) another aircraft in the United States.
I won't quote (D) or (E) here as they are long and irrelevant, and (B) is also not relevant here.

(C)is so impossibly vague as to leave me non-plussed. "Another aircraft"? At what point is something that flies not "another aircraft"? Were they only talking about manned aircraft when they drafted this? If not, then how do UAS and paper airplanes differ when being considered for the qualification of "another aircraft"?

For (A), "civil aircraft", back to the UAS FAQ, there are three catgories: Public Operations (governmental), Civil Operations (non-governmental) and Model Aircraft (Hobby or Recreation only). What is a "civil aircraft"?
49 U.S.C. 40102:
(16) “civil aircraft” means an aircraft except a public aircraft.
(17) “civil aircraft of the United States” means an aircraft registered under chapter 441 of this title.

(16) Not helping. This just sends me back to the "is a paper airplane an aircraft?" question.
(17) I nodded off trying to read this, but drones don't seem to be getting registered under there.
 
This is cool. Next time someone threatens you, just hide a mini drone to your pocket and when the cops get there he'll get 20 years time.
 
Finally, those brown people in sand countries can be held accountable for trying to interfere with our unmanned peace planes firing democracy missiles into houses.
 
I think the keyword here is the "authorized" in the quoted line, "engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft." When you buy property, you also buy airspace. That's the kind of word that lawyers love to exploit with interpretation because it's so ambiguous.
 
This is bad for amateur drone operators.. Just a goat step in having to get a license and file a flight plan to fly your drone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xyrax
like this
evilsofa said:
First sentence of that: "Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft."....
Click to expand...

Whoa dude, clam down. I wasn't looking to start an argument. I was only pointing out that the FAA has classified them as aircraft as you were implying they had not. What's happening in DC now is the process of determining that category of aircraft and what the rules should/should not be.

As for your comments on (C), you're 100% right in that its unbelievably vague. However, if I had to guess, that was very likely the point as they can now use it to overreach in the regulations if they want to.
 
evilsofa said:
First sentence of that: "Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft."

The article writer links to 18 U.S.C. 32, Airplane Sabotage, which reads:

...
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, ambiguity allows the laws to be interpreted to new situations. This being an example of that. But really, there is precedent here set by remote-controlled aircraft that have been flying for longer than the FAA has been around. "Drone" is just the buzz word of the moment. Really, the only truly novel implementation here is in automated drone deliveries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xyrax
like this
evilsofa said:
First sentence of that: "Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft."

The article writer links to 18 U.S.C. 32, Airplane Sabotage, which reads:

"Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. In addition, the United States is authorized under the statute to prosecute any person who destroys a foreign civil aircraft outside of the United States if the offender is later found in the United States or, effective as of April 24, 1996, a national of the United States was aboard such aircraft (or would have been aboard if such aircraft had taken off) or a national of the United States was a perpetrator of the offense. See USAM 9-63.221, et seq."

"Any person on the aircraft" implies that this code is talking about manned aircraft, which I will remind you are inherently different from UAS. A fuller reading of 18 U.S.C. 32 can be found here.

"Special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" means drones, right?

49 U.S.C. 46501:
"(2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States
(B) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States.
(C) another aircraft in the United States.
I won't quote (D) or (E) here as they are long and irrelevant, and (B) is also not relevant here.

(C)is so impossibly vague as to leave me non-plussed. "Another aircraft"? At what point is something that flies not "another aircraft"? Were they only talking about manned aircraft when they drafted this? If not, then how do UAS and paper airplanes differ when being considered for the qualification of "another aircraft"?

For (A), "civil aircraft", back to the UAS FAQ, there are three catgories: Public Operations (governmental), Civil Operations (non-governmental) and Model Aircraft (Hobby or Recreation only). What is a "civil aircraft"?
49 U.S.C. 40102:
(16) “civil aircraft” means an aircraft except a public aircraft.
(17) “civil aircraft of the United States” means an aircraft registered under chapter 441 of this title.

(16) Not helping. This just sends me back to the "is a paper airplane an aircraft?" question.
(17) I nodded off trying to read this, but drones don't seem to be getting registered under there.
Click to expand...

49 U.S. Code § 40102 - Definitions

"(6) “aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xyrax
like this
What is the safe minimum ceiling for a quad?
What is the effective range of Turkey loads?
 
steakman1971 said:
I thought the guy in Kentucky that shot a drone was cleared of charges? This is the case where a drone supposedly flew over his property while either daughter or wife was sunbathing. The operator may have been recording while flying the drone.
There was another case in which animal rights folks where flying drones near a pigeon hunting club. Hmm...several dudes with shotguns. Lets fly our drone near them and see what happens! I don't think they were charged either.
Since this was a recent clarification, maybe it didn't apply to these two cases.
Click to expand...

Local charges, I don't think it earned any Federal attention. Maybe this is a result of digging into laws and making a determination. It's possible he could still face Federal charges up until the statute of limitations for the offense kicks in.
 
lcpiper said:
Local charges, I don't think it earned any Federal attention. Maybe this is a result of digging into laws and making a determination. It's possible he could still face Federal charges up until the statute of limitations for the offense kicks in.
Click to expand...

The Feds will probably get on that right after they're done dealing with idiot drone pilots flying their damned drones into airplanes with hundreds of passengers on board.

Edit: what I mean is, "weh weh you broke my toy!" is a local concern to be handled by local police and/or the civil court system, not the Feds (unless it's done on/over Federal land), while hitting passenger airplanes with drones most certainly is a Federal concern.
 
Last edited:
evilsofa said:
The Feds will probably get on that right after they're done dealing with idiot drone pilots flying their damned drones into airplanes with hundreds of passengers on board.

Edit: what I mean is, "weh weh you broke my toy!" is a local concern to be handled by local police and/or the civil court system, not the Feds (unless it's done on/over Federal land), while hitting passenger airplanes with drones most certainly is a Federal concern.
Click to expand...


I somewhat agree but let's break it down a little. The charges by this article, interfering with an aircraft, the operator, etc. is actually about messing with traditional aircraft and not hobby drones. As they said, technically this law applies. I think this is a recent ruling and probably after several other drone shootings, etc. It wasn't applied before, but local law enforcement can charge people with federal crimes, therefor just because local law enforcement wasn't on top of this before, it wasn't really their fault. This ruling though could change things. The next guy who drops a drone with his shotgun might not be as lucky as this last dude if his local law enforcement and city DA are less sympathetic to what they are doing.
 
Are drone pilots required to get a license and go through hours of training? Seems odd to offer that level of protection to anyone who goes to the mall and picks up a toy. I know they have programs for professional drone pilots, but if this extends to all drones, it seems a bit silly.
 
Does it also seem odd to protect Amazon delivery drones from interference or attack?

What about a drone used by a business to take photos and video for businesses?

Or drones used for firefighting, or any of the other industry and commercial uses that they are being developed to support?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top