FAA- Federal Crime to Shoot Down Drone

[Saleen411]

This was a pretty hot topic awhile ago.

FAA Confirms It’s a Federal Crime to Shoot Down a Drone
2.1k
268
8
By Jacob Brogan
487540600-drone-is-flown-for-recreational-purposes-in-the-sky
Don't shoot!
Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

The Federal Aviation Administration is a busy organization, one that oversees everything from air traffic control systems to pilot certifications. You’d think that would leave it with enough on its hands, but the current vogue for civilian drones keeps piling new new responsibilities onto the beleaguered administration. Last year, the FAA established a drone registry for pilots of unmanned aircraft. Now it’s unequivocally confirming that it’s a federal crime to shoot down a drone, as John Goglia reports in Forbes.

Goglia explains the FAA offered this ruling in response to his questions on the topic, citing 18 USC. 32, which “makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft.” This is bad news if you were planning to invest in the DroneDefender, a goofy-looking gun that promised to disrupt intrusive drones by bombarding them “with radio waves that disrupt [their] remote control and GPS signals,” as Justin Peters wrote in Future Tense last year.

That said, the FAA’s stance will hardly comes as a revelation to those who’ve been paying attention. Way back in 2014, a New Jersey man was arrested for shooting down a drone. And though he was called to task for unlawful weapons charges rather than a violation of aviation law, the message was clear: However irritating drones may be, it’s probably best not to take vengeance into your own hands.

Goglia, for his own part, asks why the FAA hasn’t yet acted on 18 USC 32, especially given the increasing frequency of human-on-drone violence. “It’s time the United States put an end to these dangerous acts and criminally prosecuted those who shoot at unmanned aircraft,” Goglia writes. He has a point: Back in October, a judge exonerated a Kentucky man who had fired at a drone that intruded onto his property.

Here, at Slate we’re not so much frustrated with the FAA as we are irritated that it isn’t cooler. Over in the Netherlands, the police are training eagles to attack drones. If you’re really committed to policing the skies, that’s how you do it.

[TurninTurtle]

FCC regulations... Its a federal crime to purposefully interfere with a radio signal.

The Drone Defender is a violation of Federal law by design.

The eagles idea might work for some of the smaller drones... but the larger ones will have the eagles returning to the trainer missing their feet.

[Island Time O25]

It seems to me that the general Federal policy to defend the drones at all costs is to pave the way for LE to use the drones for surveillance and such.

It would be interesting to see if the courts will allow the victims of such drone surveillance to press charges in case of them being observed naked or will the naked people be prosecuted for "indecent exposure" even if other than a drone there is no one around for miles.

[Ramblingman]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

It seems to me that the general Federal policy to defend the drones at all costs is to pave the way for LE to use the drones for surveillance and such.

It would be interesting to see if the courts will allow the victims of such drone surveillance to press charges in case of them being observed naked or will the naked people be prosecuted for "indecent exposure" even if other than a drone there is no one around for miles.

As an owner of a UAS I have watched this pretty close for a year.

The FAA is protecting the sky and what flies in it. That's what they do.

LE is actually being restricted more often than private individuals. The current consumer tech to get detailed pictures requires being quite close to the subject. LE is often now being required to get a court order or in many cases just not allowed.

I see them the way I see Jet Skis when they first became popular, everybody wanted one, the "me too" idiots caused a lot of noisy anchorages and drunk accidents. Eventually the jet ski era tapered off and is less a nuisance in most places. I'd expect the same with UAS over the next few years.

This is a new and maturing technology. It will take time and people understanding before it settles in.

[a64pilot]

Tell me, what piece of someone else's property is it legal to "shoot"?

FAA has gotten themselves into a mess by stupidly allowing themselves to become involved, they will soon understand what a tar baby is

[Ramblingman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Tell me, what piece of someone else's property is it legal to "shoot"?

FAA has gotten themselves into a mess by stupidly allowing themselves to become involved, they will soon understand what a tar baby is

That's been quite a debate in the quad related forums.

Part of it has to do with the fact the Google et all have been shooting overhead for years.

The proposed UAS guidance, night flight 333 and related proposal is something like 150' above ground level, unless restricted for some other reason. That gives you a picture much like what google earth shows when zoomed in. There is also notes about requesting to fly over private property at a limited agl with a camera recording.

I'd be more worried about a nosy next door neighbor with a smartphone.

I still think that in time this will all calm down.

The majority of folks want to take panorama and vacation shots.

There's always some idiot that's gonna make trouble no matter the tech or thing.