Этот веб-сайт использует файлы cookie. Если вы будете просматривать или пользоваться этим сайтом, вы даете на это свое согласие.
Отменить
Вы знаете, что реклама помогает FlightAware в отслеживании рейсов?
Вы можете внести свой вклад в бесплатную работу FlightAware, разрешив показ рекламы на FlightAware.com. Мы следим за тем, чтобы наша реклама была полезна и не мешала работе с сайтом. Вы можете быстро включить рекламу на FlightAware или приобрести привилегированное членство.
Отменить
Back to Squawk list
  • 45

FAA Confirms It’s a Federal Crime to Shoot Down a Drone

Размещено
 
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… (www.slate.com) Ещё...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


JaTexas
Jake Angelo 4
When will the NTSB show up to investigate my drone crash? Cam & sound black box only has limited battery you know.....JUST HUMOR...KIDDING!
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 3
You really need NTSB to come out and tell you it was pilot error? /jk
canuck44
canuck44 12
Yup and it is a crime to shoot a gator here in Florida. A lot of them get hit by lightning...that is .357 lightning.
joelwiley
joel wiley 8
And each of the 9 32 cal pellets in 12 ga 00 buckhshot is a separate offense.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 2
silcalifano
silverio califano 3
It's never a good idea to shoot into the air, unless you are Joe Biden, scaring off a burglar with a shotgun from his porch or balcony!
calcajun
Richard Richardson 2
Better than skeet or trap. You better use #4 3 1/2 inch Mag 12 gauge . I wonder if they taste like chicken?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Maybe like a Micky D's McNugget. Similar in plastic content perhaps.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 1
HAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA!
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
crk112
crk112 2
Seems like 'bombarding with radio waves' doesn't actually damage an aircraft..
crk112
crk112 2
Of course I'm only talking about DRONE aircraft in this context
flyfishmcd
David McDonald 2
I thought I heard somewhere that up to a certain distance above your house you own. Does this still apply here within that distance?

srobak
srobak 0
Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 1
i don't care when i see it is going on the GROUND FASTER THAN YOU CAN SAY "i"
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
d = 0.5 * g * t**2
where d is distance, g=9.8m/s/s, t is time in seconds.
solving for t=1 second, d=.5*9.8*1 or about 4.8 meters.

The phoneme for 'i' (uppcase) is expressed in about .25 seconds, lowercase somewhat shorter. That makes the value of d approximately 3 meters or 10 ft. For your premise to be going to ground it would be under 10 ft - use a bat.
sanukjim
James Wilson Jr 3
Downed with a good rifle shot and nobody gets prosecuted.I can't wait to find one flying over my land.Good practice.
TWA55
TWA55 3
A no fly zone over my house, under 50 feet, and those who violate the restricted zone will be shot down.
srobak
srobak 0
Guess again. You have no power to enact or enforce NFZs, and anything that isn't attached to the ground (ie: the air) is not considered to be your property.
TMcDonnell
Timothy McDonnell 3
So lassos and thrown stones are still okay?
mikeharbour
Mike Harbour 3
I would like to see a drone lassoing roundup...that would be coolness!
Jmkjjk
Jeff Kowal 3
83feet, give or take over my land unauthorized its fair game.BANG😀😀😀😀😀
srobak
srobak 0
Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
That you posted the same thing 6 times indicates to me you have a firm belief in this. Do you have references to State or federal statutes defining this? Has this premise been tested in the courts? How does it interact with the home defense castle doctrine?
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 2
Really srobak, try flying a plane 1 inch above my property and see how well that works out for you or anyone else for that matter. And, as far as I am concerned any drone with a camera that intrudes on my privacy gives me the right to remove it from my property if it is below the legal altitude for aircraft, which happens to be 1000' above the highest object in the area, etc. Want to fly something in the air, then comply with the aviation rules of flight!
Goofy2269
Cliff Heart 2
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
That is precisely what my comment above intended to convey...the court ruling established that as being the law.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 1
So, if i have a balloon that i release to go in the air, it's not my property (the balloon)?!!
kw77
katty wompus 1
" 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."
mikeharbour
Mike Harbour 1
What about layering the cockpit? Oh, wait...
mikeharbour
Mike Harbour 1
Sorry...meant "lasering!" Dang you, Otto Korect!
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. So what if a drone overflies your house? I agree if it comes with a camera or other externals, then that would / could be an issue. Otherwise - who cares? (Let the down votes begin.)
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
It's almost getting impossible to buy one without a camera these days. I know all three of mine came with cameras built in, and mine run the price gamut from $20 up to $450. With the size of the cameras these days they're becoming much more prevalent.
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
If it crashes into one of your children or the owners of the property...I imagine the owners would card a hell of a lot!
devsfan
ken young 0
What other purpose is there for a drone?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
I got a helicopter for my grandson that he will fly when he's a little older. It kind of falls in the drone category. Lots of hobbyists. No one better shoot it down.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
Keep your toys at your place and we'll get along just fine. You wouldn't buy him an R/C monster truck and expect him to be able to drive it through my flower beds, would you? Of course not, so why should it be any different for a flying toy?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
How about just a plain toy for fun? Very similar to the model planes people flew when I was a kid, except they were tethered and flew in a circle - simply due to lack of technology of the day. I can't quite get over all of the gun-happy responses here - a dangerous over reaction. in my humble opinion.
MH370
MH370 1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confirms-shooting-drone-federal-crime-so-when-will-us-prosecute/#231440a153ef
S27481
George Mattingly 1
That the FAA is busy is not a reason for it not to try to expand its powers - its a bureaucracy and bureaucrats - especially FAA bureaucrats are forever trying to expand their portfolio. Maybe the next administration will decide that the FAA is one of the Agencies that we would be better off without. After all, what do they do other than make certifying aircraft cost a fortune; keep light aircraft engine technology mired in the 1940s; hang onto a a medical examination process that has been shown without a shadow of a doubt to be completely superfluous; fail to come up with a viable alternative to leaded aviation fuels; need I go on ?
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
devsfan
ken young 1
Its a crap law.
If you fly your toy over my home or property, you are trespassing in MY airspace and I will do what I must to end the intrusion. And I don't care what the law says.
srobak
srobak 0
Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property. YOU do not own airspace.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 1
Once the person flying the drone lifts it off HIS property and fly's on to YOUR property it's more yours than HIS.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 1
If not it should be, its my property i payed for and i am going to protect with some Buckshot right into that drone!!
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
7 1/2 birdshot with a tight choke would be a better choice. Just saying...
aryfrosty
Alan Yates 1
The FAA can go fish. If a drone is over my private property it is mine and any federal employee who approaches had better have the elected sheriff of the county of my residence with them or they will find themselves under arrest. I am registered with www.noflyzone.org and while that is arguable it shows that I don't wish to enjoy their overflights. Fly over me? Lose your drone. In pieces.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 1
No worries. If anyone would first approach it would be local or state LEO. The feds get involved later. So you wouldn't have to exercise any arrest power.
srobak
srobak 0
Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property. noflyzone.org has no legal standing.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
Actually I don't think of it as ownership of airspace, rather just quote the air regulation in the FAR's and CAR's: no one shall fly over a built up area or group of people at an altitude less than 1000' verical from the highest object and at least 2000' horizontal from the built up area or group of people.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Just curious - does the regulation you reference include permission to shoot down something that violates it? Or, any penalty at all?
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
If you are in the confines of most cities (in my state, at least) there are ordinances against firing a weapon in the city limits. Outside of the city limits, you can do what you want with your firearm (other than threatening, shooting someone, etc...criminals/trespassers who threaten you excepted) as long as you don't endanger neighbors or harm their property. The laws are more detailed, generally, than my description above... but you get the point, I hope.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin 1
Once the person flying the drone lifts it off HIS property and fly's on to YOUR property it's more yours than HIS.
cactus1549
Travis Mauldin -2
I think you should be able to shoot it down, ONLY if it is flying on YOUR property....
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 4
If it comes over my property below controlled airspace it's trespassing and becomes a free skeet target. My property, including the airspace above it to the start of controlled airspace is mine to do with as I wish, and I wish it to be a no-fly zone for drones not under my control.
bob2013
Bob Therina 2
I sympathize with your view, but uncontrolled doesn't mean unregulated. For instance, there are regulations concerning cloud separation and weather in class G airspace.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 3
True. Okay then, let's say 200' AGL, since I can legally erect a tower to that height on my property without requiring FAA approval.
srobak
srobak -1
Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property. The tower might be on your private property - but anything in the air freely below it's height and above the ground is not.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
You should let the NYS legislature know this, because they have other ideas, and have had them since the 70s when I was a kid flying model planes.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 3
I hope you didn't fly it over anyone else's house.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
No, but the model flying field I went to had signs telling you to stay within the boundaries of the field, and that any flights outside that would be considered as trespassing. The local police would sometimes get called, and did issue desk appearance tickets twice that I'm aware of.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 0
Egads - people surely are intolerant, aren't they.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
To be fair, these were gas powered RC planes that were quite noisy and smelly, and I could understand not wanting these buzzing balsa hornets drowning out the sound of the ball game as you tried to relax in your yard, or coming through your picture window.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Okay, okay, I guess I have to 'fess up - I remember those gas powered planes and yes, that buzzing was truly annoying. But still, I don't recall hearing about anyone shooting one down. People thought differently then.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
None were shot down (as far as I know). but the police did treat it as trespassing and issue desk appearance tickets. I never got one, so I don't know what happened from there, but I heard that fines were handed out in some cases. This person "srobak" is claiming the opposite, that it's not trespassing, so I suggest they argue it with the NYS courts and legislature.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 2
Wikipedia has a short but good discussion of what generally constitutes air rights, which may contribute to some folk's understanding of the issue.

Not mentioned in there are some of issues I've heard of: there have been cases where people have sued because a proposed building would block sunlight to the plaintiffs' property. I don't know the outcome of those.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
If it's less than 83ft above your property, it's legal.
canuck44
canuck44 9
We ought to have a season, Matt when that extends to 500 feet. Say January through December...no bag limit.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Why do they call it 'tourist season' when you can't shoot any?
bag limits are set to ensure the surviving population remains healthy and viable- no bag limit on vermin and varmints.
yr2012
matt jensen 3
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 3
Well Gentlemen, I think someone should invent an short range electrical signal jammer or " drone killer" as I like to call it. No bullets, no noise just a litttle hand held device with a 100' range and most likely ithe dead drone will fall on your property......finders keepers! So on another topic, any oldtimers our there like myself worried about these third world airlines with fifth freedom rights and the sudden appearance deranged flight crew members?
bbabis
Bill Babis 6
I think the "drone defender" or jammer is still good to go. You are not damaging or destroying an aircraft. It simply lands on your property. Once there, anything could happen to it like accidentally running over it with the lawn tractor.

I wouldn't sweat the fifth freedom flyers as we are too busy letting terrorists enter the country any way they want to come here. Aviation themed terrorism is giving way to the much easier to pull off ground attacks.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 3
Nocheechako
Roy Thomas 1
Article indicates that even that method would be illegal.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
And discussing it qualifies as conspiracy.
bentwing60
bentwing60 4
So, I guess it's just a "local" crime to shoot the operator!
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Unless the operator is some DPTS federal agent.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 0
Might even be considered hijacking, maybe? Air piracy charges, etc.?
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 0
FCC would have a thing or two to say about that jammer.
yr2012
matt jensen 2
There was a driver who used a cell phone jammer for close to two years on his daily drive from Tampa - Orlando. The only reason he got caught was a trooper lost his signal when in the drivers proximity.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
Hope he enjoyed the potential $10,000 fine and 1 year in jail, for every day he used it.
sanukjim
James Wilson Jr 2
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
You'd be surprised how easy that would be, and how much help they'd get from the amateur radio community.
linbb
linbb -2
Rather stupid as you know nothing about guns and the damage they can do to others or there property. Having people shoot down drones poses a risk you and others who want to might not want to take on. The possibility of killing a person by accident due to the bullet or pellets cause shooting down the drone. Now is it so funny now??
devsfan
ken young 2
I would use a non lethal weapon. Rubber pellets. or some such.
srobak
srobak 2
I can kill you with a non-lethal sheet of paper. Think about this.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
NF2G
David Stark 2
There are no "non lethal" weapons. They are called "less lethal" for a reason.
tbpera
Tom Pera -1
lighten up... all above re: guns - tongue in cheek...
sanukjim
James Wilson Jr -4
linbb, You D A What a stupid statement .You obviously have never been in the open range and no nothing about shooting.
rochcomeau
Roch Comeau 3
Yeah, when you shoot upwards towards a drone and miss, the bullets shot harmlessly off to space, right?
devsfan
ken young 2
In extremely rare occurrences, people have been inured by errant ammunition which has traveled a great distance.
mikeharbour
Mike Harbour 2
And even when said ammo has traveled a short distance, too!
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
There have been several instances of someone being killed by a bullet shot into the air, usually on a 4th of July or similar holiday. I read about one just in the past year or two. I personally discovered what appeared to be a 30-06 round on the floor of a church just outside Houston, TX around 1986 or so. It had penetrated the metal roof, insulation and ceiling tiles at about a 40-50 degree angle. Fortunately, it happened while no one was in the building!
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
"...at about a 40-50 degree angle"

That right there tells me it wasn't a case of it being shot up into the air, it was fired at a target on the ground and missed. Easy enough to do if you're firing from the prone position at a target that's slightly elevated.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
No, but they also pose very little hazard to anyone on the ground when they come back down. Mythbusters covered this years ago, more than once.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 0
MythBusters? Not very authoritative, rigorous, nor strictly controlled. Try googling "stray bullet kills" and see what hazards exist.
devsfan
ken young 2
Well, you can wring your hands and build yourself an underground house.....and stay there
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Might I suggest you look up "ballistics"? There is a huge difference in velocities between a bullet returning to earth after being fired into the air, and one that misses a target on the ground. "Stray bullet kills" searching will turn up ample examples of the latter, none of the former.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 2
I agree that ballistics does show a big difference. That difference is (given the same muzzle velocity and projectile weight, and ignoring windage for simplicity) a function of the angle above horizontal that the shot is made. Basically, a shot at 90 degrees (ie straight up) will fall maxing out at terminal velocity which is somewhere around the momentum needed to begin to penetrate skin. It could kill, would probably injure, depending on what it hits. As the angle is decreased, the vertical component of velocity will still max out at terminal velocity, but there is now a horizontal velocity component (which is reduced only by frictional forces) and could very much be lethal or injurious at high angles. As shooting at a drone would rarely be at 90 degrees and more often probably in the 30 to 75 degree range, still "into the air" the possibility of a lethal or injurious projectile remains. As an example, calculate the momentum at ground impact of a 158 gr .357 bullet with a muzzle velocity of 450 m/s fired at a 45 degree angle. [And no, I didn't have to look it up.]
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
The way I see it, the angle is going to be >75 degrees, and the weapon of choice is most likely to be a shotgun with birdshot. I base this on the stipulation that the drone is "over" someone's property and that most people are not really going to care about a drone over their fields, but will object as it nears the house, and that a shotgun is going to be the most effective weapon for this purpose, and the most common for home defense.
beilstwh
beilstwh -2
a bullet shot vertically(level) can kill, a bullet fired horizontally (up) will slow down to terminal velocity when it falls.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 4
You have horizontal and vertical mixed up.
locomoco
M.F. LaBoo 2
And that's only the start of his confusion.
beilstwh
beilstwh 0
They don't come down with the speed of a bullet, they come down at terminal velocity which given the small mass of the bullet is too slow to cause any damage.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
If it is a bullet moving, at whaever speed it is moving that is the speed of the bullet. Are you thinking of muzzle velocity?
locomoco
M.F. LaBoo 0
Mass doesn't have anything to do with terminal velocity. That's determined by density and air resistance. Quite a few people have been killed over the years by bullets "falling from orbit" when people shot them into the air in celebratory fashion.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 5
That's some interesting physics you have in your universe. In this one though, mass is definitely part of the equation.
devsfan
ken young 2
Mass is immaterial in terminal velocity?
So a rock and a piece of paper of equal weight will fall to the earth at the same velocity?
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
Depends somewhat on the shape of the object don't you think?
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
Depends on the shape, etc. wouldn't don't you think?
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
On the moon or another celestial body lacking an atmosphere, yes.
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
Actually, in earth's atmosphere, the shape has much to do with the velocity it falls. Ever dropped a piece of paper that is flat and an equal sheet of paper that is rolled tightly into a small cylinder or condensed into a small ball? They don't fall at the same velocity! That is why sailplanes with wings can stay in the air so long! Point them down and see how fast they hit the earth, especially if the spoilers are deployed.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Except we're talking about bullets, not sailplanes, and I've never heard of a bullet with spoilers, or an armed sailplane.

(APFSDS tank rounds excepted)
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
If you take the time to see what/whom I was responding to (Ken Young (So a rock and a piece of paper of equal weight will fall to the earth at the same velocity), you might find it possible to agree with my statement! And, who mentioned an armed sailplane?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
My point was the effect of the lack of an atmosphere on terminal velocity. Did you miss that?
bbailey84
Bill Bailey 1
Did you read my post...It started off with "Actually, in EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE"
swishmystr
Chris Haviland 0
DroneDefender... ridiculous. Forget about the FAA, I'm sure the FCC would have something to say about a device that interferes with radio communications.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
Does this apply to rednecks?
srobak
srobak 0
Only on days they drink beer, engage in domestic violence or their trucks break down.

Вход

Нет учетной записи? Зарегистрируйтесь сейчас (бесплатно) и получите доступ к конфигурируемым функциям, уведомлениям о статусе рейсов и другим возможностям!