Frank Alvarez

January 8–The proliferation of small, relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft (UAS) presents the Federal Aviation Administration with a challenge in identifying people who don’t follow the rules of the air or who endanger the nation’s airspace. So, the agency is asking the law enforcement community for help.
The FAA released guidance to the law enforcement community explaining the legal framework for the agency’s oversight of aviation safety in the U.S., including UAS operations. The guidance describes how UAS and model aircraft can be operated legally, and the options for legal enforcement actions against unauthorized or unsafe UAS operators. The document also discusses the law enforcement community’s vital role in deterring, detecting and investigating unsafe operations.
State and local police are often in the best position to immediately investigate unauthorized UAS operations, and as appropriate, to stop them. The document explains how first responders and others can provide invaluable assistance to the FAA by:

• Identifying potential witnesses and conducting initial interviews
• Contacting the suspected operators of the UAS or model aircraft
• Viewing and recording the location of the event
• Collecting evidence
• Identifying if the UAS operation was in a sensitive location, event or activity
• Notifying one of the FAA’s Regional Operation Centers about the operation as soon as possible

The FAA’s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws, but the guidance makes clear the agency’s authority to pursue legal enforcement action against persons who endanger the safety of the National Airspace System.
The guidance stresses that while the FAA exercises caution not to mix criminal law enforcement with agency administrative safety enforcements, the public is best served by coordinating and fostering mutual understanding and cooperation between governmental entities with law enforcement responsibilities.
> View the FAA’s law enforcement guidance
> More information on the FAA and UAS,

cj_rumley

Frank,

Thanks for passing that along. It's the clearest and most concise statement to date of FAA's position on UAS including model aircraft, well supported by links to provide further definition and clarification as may be needed.
I'm a little ambivalent about the the FAA reaching out to local law enforcement to do their policing; my general view on governance has a libertarian bias, which is to say 'the best government is the least government.' This may well turn out to be the least government approach, though. My main concern with the pending regulation has been with the extended delays in getting the rules on the street, rather than the details of content, as I think we have gleaned a pretty good overview picture of it from bits and pieces. Pols at the local and state level have gotten restless and itching to get their own will in the laws to 'control' us, and that would probably be much worse. When local pols get involved, they most often take the easiest approach: ordinances that put an outright ban on activities that offend some of their constituency. At the state level, my primary residence and so flying venues are in CA. We've got Dianne Feinstein, and she has already been prating about 'drones.' If you don't like FAA's rules, you sure as hell ain't gonna like hers.

JohnShe

Wonderful. I was wondering how long it would take for the agency to get it's act together. I think that long list of sightings and close calls finally got them to do something positive.

JohnShe

I think Feinstein just asked the FAA to do something. Well, this is it.

TimJ

Guys, it is important to read what is in the Law Enforcment guidance PDF. Here is a sample:

Model Aircraft Operations
An important distinction to be aware of is whether the UAS is being operated for hobby or
recreational purposes or for some other purpose. This distinction is important because there are
specific requirements in the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112
-
95,
(the Act) that pertain to “Model Aircraft” operations, which are conducted solely for hobby or
recreational purposes. While flying model aircraft for hobby or recreational purposes does not
require FAA approval,
all model aircraft operators must operate safely and in accordance with
the law. The FAA provides guidance and information to individual UAS operators about how
they can operate safely under current regulations and laws. Guidance may be found at:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/
Section 336(c) of the Act defines “Model Aircraft” as an unmanned aircraft that is
–
(1) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
Each element of this definition must be met for a UAS to be considered a Model Aircraft
under
the Act. Under Section 336(a) of the Act the FAA is restricted from conducting further
rulemaking specific to Model Aircraft as defined in section 336(c) so long as the Model
Aircraft operations are conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 336(a).
Section 336(a) requires that...

It is important to realize this guidance is to help law enforcement. If you are not flying recklessly and following AMA Safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Exactly...if you don't do nothing wrong...you won't get caught.

Silent-AV8R

It is also my sense that this is really directed at the flights around stadiums, et. I sincerely doubt the local police are going to be driving around on the lookout for rogue drone operations.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

They aren't, but that's not message the OP wants to convey. Repeatedly.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

At least when they (the police) ask the model aviator to produce his AMA card and do find rogue model airplane flyers they will feel a little better about choke holds and taser use.

bradpaul

From FLYING magazine online:

​http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going...G4BkPVOVlTV.99

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

There are some good articles in there, not 100% slanted one way or the other, at least differing perspectives are noted.

I liked the article on gas prices falling....just crept under $2.00 in CT...can't remember the last time that happened.

The best advice I saw in the first article was this:

My best advice for operators who find themselves face to face with a person with a badge is to keep things calm.


A harsh reaction to someone with a badge, gun, and tazer is not going to end well for one of the persons.

JohnShe

Apparently the author seems to think that it is OK for imbeciles to endanger my person or property with their toys. Well, he is entitled to his opinion, wrong headed though it may be. For me, I want law enforcement to happen.

bradpaul

Another unfunded mandate that could distract LE from working on assaults, murders, rapes, burglaries and take time away from patrolling Duncan Donuts..................................

JohnShe

Great idea, that should be inserted into the AM safety code: "Never fly near a Duncan Donuts."

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's not an unfunded mandate by any stretch. Also, law enforcement is charged with working on all types of criminal activity, as well as ensuring the public's safety. That they seem to be getting guidance and direction from the feds isn't anything to get upset about, but it makes for good conjecture.

Here's another thing local LE is getting some direction on......anybody have a big issue with this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6488816.html

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2069079

skylark-flier

Just another reason I'm glad I don't live in NY. [ rant ] Governments think they can control every aspect of our lives. It's up to us to convince them they can't [ /rant ]

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's not just NY that this will be happening in, and to some degree with good reason. Folks can hate on local/state/federal govt because that's the easy and popular thing to do now, but they are the same ones who avail themselves of the benefits of said govt entities 100 times a day.

Why does govt need to be involved...because of people like this:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50e_1421573155

Yes, I know it's in another country...think this hasn't happened here? Yet?

Like the flying wasn't bad enough...that watermark, not the best move.

JohnShe

Clearly a wrongheaded overreaction. It will be happening often due to the imbeciles who take their toys out to play and create serious hazards.

They need to put something positive in the law. Maybe recognize AMA chartered flying clubs, or a well managed park flyer program.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Here in CO, 2 weeks ago, there was a bill in the stat legislature addressing police use of drones. Piggy backed onto the back page was an outright ban on model aircraft flying. Local club and AMA officials got it removed from the bill.

So some idiot politician feels it is OK for the police to use model aircraft but not the citizenry? The police do not need drones. Maybe the fire dpt. But the not the cops.

Yah, it is really easy to hate on the govt. considering their track record through history. The founders created the bill of rights for a reason. THe govt. needs to be kept under a watchful eye at all times.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Why don't the cops need a quad/multirotor? You don't see any potential use for them?

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

No, I do not, and I will not be convinced otherwise.

But I am not a gov. shill either I am sure we do not agree on the role of gov. in our lives, and that is not going to change. So I will not make an attempt to change your mind, as I am sure it is a waste of time.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...ft-in-colorado

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well it's good to see we can keep an open mind about things....sheesh.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

The police have too much power now. They do not need to be given any more. If it were up to me, there would be serious consideration about removing their ability to use fire arms. They have obviously not proven themselves to be responsible with them. Just 2 weeks ago we had a cop empty 11 rounds into someone. Have you ever rattled off 11 rounds before? It takes some time. To me, this was more of an execution, than the prevention of crime.

No, They are not responsible enough to have an aerial surveillance aircraft.