Documents to avoid arrest / confiscation

[fujitsuman]

Folks,

I've done a fair amount of research on the boards, and would appreciate your opinion on the best official looking documents to carry with you when you are flying your Phantom, in case you get approached by law enforcement. (I'm based in the U.S.) I find that some locales have vague rules on whether I can fly or not (i.e. privately owned, but city maintained parks within a city limit, where they haven't ruled out model helicopters, but the city has a negative view on UAV)

My concern is an overreaction by some uniformed rural police officer in the area I live, some ignorant security guard, or an overreacting park official. Even if carrying around some printed out FAA regulation or court case carries no legal bearing whatsoever on my right to fly, I want it to simply have the appearance of approval, or the appearance that I am informed.

My primary goal is that if anyone with authority of force tries to a) stop me b) confiscate the drone or c) arrest or detain me, that I have something on had that makes them think twice -- at least about b) or c). I've traveled in many parts of the world where irrelevant but seemingly important documents have kept me out of trouble.

I was planning on reading FAA Regulation 7610.4, but I can't find a PDF version online. And I was hoping to find the court case referenced here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-0 ... t-faa.html

Even though my flying isn't for commercial use.

Also, would like to have a copy of the text on this statement:

"(Congress recently took away the FAA’s authority to regulate model aircraft operated for hobby or recreational purposes.)"
Cited in this article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/ ... ilot-case/
But haven't had luck on finding these.

Any (constructive) input would be appreciated. Again, I'm simply looking for a number of official documents to carry on hand, which would be supportive if stopped while flying my drone. Regardless of personal views on the FAA and these regulations, I doubt any of us would want our brand new P2V+ seized by someone, whether they have the authority to do it or not.

Thanks.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Here is the actual judge's decision:

http://02b954f.netsolhost.com/docs/2110 ... cision.pdf


Here is Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 FAA Reauthorization Act February 2012

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf

However, it has been my experience that when dealing with Law Enforcement the best route is to simply pack up and leave. You are not going to get anywhere arguing. In fact, that may increase your chances of being detained.

 

[ianwood]

This is the only document that pertains to remote controlled aircraft. And it is an advisory.

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... /91-57.pdf

If you want, carry this one too as it is current and relevant to commercial use:

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload ... cision.pdf

 

[fujitsuman]

You guys are awesome - thank you. And don't worry - I wouldn't argue with them - just want to avoid confiscation / escalation / arrest to begin with. If I'm able to walk away, and with my Phantom in tact, I'll be happy.

Thanks again.

 

[IrishSights]

Just posted this in another thread here "A copy of your public liability insurance certficate is one to add to your arsenal"


Sent from my Galaxy Note 8

 

[fujitsuman]

Excellent idea. Many thanks.

 

[SilentAV8R]

This is the only document that pertains to remote controlled aircraft. And it is an advisory.

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... /91-57.pdf

That is incorrect. Public Law 112-95 Section 336 Specifically deals with remote controlled aircraft. It defines what a model aircraft is and limits the regulations the FAA can impose. This would be what I would cite if I was operating in a non-commercial flight. It is clear and concise. In effect it supercedes AC 91-57 which as you noted, was only adivisory in nature to begin with. Although I'd venture to guess that the local police person would be hard pressed to grasp the nuance of an AC versus and actual regulation.

The Pirker decision is a good one. If I wanted to push things that far I would have the actual court decision rather than any synopsis or interpretation. We both linked to that decision.

 

[havasuphoto]

Public Law 112-95 Section 336

I don't have the time to go through 145 pages of this Public Law. Can you just point me in the right direction to where the FAA clearly defines unmanned aerial vehicles, as Aircraft-and the supporting law?

To the OP; carry a copy of the U.S. Constitution
Basically, when dealing with local police, you can; A. tell them you have a bunch of Lawyers set on "stun". B. tell them to pound sand. Or, what I recommend, is C. "yes sir...whatever you want me to do....". Then, get a lawyer, and handle things the "hard way".
Basically, it's the "wild west" out there. And, as I've said before, WE are not necessarily the problem. The fact that we are on here, learning, and trying our best to fly by the rules, helps. But, where are the other 99% of Phantom owners, that are NOT on here?

I've done 100's of flights-and not once, has any law enforcement officer ever stopped....let alone bothered me. But, I live in an area where there is a lot of RC activity-and the local police know their are no laws that allow them to stop you, or confiscate your aircraft.

 

[thongbong]

I just show them my badge. http://www.hollywoodhistoryonline.c...51d16dd8c6e57fbdbdb838b9626.image.427x450.jpg

 

[SilentAV8R]

Public Law 112-95 Section 336

I don't have the time to go through 145 pages of this Public Law. Can you just point me in the right direction to where the FAA clearly defines unmanned aerial vehicles, as Aircraft-and the supporting law?

Section 336 of the FAA Modernization Act of 2012:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf

From that Section:

"(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means 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."

FWIW, this was not the FAA, but rather Congress itself, defining what a model aircraft is. Of course, if you are operating a commercial flight this Law does not apply

 

[havasuphoto]

 

[ianwood]

This is the only document that pertains to remote controlled aircraft. And it is an advisory.

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... /91-57.pdf

That is incorrect. Public Law 112-95 Section 336 Specifically deals with remote controlled aircraft. It defines what a model aircraft is and limits the regulations the FAA can impose. This would be what I would cite if I was operating in a non-commercial flight.

True. Looked at it again. This is the one to cite to law enforcement. Noted and downloaded!

It also says the FAA has broken the law. It's been 800+ days and they've done SFA!

 

[SilentAV8R]

This is from a Bill...a Bill is not a Law.
Read the Pirker decision-that is the prevailing Law of the Land.

The Bill was signed into Law. Public Law 112-95. Surely you are not being purposely obtuse.

Here's the entire section relevant to unmanned aircraft:

http://ncrcc.org/joomla/images/stories/ ... le%20b.pdf

The NTSB decision is by no means "the law of the land". It is a singular decision of one NTSB judge which is going to be reviewed by the full Board. Even then, NTSB does not make laws. All the Pirker decision says is that FAA had no authority to impose a fine on Pirker because according to the judge FAA had no laws in place by which to do so.

And just one more time, FAA cited Priker for unsafe operations. That is what the fine was for. The NTSB judge said FAA had no regulatory authority to levy that fine at the time they did. Trust me, FAA is going to make dead nuts certain that the upcoming sUAS Rules (which are regulations and not laws) will be very clear. Only Congress can make or pass laws. The courts can interpret them and agencies like the FAA are authorized by Congress to develop enforceable regulations within the limits of the authorizating law. In this case that is Public Law 112-95/

But Section 336 prohibits FAA from imposing any new laws on HOBBY operations as defined in that section.

 

[SilentAV8R]

This is from a Bill...a Bill is not a Law.
Read the Pirker decision-that is the prevailing Law of the Land.

Exactly. SilentAV8R needs to brush up on not only RC regulations but basic Civics.

Please read my response above. I suggest that it is you who needs to understand basic civics. As I noted, the NTSB has zero authority to make law, so saying their Pirker decision is the "law of the land" only highlights that basic misunderstanding of what they can do.

In addition, I've been an RC modeler for 47 years. An AMA member for that entire time as well. I was an Associated Vice President for AMA DIstrict X for 10 years and I am intimately familiar with the RC rules and regulations. I have also been an expert witness in a lawsuit involving the safe operations of RC aircraft. As such, I am a recognized as an expert by the courts.

Right now according to the NTSB the FAA has no authority to impose fines or take any other action relative to the operation of model aircraft. Congress, in Public Law 112-95 Section 336 clearly defines what a model aircraft is. It further exempts model aircraft from additional FAA rules or regulations. THAT is the "Law of the Land".

 

[havasuphoto]

 

[SilentAV8R]

I give up.....you seem to know more than I do.
I only have 30+ years in General Aviation, and 23 years as a commercial helicopter pilot and flight instructor.
So, you win...whatever you say.
BUT-I will do what I want, when I want, and I DO know the laws and regulations.
Tired of arguing this....
"UN-subscribed"

Yes, facts are difficult to argue with

 

[havasuphoto]

 

[ianwood]

HR658 was signed into law on 2/14/2012. You can see the entire bill as passed here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 658enr.pdf

 

[SilentAV8R]

HavasuPhoto, we are basically saying the same thing. There are no current regulations written by the FAA governing the things (not going to call them aircraft) we fly. However, Congress HAS defined what a model aircraft is and they have prohibited the FAA from writing any regulations beyond what exists (which is essentially nothing).

The NPRM, if FAA ever gets off their butts and gets it done, will define what a sUAS is and how it can be operated. Until then all FAA can do is bluster and harass.

What the NTSB judge did was make clear that the current "Law of the Land" is that FAA cannot levy a fine for flying a model aircraft.

BTW - I have a good friend and long time fellow RC pilot who flies the yellow EMS helis in the Phoenix area. He flies A-Stars and Bell 407s mostly. He and his fellow pilots would appreciate it if we would all stay the hell away from any accident scene where they might be operating. Something about no communication or coordination at the scene scares the snot out of them.

 

[SilentAV8R]

HavasuPhoto, we are basically saying the same thing. There are no current regulations written by the FAA governing the things (not going to call them aircraft) we fly. However, Congress HAS defined what a model aircraft is and they have prohibited the FAA from writing any regulations beyond what exists (which is essentially nothing).

The NPRM, if FAA ever gets off their butts and gets it done, will define what a sUAS is and how it can be operated. Until then all FAA can do is bluster and harass.

I might note that as a licensed pilot part of that might include messing with your pilot privileges. Not a big deal for me since I'm a lowly PPL, but if you make your living with your ticket that could be a real PITA.

What the NTSB judge did was make clear that the current "Law of the Land" is that FAA cannot levy a fine for flying a model airplane.

BTW - I have a good friend and long time fellow RC pilot who flies the yellow EMS helis in the Phoenix area. He flies A-Stars and Bell 407s mostly. He and his fellow pilots would appreciate it if we would all stay the hell away from any accident scene where they might be operating. Something about no communication or coordination at the scene scares the snot out of them.