Judge doesn't feel it was a federal matter? I'm actually kind of surprised.
Judge rules in favor of “Drone Slayer,” dismisses lawsuit filed by pilot
Judge rules in favor of “Drone Slayer,” dismisses lawsuit filed by pilot
Not really. The case was dismissed from Federal court only because they did not think it should be heard there. It's like a neighbor in KY suing in OH. The case does not belong there. There is no precedent. The only setback is that any outcome to this case would only apply in KY and not nationally. Whoever is paying the bill may not want to spend that money unless it's Federal.This sets a very VERY bad precedence for our hobby.
Not really. The case was dismissed from Federal court only because they did not think it should be heard there. It's like a neighbor in KY suing in OH. The case does not belong there. There is no precedent. The only setback is that any outcome to this case would only apply in KY and not nationally. Whoever is paying the bill may not want to spend that money unless it's Federal.
I'm inclined to agree with you completely on this but I guess the FAA doesn't.How would this be dealt with if he had shot at a manned aircraft? If the FAA position is that drones are aircraft, then presumably the legal process should follow a similar path.
I'm inclined to agree with you completely on this but I guess the FAA doesn't.
Good question. Guess I'll reach our to my liaison with the FAA and see what he has to offer if anything.There might need to be a reporting process to the FAA for them to become involved. In the case of a manned aircraft that may be via the NTSB, so I wonder if they were ever formally notified in this case.
That classification was handed down by the NTSB in the pinker case (2014. Well before this KY case (2016).To my understanding the FAA was not classifying UAV's as aircraft at the time of this shooting. I could be wrong, but if not, I would have thrown this out too.
I spoke with our friend at the FAA today about this. He said, "It's not up to the FAA to decide in situations like this. When (if) it's reported to the FAA it is handed over to the FBI. They ultimately decide how to handle the case.
"UAS are aircraft and as such, shooting one down is shooting down an aircraft. That criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI."
That's exactly right. Report it to the FAA first and let them get involved on the front side then it sounds like the FBI would (hopefully) come into the fold and take it from there. At least if the FAA gets involved up front they can put their input in before things get "muddy".So that does suggest that it needs to be reported to the FAA first. It's not clear to me that happened in this case.
It was a simple tort case that should have been heard in small claims court. I find it curious that the matter was filed in federal court and wonder what plaintiff's real agenda was?
That's exactly right. Report it to the FAA first and let them get involved on the front side then it sounds like the FBI would (hopefully) come into the fold and take it from there. At least if the FAA gets involved up front they can put their input in before things get "muddy".
Exactly how is a FELONY offense belong in a small claims court? I'm missing the logic there.
Exactly how is a FELONY offense belong in a small claims court? I'm missing the logic there.
Do you know if it was reported to the FAA?I spoke with our friend at the FAA today about this. He said, "It's not up to the FAA to decide in situations like this. When (if) it's reported to the FAA it is handed over to the FBI. They ultimately decide how to handle the case.
"UAS are aircraft and as such, shooting one down is shooting down an aircraft. That criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI."
Do you know if it was reported to the FAA?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.