Blogs

Personal Drones May Present Public Safety Concerns

Posted by Tom Mahood on August 29, 2013 at 10:30pm

...Or so says the Joint Regional Intelligence Center. JRIC is yet another anti-terrorist agency most people have never heard of and is comprised of the Feds and law enforcement agencies in the counties of Southern California. 3689545454?profile=originalThe following single page information bulletin was sent out to JRIC's member agencies on August 27, 2013. There are more than a few things that are interesting in it.

I wasn't sure if the original pdf file would present well in a blog posting so I converted it to a jpg. It should still be legible.

Tags: law enforcement, security
E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • BluSky1 August 31, 2013 at 4:16pm

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of
    unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including
    this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any
    rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,
    if--

    (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
    (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and
    within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
    (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design,
    construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a
    community-based organization;
    (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned
    aircraft; and
    (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport
    operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
    airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent
    location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
    procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic
    facility is located at the airport)).
    (b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of
    the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
    endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
    (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.

    So long as you fulfill the criteria stated in Quoted paragraph the UAS criteria is nill and void as it clearly says in quoted paragraph. If you fly outside of the model aircraft criteria then the FAA may govern you !

  • Josh Potter August 31, 2013 at 7:50am

    I see the notice about normal vision here, but they're talking about licenced commercial UAS operations, not model aircraft. 

    (2) Because of field of view and distortion issues with aids to vision such as binoculars,
    field glasses, night vision devices, or telephoto lenses, these are allowed only for augmentation
    of the observer’s visual capability; they cannot be used as the primary means of visual contact.
    When using other aids to vision, VOs must use caution to ensure the aircraft remains within
    normal visual line-of-sight of the observer. These aids to vision are not to be confused with
    corrective lenses or contact lenses, which do not alter the field of view or distort vision.


    http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/n%208900.207.pdf

  • Josh Potter August 31, 2013 at 7:21am

    Thanks BlueSky, I didn't know that.  It looks like you need to stay in visual line of sight (where is my telescope?) but I see no mention of 400'.  

    I wish they would write in a nice legal mode of FPV flying outside LoS.  

  • BluSky1 August 30, 2013 at 5:53pm

    josh potter actually the rules changed in 2012 here is what congress passed

    FAA Modernization And Reform Act 2012 [H.R.658.ENR] SEC.336

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

    I have never been bothered but i keep a pair of binoculars in my bag in-case someone challenges i am flying beyond los =)

    There is nothing that says I have to keep it under 400 feet only be-able to see LOS , I fly 5.8ghz so i am almost 99% of the time LOS=)

  • Josh Potter August 30, 2013 at 9:32am

    >fly within line of sight

    >under 400'

    Recommendations =/= law.  Here's the source before the whiny pilot guy shows up.
    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircul...

  • Joe Edgar August 30, 2013 at 8:36am
    Any device can be harmful to the general public. A carpenter could cause serious injury with a cordless skill saw. An iron worker could drop a rivet from twenty stories up. A responsible drone operator could have an unlucky accident that could cause injury. The point is its not the device that causes harm its the person operating it. Criminals and persons of bad backgrounds will always find a way to meet there objective. Remember the old saying, "rules were meant to be broken". It's a shame something as usefull and interesting as UAV's will someday be regulated out of the US market. Then only criminals will own them.
  • Mathew krawczun August 30, 2013 at 8:15am

    okay I'll be the first person to admit UAVs can have some real public safety issues but that normaly comes in the  form of them fulling out of the sky and their "spinning blades of death" cutting people.  the points the JRIC bring up have nothing to do with "public safety" and everything to do with people calling them on their Sh*&^ and holding them accountable.

    I like BluSKys idea of sending that buget to the school system.

  • BluSky1 August 30, 2013 at 6:52am

    "Protestors In Poland and turkey used drones to film positioning, movement and equipment of anti-riot police forces."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOxh9dbkNT4

    JRIC is another bloated worthless government agency that should have been cut long ago. I say we give all JRIC money to our school systems and teachers as they provide a real service to our society.

    We have people getting furloughed and our government is paying people to make silly handouts like this ?

  • Göran Sandström August 29, 2013 at 11:38pm

    The Swedish Security Service already made an investigation into the dangers of UAVs several years ago ahead of the introduction of commercial drone licenses. Needles to say, it seems they arrived at the common sense conclusion that no "drones" pose any significant threat.

This reply was deleted.