“Companies around the world are considering, with great interest, the numerous possibilities that unmanned aircraft systems create,” said Hogan Lovells UAS Group chair E. Tazewell “Ted” Ellett. “This sophisticated technology opens up many business opportunities for our clients. Our Aviation practice has been assisting UAS clients for years. Now, by creating this dedicated UAS Group comprised of firm lawyers who are specialists in the many disciplines and industries of interest to our UAS clients, we are able to provide comprehensive UAS-related legal services on a global scale.”
A link to their UAS practice page can be found here.
Today we have links to a couple of local reports on a hearing before Connecticut lawmakers regarding the creation of possible drone rules.
Both reports feature a demonstration by Peter Sachs, who continues to do yeoman’s work on behalf of small drone operators. An excerpt of Peter’s testimony can be viewed here.
As usual, the media emphasizes privacy concerns while saying next to nothing about the wide range of proven and potential benefits of this technology. We have unfortunately come to expect this kind of willful ignorance from reporters.
Some legislators fare no better. Consider the comment from State Rep. Mary Mushinsky, who said, “We had one incident in New Jersey where somebody shot down their neighbor’s drone because he was using the drone to harass the neighbor.”
With all due respect, ma’am, we have seen no report suggesting that the operator was harassing anybody. Please, learn the facts before you cast your vote on anything pertaining to this issue (or any other issue, for that matter).
Stupidity aside, the Connecticut legislature appears ready to abstain from instituting a moratorium on drone use.
Does anyone remember the old “Dragnet” theme? Put that tune to the words, “Dumb, dumb-dumb dumb,” and you’ll have some idea of our reaction to this story:
A New Jersey man was arrested after police say he shot down a neighbor’s remote control drone.
According to investigators, officers with the Lower Township Police Department were called to a home in the 1000 block of Seashore Road on September 26th to investigate the report by a resident that his remote control helicopter (drone) was shot down.
The suspect – a neighbor – was booked on charges of Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose and Criminal Mischief, and his shotgun was seized by police.
We have seen a number of people, in various discussion threads, say that if a drone ever flew near their property they would shoot it down. We have sought to discourage such thinking. There is practically no good reason to discharge a firearm in a populated area, unless you are being attacked and threatened with impending death or great bodily harm (and the law on this varies by state – some require that you first exhaust all means of safe retreat before using deadly force).
A civilian drone is not a threat to your life or safety. It might be annoying. It might be regarded as an intrusion on your privacy (but not really – see here). But unless you’re in the crosshairs of a military drone in some godforsaken battlefield (and chances are that, if you do end up in such a situation, you are unlikely to know what’s coming until it’s too late), there is never a reason to shoot at one. At best, you might be sued for destroying someone’s private property.
But the more likely outcome is a story like the one above.
UPDATE:David Michael Butts at the UAV Legal News discussion group on Facebook makes an excellent observation: If the FAA insists on calling small drones “aircraft,” why didn’t this man just commit a federal crime?
As policymakers consider drone regulation – particularly with respect to privacy and safety – the possible fields of regulation fall into five principal realms: operators, flight, purpose, property and surreptitious use. Some of these categories face practical difficulties, while others present constitutional issues. Nevertheless, these five fields offer a framework to help make sense of the legislation and regulation emerging around the use of drones.
The authors intend to visit the history of the FAA’s piecemeal approach, tomorrow.
Given all the meekness we’ve seen in the face of the FAA’s bullying, we find the attitude of this real estate video company representative to be rather refreshing:
“The use of drones in real estate is neither legal, nor illegal. It just has not been regulated yet,” says Brian Doe, director of Business Development at Home Jab; a real estate video production company offering a network of trained filmmakers who create aerial video for real estate marketing.
… “It’s kind of like saying ‘you can’t speed,’ but the road has no speed limit. So how do you determine what speeding is? There is no way to enforce any rule, there is nothing out there about UAV’s, especially fewer than 55 pounds,” says Doe.
As evidence for the proposition that no news outlet is so obscure as to escape our watchful eye, we bring you this story from a publication called Dairy Herd Management. Unfortunately, farmers are caught in the same regulatory void* as professional photographers, realtors, and pretty much everyone else. Peggy Hall, an assistant professor and Ohio State University Extension field specialist in agricultural and resource law, says:
“While landowners, farmers and growers need to know if it is legal to use UASs on their own land to monitor crops or for other uses on their farm, at this point it’s still a gray area in the law.”
Ms. Hall cautions farmers about the risk of incurring fines from the FAA. Perhaps someone ought to put together a pro bono team of practitioners and law students to represent farmers in challenges to the FAA.
* We were tempted to write, “regulatory purgatory,” but thought better of it after having a second coffee.
The unmanned aircraft’s cameras can live-stream visuals needed for building inspections, as well as natural gas detection and cellular tower energy readings for utilities and government agencies.
The service will not become operational until it receives FAA approval. We are frankly unsure of whether the service really needs FAA approval, given the Pirker decision, so long as the service operates line-of-sight aircraft below 400 feet and away from airports. But, as we’ve said before, serious investors in this new field want to play nice because it’s good for business over the long term to do so.
The question is, will the FAA play nice? Approving a business like this should be a no-brainer.
The Twin Cities law firm of Fafinski Mark & Johnson is launching a “drone” practice group. The law firm “said Tuesday that it has been closely monitoring the developing drone industry, and legal advisors and litigators from its aviation group will lead the new practice group.”
Expect to see more aviation law firms expand into the realm of drone law.
The Federal Aviation Administration indicated Wednesday that it is investigating whether a video of an upstate New York congressman’s wedding last month violated the agency’s ban on drone flights for commercial purposes.
The agency’s carefully worded statement doesn’t mention Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a Democrat, by name, but said it was looking into “a report of an unmanned aircraft operation in Cold Spring, New York, on June 21 to determine if there was any violation of federal regulations or airspace restrictions.”
Although we hope that the photographer doesn’t get hit, on balance we find this situation to be rather amusing. The FAA is being forced by its own misguided rhetoric to investigate an event that was paid for by a member of Congress whose responsibilities include FAA oversight.
