Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Man who built gun, flamethrower drone must comply with FAA, judge says
A federal judge in Connecticut has ruled against a young drone operator and his father. They will now have to turn over a slew of documents and materials as part of a Federal Aviation Administration investigation. The two men and their legal team argued that the FAA lacks authority to regulate drones, but the FAA clearly disagrees with this assessment. (arstechnica.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The videos in question, though, were made before the FAA had finalized drone regulations. They (the videos I referenced) should be exempt. The regulations should apply to any activities these people engage in after the regulations were put in place. Having said that, I find it unlikely they will retire from such activities.
The law is pretty clear that drones are aircraft (see 49 U.S. Code § 40102(a)(6) - “aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air). The FAA is alleging that they were violating 14 CFR § 91.13 "Careless or reckless operation".
On this case, I wouldn't want to bet against the FAA.
On this case, I wouldn't want to bet against the FAA.
I can see where a remotely fired weapon on a flying platform would give law enforcement the heebie-jeebies; missiles, anyone? Whereas I am older and come from a more permissive age (I am sensitive to our personal freedom) I think they got this one right.
After SCOTUS's Citizens United ruloning on corporations being people, maybe the case could be made for drone's 2nd ammendment rights?
Does anyone definitively know the government's position on civilian aircraft (drones, Cessna 150s, 737s) equipped with operable armaments?
Some interesting legal question here, to be sure. But putting a flame thrower in a drone is really stupid and certainly presents a danger to the public.
Do Connecticut woods burn? Burning their own woods down might marginally be considered not-public, but crossing the property line it clearly becomes a public danger.
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the U.S. Forest Service should be the ones looking into this. I can see this as a great way to set back fires in order to manage wildfires without the obvious danger of putting firefighters in the path of the fire.