- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
is a drone a aircraft or can you shoot it down??
- Thread starter turbodronepilot
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
yes there was and it is closed and i don't think you understand the overall scope of the opinion and final decision because based on my understanding of legal standing it is totally different from what you posted.
Umm. The entire opinion of the latest decision supported the "it was an aircraft" argument the FAA was making. Thanks for pointing it out...your quote was taken out of context as it simply outlined the original law judges ruling.
To wit:
"C. Conclusion This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.
"
To wit:
"C. Conclusion This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.
"
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
In my legal interpretation this is a just a spinning wheel statement. Courts will always use words such as, "further determination", "further proceeding, "further investigation", "further review", etc, etc because they have to. That is unless there are enough similar cases that it works its way up to the US Supreme Courts to be heard and makes a final ruling.
First and foremost. I am not an attorney thus the following is an opinion.
As far as this case is concerned it has been determined that the Ritewing Zephyr is an "aircraft" by definition as any Manned or UnManned craft that has the ability of full control by an individual and is capable of flight. On the final determination on the continuance it was found that the Respondent was flying an aircraft, though irresponsibly if I may add, the Plaintiff chose to focus the case on to the craft instead of the operator and lost.
Done.
PS: The Plaintiff can appeal the ruling on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but just like the USSC, there has to have enough cases or evidence for them to be heard. Which is pretty slim.
First and foremost. I am not an attorney thus the following is an opinion.
As far as this case is concerned it has been determined that the Ritewing Zephyr is an "aircraft" by definition as any Manned or UnManned craft that has the ability of full control by an individual and is capable of flight. On the final determination on the continuance it was found that the Respondent was flying an aircraft, though irresponsibly if I may add, the Plaintiff chose to focus the case on to the craft instead of the operator and lost.
Done.
PS: The Plaintiff can appeal the ruling on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but just like the USSC, there has to have enough cases or evidence for them to be heard. Which is pretty slim.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
not really. The defendant can use this as case law but it really isn't because the case was null and void. Think of it as "Okay we hear you and noted. Thanks. Next!"
So in my interpretation and based on Turbo's case a good attorney, pro-bono of course, would be able to pull evidence to present a good case to charge the land owner with reckless endangerment with a firearm as if it was hit could cause more danger to the public in general. Also they could charge the Sheriff department for negligence and dereliction of duty. Thirdly charge the shooter with destruction of property over a $900 which carries, if convicted, a Felony conviction. Also you can add on some federal charges for shooting at an aircraft and charge the agency with aiding the shooter. BUT.... try to find an attorney to take the case under is another drama.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
LOL! I hear you. you should have seen me reading the documents you posted.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
The FAA like any reactive government agency is a bureaucracy so you better start to learn how to knit a sweater before you even hear a peep from them.
This sounds crazy. If this was around me your neighbor would be in jail regardless of any of this. I shoot in my backyard and so do they but that does not give anyone permission to shoot that unsafely. FAA and local PD would eat this up. You got the wrong Sheriff. No way I would give up on this if it meant limiting myself to not flying near my own house.
It's illegal to discharge a firearm into the air in all 50 states. The only way the shooter could get out from under a charge is if he claims he was in fear of his life. You would need to file a civil action against the person who fired the weapon, no matter what.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
Just flew a battery and got shot at again..
my hands are shaking..
I think my neighbor called the police. .
a slug went flying by at a close proximity. .
my hands are shaking..
I think my neighbor called the police. .
a slug went flying by at a close proximity. .
No word from the faa today ..
neighbor called the police..a slug nearly missed him..one wizzed by me ..
neighbor called the police..a slug nearly missed him..one wizzed by me ..
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 852
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
Sorry to hear that Turbo. I would recommend you to start documenting everything. Collect as much evidence as you can. If the department are being an *** talk to your lawyer. Finally move asap.
Wait. The neighbor shot at you or your drone? And he/she called the police while shooting at you / your drone?
Police said it's legal to shot a drone down if it's over private property. .
Similar threads
