Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

is a drone a aircraft or can you shoot it down??

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.
"
 
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.
 
I am no attorney either. So the respondents motion to dismiss was granted, and the complainants order of assessment was vacated.
To prosecute a case that hasn't been tried before, typically uses caselaw as an example. Being that the order was vacated and not upheld, there is now caselaw to go by for prosecuting a similar case. They can write in their response from today until tomorrow saying it was an aircraft, but until someone is prosecuted, calling a drone an aircraft has no merit for prosecuting a similar case.

So if the OP were to file a suit and said that guy shot down my aircraft, they would look at this case and it would be thrown out.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UAVLounge
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.
 
Hey guys..
just got back from a quick little flight around my property and neighbors that's cool with my drone..
another neighbor just took 2 shots at my i1 when I got close to their property. .
I could heat the bullet wizz by..
I called the sheriff and they said it was rude to fly over someone's property and that my i1 wasn't an aircraft. .
I told him it was an aircraft and he got pissed and told me not to quote federal law..
he said it's legal for the person to shoot it down if it's over their property. .
he said he could check to make sure they were firing in a safe manner..
I told him to forget about it..
he keep making references to me quoting federal law..I said u wasn't quoting it I was just telling I'm what I thought. .
he said i was wrong..
guess he's a drone hater ..
I have little confidence in law enforcement.
Turb. ..
What state did this happen in?
 
What state did this happen in?
CA
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.
I legally shoot at flying objects in the sky all the time!
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,328
Latest member
engko