Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
San Jose Police Department says FAA can't regulate its drone use
Newly published documents show that the San Jose Police Department (SJPD), which publicly acknowledged Tuesday that it should have “done a better job of communicating” its drone acquisition, does not believe that it even needs federal authorization in order to fly a drone. The Federal Aviation Administration thinks otherwise. (arstechnica.com) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
We really could have made good use of one of these devices flying at 50 to 200 feet AGL six months ago when my agency was searching for the elderly woman that wandered out and away from her daughter's house at 4 AM. Equipped with an infrared camera would have really been great! The last traces of her body heat would have contrasted well against the cold ground. The dogs eventually helped us recover her body though. Thankfully those that didn't want us to have the dogs, because they didn't like the way they reminded them of Bull Connor, did not prevail. While the dogs didn't help save her, their use allowed the family the ability to have an open casket wake. Wildlife can do a number on a cadaver in no time. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for law enforcement to use drones and I am confident this particular instance would not have interfered with anyone's aircraft operations out of my home base airport located 8 miles to the East. Have a good day.
Correct me if I'm wrong (not American), but FAA only have authority over either "controlled air space" and "500 to what about 30 to 32,000ft" elsewhere. The rest of us are barred from national parks, public property & municipality (cities & towns). Police & Fire/rescue should be able to be exempt from all non FAA areas?
That's the crux of the issue. Where does FAA control begin and end? It's not just a question of altitude or "controlled airspace". If that was the extent of it then it would be perfectly legal for me to get behind the controls of a 747 and fly where I wanted, so long as I stayed below 500'. It isn't because there are also regulations pertaining to types of aircraft, and that's what this whole issue really revolves around. Does FAA have control over these types of aircraft, or not? FAA says it does, SJPD says it does not.
If you could fly your 747 below 400' from your back yard, I would agree with you. Otherwise your example is just inane. The real world differs from the one from which you are imagining.
So you actually believe that it would be perfectly legal to fly a 747 wherever you want, without a licence, so long as you kept it below 400'?
Are you interested in buying some bridges? I have a really nice selection I can offer you...
Are you interested in buying some bridges? I have a really nice selection I can offer you...
LOL! That's not what I said. I said you can't take off and land in your back yard with it. That's the difference between a 747 and a UAV weighing a pound or so with VTOL capability. To treat them the same is like treating a two story home the same as a 100 story skyscraper in terms of permits, construction, and required maintenance.
I believe you, indeed, ARE the one selling bridges. Good to see you recognize it...
I believe you, indeed, ARE the one selling bridges. Good to see you recognize it...