FAA Warns Public Not To Shoot Down Drones


WASHINGTON (AP) — People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday.

The FAA released a statement in response to questions about an ordinance under consideration in the tiny farming community of Deer Trail, Colo., that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. The administration reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.

A drone “hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air,” the statement said. “Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane.”

Under the proposed ordinance, Deer Trail would grant hunting permits to shoot drones. The permits would cost $25 each. The town would also encourage drone hunting by awarding $100 to anyone who presents a valid hunting license and identifiable pieces of a drone that has been shot down.

Deer Trail resident Phillip Steel, 48, author of the proposal, said in an interview that he has 28 signatures on a petition — roughly 10 percent of the town’s registered voters. Under Colorado law, that requires local officials to formally consider the proposal at a meeting next month, he said. Town officials would then have the option of adopting the ordinance or putting it on the ballot in an election this fall, he said.

The proposed ordinance is mostly a symbolic protest against small, civilian drones that are coming into use in the United States, Steel said. He acknowledged that it’s unlikely there are any drones in use near Deer Trail.

“I don’t want to live in a surveillance society. I don’t feel like being in a virtual prison,” Steel said. “This is a pre-emptive strike.”

He dismissed the FAA’s warning. “The FAA doesn’t have the power to make a law,” he said.

The FAA is working on regulations to safely integrate drones into the skies over the U.S., where manned aircraft are prevalent. The Congress gave the FAA until 2015 to develop the regulations, but the agency is behind schedule. FAA officials have estimated that once regulations are in place, thousands of drones will be in use across the country for a wide variety of purposes, from helping farmers figure out which crops need watering to tracking sea lions in remote rocky outcroppings to aiding search and rescue missions.

But the Deer Trail proposal is the latest ripple in a spreading backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned aircraft have been introduced in states and cities. Privacy advocates have expressed fear that police will use drones to cheaply and effectively conduct widespread surveillance without warrants.

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drone industry trade group, was concerned enough last year about people threatening to shoot down drones that it issued a statement warning that such comments were “irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful.”

Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the group, expressed similar concerns Friday, saying drones “are being designed to serve the public good….The myriad of important uses will be imperiled if they become targets. … The suggestion that Americans take up arms against unmanned aircraft also endangers citizens on the ground.”


3 thoughts on “FAA Warns Public Not To Shoot Down Drones

  1. Wow. There is a problem here. So the FAA is proposing that the airspace above civilian homes belongs under the public domain? So, if a drone is trespassing, breaching privacy, creating a threat of bodily harm and property damage to the civilians below, then shooting an unmanned aircraft down would fall under self defense as the unwary public may not identify the aircraft to be non-threatening from one that is. If we are to create all these laws that allow someone to put a armed or unarmed craft in the air, then how are the grounded civilians to identify one that is armed with malicious intent by unauthorized parties such as neighbors or people that want to harm you, from one that is conducting purely domestic surveillance under provisions and accordance with the law. One must always consider, whom is to be responsible for putting the danger in the air to begin with? It’s pollution at the very least and there’s always the possiblity one may fall on you from its own malfunction. But how can the public excuse this or be compensated for damages from even so much as the threat of such? How can the public identify one that could be placed in the air by a terrorist organization for terror purposes? Since the news has let us know that the possibility of airstrike by drone from a terrorist organization exists. How is the public to defend themselves if there really is an unregistered unidentified armed craft in the air that is NOT authorized by any governing agency? Thank you? I would think the responsible party for any damages lies with the operator. It should never be placed on the public that never gave consent for it to be there in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.