Hydro Junkie

CHP, as you know, is short for California HIGHWAY Patrol
Somehow, I doubt the officers were there to enforce laws that they probably don't know exist

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Well Hydro, that is a good point. Of course it leads to the question of who is responsible for making sure LEO are aware of FAA laws? Second point, the flying field is question is within sight of Hwy 180. At what point off the freeway does the officer’s empowerment end? From what I was told, the officers saw the jets from the freeway and decided to have a look. They ended up joining in the fun.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

CHP officers have no jurisdiction to enforce FAA regulations. I'm pretty sure you were aware of that. More spin.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Wrong! Around 2006 a small group of us were at the SCCMAS field in Morgan Hill CA practicing IMAC. Of course to do so requires flight above 400’. Of course back then the 400’ was nothing more then an advisory. The section of Hwy 101 to the east of the field is patrolled by aircraft. As we were practicing the CHP subcontracted Cessna 182 ( unmarked ) came from behind the pit area at about 500’ altitude and circled the field. The pilot flying at the time immediately dropped altitude. The Cessna opened up his pattern and the R/C pilot resumed his practice ( bad choice ) and the Cessna came in close again so the R/C pilot landed. As we walked back to the pit area two CHP cars drove into the parking lot. The officers approached us and were under the impression that the 400’ altitude limit was a law at that time. An effort was made to make them aware that it was in fact an advisory however they weren’t having it. The ultimatum they gave us was to pack up or be cited.

Here is the link to the SCCMAS, the current president is Steve Smith. He was the clubs contest director at the time of the incident. I’m fairly sure he will recall the details. Contact info can be found in the club newsletters.

https://www.sccmas.org/index.php

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

No, I am not wrong. More of your spin.

Because two CHP cars rolled in to your field does not provide any impetus that the CHP has jurisdiction to enforce FAA regulations. Just knock it off with your need to be right. My statement stands. If you can show us where the CHP does have the power to enforce FAA regulations, I'll be happy to acknowledge it.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I have established precedent and a means to verify. You have established nothing.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Wrong again. I guess you don’t have anything to support your stance? Got any examples of the CHP enforcing FAA regs?

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Other then the example I already provided? How many examples is it going to take? Do you have anything besides your word that CHP can’t enforce FAA regs?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. Are you claiming that your example showed the CHP enforcing FAA regs and proves they have the authority to do so?

Your example was that CHP rolls up to a flying field because they mistakenly thought that FAA regs were being violated, How does that validate your stance?

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Their intent was to enforce FAA regs. They issued the threat of “ pack up your equipment or be cited “.

I would have to think that they are more aware of what they are empowered to enforce then you.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Try harder. Intent doesn’t validate your stance, and your appeal to authority fallacy doesn’t hold water either. I mean, law enforcement is never wrong….

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Then by all means show me something I’m wrong other then you “ identifying “ that you are correct. I’ve shown a clear example of CHP enforcement of FAA regs. You have only shown your stubbornness.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Wowsers reading the rest of your posts this doesn't apply to yourself LOL

init4fun

With no particular dog in this, or any other fight, I simply seek the truth. I went to the FAA's website and searched "Do local police enforce FAA laws ?" and this page came up. This page details the working relationship between the FAA and local law enforcement, who under this directive are most certainly empowered to enforce FAA regulations.



https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safet...tings_reports/

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I think you better read that document again. Nowhere does it grant enforcement of FAA regs to local law enforcement. In fact, it clearly states that the FAA is solely responsible. What it does say, is that in cases of drone complaints where local law enforcement is involved, many times the leo will find that there has been an infraction of local or state law that can be enforced under that leo’s jurisdiction. Those infractions should not be confused as that leo enforcing FAA regs. Completely different. That doc then goes on to provide contacts for local leo to forward potential FAA violations in order that FAA enforcement can then follow up on.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Got anything to back that up with, or is that just more of your inability to deal with facts and reality?

init4fun

Right, in the document it says they show up, collect evidence, and forward it to the FAA for prosecution, that amounts to them doing the field work for the FAA. It also says for the LEO to apply all local laws as well, but the whole collect evidence for the FAA as a law enforcement personnel directive means they are empowered. Remember, the local LEOs don't determine guilt in local cases either, they are working for Prosecutors who present the LEO's evidence to the judge (or jury)., or in this case they present it to the FAA to prosecute. Either way they are working to present evidence of wrongdoing for prosecution by an appropriate authority, the very definition of enforcing the law at the street level....

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

And I can promise you, knowing LEO's in all levels of local and federal law enforcement, that 99 percent don't know or care about suas regulations, unless you're breaking a specific local law that someone calls and complains, and even then they may not know for 100 percent certainty what to do and its likely they will simply tell you to pack it up and leave unless you're a horses rear towards them.

Also the FAA is largely focused on education over prosecution or other actions. It's been quite difficult to get them to effectively deal with one individual that's not only flaunting the rules and law but posting videos of himself acting like a buffoon (said individual is NOT an AMA member btw) and the response I got was the video wasn't proof that individual was doing that act at that specific time. Every now and then they will get sick of getting ignored and lay a fine on someone but I'm only aware of it going that far a couple of times.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

We may disagree, but I don’t consider collecting evidence as enforcement. Enforcement happens when the regs are enforced with a judgement, which is conducted by the FAA. The CHP cannot issue a judgement upon a party for FAA rules/regs infraction, only collect evidence and report incident to the FAA. Another distinction would be that (as far as I am aware) the CHP is under no obligation to, or compelled to, collect evidence or report infractions to the FAA.

Astro

init4fun

Yes, nothing wrong with a friendly disagreement, I'm not going to demonize you for our difference of opinion on this

As to the point of the CHP, yes your right, they can not issue a judgement on someone for FAA rules, just as they cannot do the civil court's job of issuing judgement against a suspect in a local case as well, Either way, they are gathering and presenting their evidence to the appropriate authority. For example, if a local officer catches someone peeping into someone's windows with a drone, his local prosecutor will use his evidence to enforce the local law, and the FAA will use his evidence to enforce their laws, making the LEO a participant in the enforcement of both the applicable local and federal laws.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Init, I totally get where you are coming from. The distinction I am making is that the CHP (in this instance) is employed for the sole purpose of enforcing state law and have no obligation (again, as far as I’m aware) to enforce any FAA regs, that role is primarily on the FAA’ss enforcement arm. To me, that distinction is key to my statement and stance in this discussion. I may be splitting hairs, but that is part of my nature!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

totally agree on the local LEO front.

I would warn, however, that because the FAA is slow to enforce this one individual, it wouldn’t be wise to assume that they aren’t interested in enforcing their rules. I think they would be more likely to go after a group of people if they thought that group was flaunting their rules, rather than a single individual.

Astro

init4fun

That's cool and I totally understand your point that the local LEOs aren't under any mandate to help the FAA. It's also my belief that they wouldn't one day just up and decide to stop by the local flying field checking for UAS violations unprompted, they've got their regular duties to attend to, but if prompted by a complaint call and forced to respond to the field they would take whatever action needed to mitigate the situation. If the people at the field behaved reasonably to the officer's requests to cease and desist the actions that caused the complaint call, I'm fairly sure that'd be the end of it. But if the people at the field tried to pull the ol "Your not the FAA, so you can't tell us how to fly" I'd bet the poop would hit the fan very quickly, with the LEO using all the means at his disposal to punish the insolence, up to and including presenting whatever evidence was collected to the FAA.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Exactly correct assessment of my particular encounter. I was nose to nose with a law ENFORCEMENT officer telling him that no laws were broken and threatened with a citation. Keep in mind that FAA is under the blanket of the DOT so if I were hold my stance with the law ENFORCEMENT officer I very well could have been cited ( although I wasn’t the pilot ) for operating my “vehicle “ in an unsafe manner and had my day in traffic court.

Hydro Junkie

Okay guys, I think you need to go back to Speed's post where a manned aircraft flew over the R/C flying field at roughly 500 feet and called in the "ground troops". My thoughts on this are:

• IF the 182 pilot thought the R/C planes were flying too high, why didn't he contact the local ATC and report it there? This surely would have fallen in the FAA's jurisdiction and not that of the CHP
• What was the 182 doing flying over a site with people at only 500 feet? IIRC, a manned aircraft IS NOT ALLOWED to fly over any person or structure at under 1000 feet AGL unless climbing after take-off or on final approach to land. It also seems to me that, assuming Speed is giving an accurate representation of what happened, the R/C pilot did what he was supposed to do, gave way to the manned aircraft. When the manned aircraft moved away from the field, this opened up the airspace for the R/C pilot to resume his practicing. IF the 182 did not climb back to 1000 feet AGL, then the 182 pilot was the one that should have been cited, not the R/C pilot on the ground REGARDLESS of whether the 182 pilot was under CHP contract or not.