Drone in law. Fly but remember
Against the background of the spread of radio-controlled aircraft, there are more and more reasons to treat them positively. In addition to capturing a network of exciting video from the height of bird flight and such original videos as, for example, work from Cirque de Soleil , thanks to the drones it even turns out to find missing people.
But as you know, each medal has two sides - often, technical innovations can be dangerous and harmful just as much as they are useful. It makes absolutely no difference whether you control the Parrot Bebop or the more serious DJI Phantom 3 Professional - if you inadvertently do something wrong or forget the simple rules, you may run into trouble. At best, the user risks simply losing the drone, at worst - making problems with the law. About this today and talk.
At the beginning of the year, a case from the Mexican city of Tijuana, which, being bordering the United States, often appears in a summary of criminal news, received wide publicity. The drug-overloaded drone could not bear the weight of the smuggled goods and collapsed into the parking lot. The benefits of criminals from such delivery methods are obvious: even if something goes wrong, the pilot always has a high chance of not being found. The most significant in this news is that this method of delivery of prohibited goods is most likely successfully used by violators of the law. By the way, the US Border Guard does not consider the current situation problematic, since the Predator military UAV has a direct battle against drones.
')
If in the described situation the criminal was never found, the pilot from Komi was less fortunate - he tried to deliver the forbidden cargo to the prisoners' territory with the help of a quadcopter. The staff of the institution intercepted the drone, on which the package was fixed with mobile phones, yeast, playing cards and headsets. On the man who managed the drone on the fact of attempts to deliver the prohibited goods were compiled materials on administrative violations.
In the case of prohibited goods, it is worth waiting for the trouble, regardless of the method of delivery, but with completely legal goods, everything should be different. However, things are not as simple as they seem. One of the first companies that announced its intention to deliver goods by drones was Amazon. Amazon Prime Air technology was supposed to provide delivery of goods within half an hour after ordering using unmanned aerial vehicles. At first glance, the legal and safe delivery system was met with criticism from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which expressed the need for special permits for the commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
A similar situation has developed with several pizzerias, among which was the domestic “Dodo Pizza”. Despite the obvious "advertising" of attempts to deliver pizza literally from the plate to the client, this experience shed light on some of the legal aspects of the unmanned delivery method.
One of the first successful cases of "delivery" of pizza drone belongs to the Indian company Francesco's Pizzeria. The video published by the pizzeria shows how the quadcopter flies over the busy streets of Mumbai and delivers the pizza box practically to the hands of the customer. The video is purely advertising in nature, which, in general, is not denied by the company: the pizza was delivered to a friend of the company's director, and there were no repeated delivery cases. The reason for the latter, including the dissatisfaction of the Mumbai police - according to local laws, flights must be carried out on the basis of an appropriate permit in strictly safe zones and not above a certain height.
According to Dodo Pizza representatives, the company became the first in the world to decide on the first commercial delivery of pizza drone. The process is also recorded in the form of a roller, where a drone with a special device for fastening a pizza box directly to the drone arrives at a crowded place.
As shown in the video, the reception area of ​​the pizza box is fenced with a special tape. It is also not known about any approvals of the company with the air traffic control authorities. By the way, how exactly to coordinate flights under the current legislation is not entirely clear. If the FAA prohibits the use of drones for commercial purposes, and for amateurs not to launch drones above 400 feet (approximately 120 meters), then in Russian legislation the wording is more blurred.
The news about the unusual delivery of pizza was loudly discussed in the network and caused discontent on the part of law enforcement agencies. According to the resolution of the Syktyvkar judicial district, Kopter-Express, which deals with the technical side of pizza delivery, was brought to administrative responsibility. For the implementation of the delivery by air without a license, the founder of the company received a court ruling on a fine in the amount of 50 thousand rubles. Later, the court's decision was appealed, and the fine was canceled. At the same time, the head of Kopter-Express, Oleg Ponfilyonok, was guided by the fact that it was impossible to obtain the documents necessary for a license for an aircraft weighing less than 115 kilograms. Thus, despite the threat of a fine, this situation has perfectly demonstrated a hole in the legislation.
As for the permits described above, their full list is given in the Air Code of the Russian Federation . Since the airworthiness certificate, the certificate of admission to the control of the aircraft (drone), permission to use the airspace and other documents cannot be obtained in the case of drones, the launch of drones in both commercial and amateur purposes cannot be called completely legitimate.
Another question concerns the size of fines for breaking the law. Criminal liability threatens pilots only if flights resulted in the death of one or more people. In the remaining cases, there are administrative fines for violation of the airspace. As in the case of “Dodo Pizza” legal entities were involved, a fine was imposed in the amount of 50 thousand rubles. The maximum fine for legal entities is 300 thousand rubles. As for individuals, Article 11.4 Part 2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for a fine in the amount of 2 to 5 thousand rubles.
Also, the use of airspace by unmanned aerial vehicles in the Russian Federation is governed by the relevant decree "On approval of the Federal rules for the use of the airspace of the Russian Federation." So, in article number 52 states the following:
In other words, the decree takes into account only a security nuance with regard to other aircraft. The drone pilot must create such a route in the path of which there will be no aircraft. It is obvious that in case of violation of these rules, the pilot must be prepared for a more serious punishment. The decision is quite logical and understandable - perhaps no one dares to launch the drone at the airport.
It is logical that similar measures are envisaged in other countries of the world, but not everyone is ready to follow common sense and the relevant laws. The mere thought that the drone will be able to interfere with the flight of the aircraft, stirs the minds of not only the owners of amateur quadcopters, but also designers.
For example, on June 23, 2015, a video was published in the LiveLeak service, which allegedly captured the collision of an airplane wing with a drone. Later it turned out that the video is a product of the competent work of graphic designer Bruce Brenit. After some time, he published a video with a demonstration of the "stuffing" fake video.
At the same time, no real cases of collision of drones with airplanes were recorded. However, very real threats were recorded in several countries at once. On July 21, 2015, during landing at an airport in Warsaw at an altitude of 700 meters, the pilots observed a drone located 100 meters from the aircraft. For the threat of air traffic violations, a man arrested by the police faces 8 years in prison.
Another high-profile case about the launch of the drone at the airport was recorded at London's Southend Airport. The crew of the landing plane noticed that the drone was moving in parallel with the plane at a distance of 100 meters. Then, according to a published report , the drone changed direction in the direction of the aircraft and flew with it at a distance of 25 meters. This case was called the first "drone attack on the plane." Despite the investigation, it was not possible to establish the owner of the drone.
At the moment, even a budget copter can be equipped with a camera or even buy a drone with a standard means of shooting. Coupled with the fact that the copter can get into the most inaccessible places, it becomes a dangerous tool that can easily violate privacy. The most exclusively this problem was demonstrated by the Ghost + Cow film studio, which claims that with the help of a drone they managed to shoot the first porn from the air. In fact, the video is fake and is designed to draw attention to the ease with which the copters can violate the privacy of people.
In order to avoid violating the rules of ethics and privacy laws in Britain, we developed a special set of recommendations on the use of camera drones. The recommendations state that drones may be subject to the code of use of surveillance cameras and the data protection law.
As for the Russian legislation, the inconsistent photo and video shooting can easily fall under the category of hidden, which, in turn, is prohibited in accordance with the law "On operational and investigative activities." Also in the Criminal Code there is article 137 "Violation of privacy", which provides for a fine of up to 200 thousand rubles, arrest or imprisonment for illegally collecting and disseminating information about the private life of a person.
In addition to the troubles guaranteed by non-observance of the laws of different countries, the quadcopter pilot must always remember about other, much more unexpected situations. For example, the flight on the drone can prevent the animals. In the network there is a lot of evidence of the collision of the copters with representatives of the animal world.
Thus, on the territory of a park in New South Wales in Australia, the pilot decided to film a kangaroo group with a drone's camera. After the fall, one of the animals hit the drone in a jump after which the device fell to the ground. According to the author of the video, after the incident, the drone is beyond repair:
A similar incident occurred in one of the parks of Massachusetts, where the pilot involuntarily entered the hawk’s airspace. After the attack, the quadcopter, as in the previous case, rapidly fell down. However, according to the author of the video, he deliberately reduced the speed of the propellers in order to minimize damage to the bird in a collision.
More examples of the query " attacks quadcopter "
Summing up to all the above, it is worth noting that amateur copters are becoming more popular every day. At the same time, such devices under the current legislation can not be attributed to a separate category in the Air Code. A number of high-profile cases contributed to the solution of this problem and a bill has already been submitted to the State Duma, which, if adopted, could save the owners of amateur drones from many pressing problems. However, in case of adoption of the law, it will enter into force only a year after it was signed by the president. This means that copter lovers should be more careful for at least the next year: stay away from airports, observe moderate flight altitudes and refrain from air visits to the windows of houses
But as you know, each medal has two sides - often, technical innovations can be dangerous and harmful just as much as they are useful. It makes absolutely no difference whether you control the Parrot Bebop or the more serious DJI Phantom 3 Professional - if you inadvertently do something wrong or forget the simple rules, you may run into trouble. At best, the user risks simply losing the drone, at worst - making problems with the law. About this today and talk.
Delivery by air
At the beginning of the year, a case from the Mexican city of Tijuana, which, being bordering the United States, often appears in a summary of criminal news, received wide publicity. The drug-overloaded drone could not bear the weight of the smuggled goods and collapsed into the parking lot. The benefits of criminals from such delivery methods are obvious: even if something goes wrong, the pilot always has a high chance of not being found. The most significant in this news is that this method of delivery of prohibited goods is most likely successfully used by violators of the law. By the way, the US Border Guard does not consider the current situation problematic, since the Predator military UAV has a direct battle against drones.
')
If in the described situation the criminal was never found, the pilot from Komi was less fortunate - he tried to deliver the forbidden cargo to the prisoners' territory with the help of a quadcopter. The staff of the institution intercepted the drone, on which the package was fixed with mobile phones, yeast, playing cards and headsets. On the man who managed the drone on the fact of attempts to deliver the prohibited goods were compiled materials on administrative violations.
In the case of prohibited goods, it is worth waiting for the trouble, regardless of the method of delivery, but with completely legal goods, everything should be different. However, things are not as simple as they seem. One of the first companies that announced its intention to deliver goods by drones was Amazon. Amazon Prime Air technology was supposed to provide delivery of goods within half an hour after ordering using unmanned aerial vehicles. At first glance, the legal and safe delivery system was met with criticism from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which expressed the need for special permits for the commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
A similar situation has developed with several pizzerias, among which was the domestic “Dodo Pizza”. Despite the obvious "advertising" of attempts to deliver pizza literally from the plate to the client, this experience shed light on some of the legal aspects of the unmanned delivery method.
One of the first successful cases of "delivery" of pizza drone belongs to the Indian company Francesco's Pizzeria. The video published by the pizzeria shows how the quadcopter flies over the busy streets of Mumbai and delivers the pizza box practically to the hands of the customer. The video is purely advertising in nature, which, in general, is not denied by the company: the pizza was delivered to a friend of the company's director, and there were no repeated delivery cases. The reason for the latter, including the dissatisfaction of the Mumbai police - according to local laws, flights must be carried out on the basis of an appropriate permit in strictly safe zones and not above a certain height.
According to Dodo Pizza representatives, the company became the first in the world to decide on the first commercial delivery of pizza drone. The process is also recorded in the form of a roller, where a drone with a special device for fastening a pizza box directly to the drone arrives at a crowded place.
As shown in the video, the reception area of ​​the pizza box is fenced with a special tape. It is also not known about any approvals of the company with the air traffic control authorities. By the way, how exactly to coordinate flights under the current legislation is not entirely clear. If the FAA prohibits the use of drones for commercial purposes, and for amateurs not to launch drones above 400 feet (approximately 120 meters), then in Russian legislation the wording is more blurred.
The news about the unusual delivery of pizza was loudly discussed in the network and caused discontent on the part of law enforcement agencies. According to the resolution of the Syktyvkar judicial district, Kopter-Express, which deals with the technical side of pizza delivery, was brought to administrative responsibility. For the implementation of the delivery by air without a license, the founder of the company received a court ruling on a fine in the amount of 50 thousand rubles. Later, the court's decision was appealed, and the fine was canceled. At the same time, the head of Kopter-Express, Oleg Ponfilyonok, was guided by the fact that it was impossible to obtain the documents necessary for a license for an aircraft weighing less than 115 kilograms. Thus, despite the threat of a fine, this situation has perfectly demonstrated a hole in the legislation.
As for the permits described above, their full list is given in the Air Code of the Russian Federation . Since the airworthiness certificate, the certificate of admission to the control of the aircraft (drone), permission to use the airspace and other documents cannot be obtained in the case of drones, the launch of drones in both commercial and amateur purposes cannot be called completely legitimate.
Another question concerns the size of fines for breaking the law. Criminal liability threatens pilots only if flights resulted in the death of one or more people. In the remaining cases, there are administrative fines for violation of the airspace. As in the case of “Dodo Pizza” legal entities were involved, a fine was imposed in the amount of 50 thousand rubles. The maximum fine for legal entities is 300 thousand rubles. As for individuals, Article 11.4 Part 2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for a fine in the amount of 2 to 5 thousand rubles.
Also, the use of airspace by unmanned aerial vehicles in the Russian Federation is governed by the relevant decree "On approval of the Federal rules for the use of the airspace of the Russian Federation." So, in article number 52 states the following:
“ The use of airspace by an unmanned aerial vehicle in the airspace of classes A, C and G is carried out on the basis of the flight plan of the aircraft and permission to use the airspace.
The use of airspace by an unmanned aerial vehicle is carried out through the establishment of temporary and local regimes, as well as short-term restrictions in the interests of airspace users who organize flights by unmanned aerial vehicles. "
In other words, the decree takes into account only a security nuance with regard to other aircraft. The drone pilot must create such a route in the path of which there will be no aircraft. It is obvious that in case of violation of these rules, the pilot must be prepared for a more serious punishment. The decision is quite logical and understandable - perhaps no one dares to launch the drone at the airport.
Airspace security
It is logical that similar measures are envisaged in other countries of the world, but not everyone is ready to follow common sense and the relevant laws. The mere thought that the drone will be able to interfere with the flight of the aircraft, stirs the minds of not only the owners of amateur quadcopters, but also designers.
For example, on June 23, 2015, a video was published in the LiveLeak service, which allegedly captured the collision of an airplane wing with a drone. Later it turned out that the video is a product of the competent work of graphic designer Bruce Brenit. After some time, he published a video with a demonstration of the "stuffing" fake video.
At the same time, no real cases of collision of drones with airplanes were recorded. However, very real threats were recorded in several countries at once. On July 21, 2015, during landing at an airport in Warsaw at an altitude of 700 meters, the pilots observed a drone located 100 meters from the aircraft. For the threat of air traffic violations, a man arrested by the police faces 8 years in prison.
Another high-profile case about the launch of the drone at the airport was recorded at London's Southend Airport. The crew of the landing plane noticed that the drone was moving in parallel with the plane at a distance of 100 meters. Then, according to a published report , the drone changed direction in the direction of the aircraft and flew with it at a distance of 25 meters. This case was called the first "drone attack on the plane." Despite the investigation, it was not possible to establish the owner of the drone.
Privacy
At the moment, even a budget copter can be equipped with a camera or even buy a drone with a standard means of shooting. Coupled with the fact that the copter can get into the most inaccessible places, it becomes a dangerous tool that can easily violate privacy. The most exclusively this problem was demonstrated by the Ghost + Cow film studio, which claims that with the help of a drone they managed to shoot the first porn from the air. In fact, the video is fake and is designed to draw attention to the ease with which the copters can violate the privacy of people.
In order to avoid violating the rules of ethics and privacy laws in Britain, we developed a special set of recommendations on the use of camera drones. The recommendations state that drones may be subject to the code of use of surveillance cameras and the data protection law.
As for the Russian legislation, the inconsistent photo and video shooting can easily fall under the category of hidden, which, in turn, is prohibited in accordance with the law "On operational and investigative activities." Also in the Criminal Code there is article 137 "Violation of privacy", which provides for a fine of up to 200 thousand rubles, arrest or imprisonment for illegally collecting and disseminating information about the private life of a person.
Do not forget the little animals
In addition to the troubles guaranteed by non-observance of the laws of different countries, the quadcopter pilot must always remember about other, much more unexpected situations. For example, the flight on the drone can prevent the animals. In the network there is a lot of evidence of the collision of the copters with representatives of the animal world.
Thus, on the territory of a park in New South Wales in Australia, the pilot decided to film a kangaroo group with a drone's camera. After the fall, one of the animals hit the drone in a jump after which the device fell to the ground. According to the author of the video, after the incident, the drone is beyond repair:
A similar incident occurred in one of the parks of Massachusetts, where the pilot involuntarily entered the hawk’s airspace. After the attack, the quadcopter, as in the previous case, rapidly fell down. However, according to the author of the video, he deliberately reduced the speed of the propellers in order to minimize damage to the bird in a collision.
More examples of the query " attacks quadcopter "
The end
Summing up to all the above, it is worth noting that amateur copters are becoming more popular every day. At the same time, such devices under the current legislation can not be attributed to a separate category in the Air Code. A number of high-profile cases contributed to the solution of this problem and a bill has already been submitted to the State Duma, which, if adopted, could save the owners of amateur drones from many pressing problems. However, in case of adoption of the law, it will enter into force only a year after it was signed by the president. This means that copter lovers should be more careful for at least the next year: stay away from airports, observe moderate flight altitudes and refrain from air visits to the windows of houses
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/366659/
All Articles