long term relevance of CAP's 550 airplane fleet in a world of ADS/B and AI Drone

[RRLE]

FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act". 

Here it is Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

Note this:

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.

There are other prohibitions and I see no listed exception for SAR. So if you fly over PersonX's property and take a photo for any purpose ("other information") have you violated the Florida statute?

There is already one case pending in Florida regarding a homeowner who shot down a drone over his property. I think he was charged with the illegal discharge of a firearm. His defense is the Florida self-defenses of "stand your ground" and the Castle Doctrine. From what I remember about the case, the drone flyer had been warned repeatedly about flying a drone low over the shooters property. The flyer often did this when the shooter's wife was outside. No outside agency was willing to intervene. So one fine day he shot it down. Part of the shooter's self-defense claim is that drones can be armed and he had a reasonable expectation of harm as well as a violation of his property and privacy rights.

I live in Florida and if I was on the shooter's jury, I would vote for acquittal. I also expect this case to just disappear. I don't think anyone is going to want a trial over it.

[RRLE]

Here is the first news story about a similar KY case:

Hillview man arrested for shooting down drone; cites right to privacy

and here is the outcome - love that judge -

Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house

[LSThiker]

An interesting quick read article about drone finding missing person:
http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/drone-saves-life-missing-man/#yrbY.nb2Rgqj

FAA allowed a special case drone for SAR:
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/217393-faa-allows-police-to-use-drone-in-missing-person-search

http://fox40.com/2015/07/30/drone-used-in-search-for-missing-bay-area-teacher/
http://www.abc10.com/story/news/local/2015/07/30/ca-national-guard-drone-used-in-search-for-missing-man-in-el-dorado-national-forest/30914587/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/05/29/drone-operators-assist-search-and-rescue-efforts-after-devastating-floods-in-texas/

There is already an "organization" (do not know the legitimacy" of this group):
http://sardrones.org

[Live2Learn]

If Federal public use would the cases mentioned above be relevant?  Public use operation under a COA (Certificate of Authorization) is equivalent to a commercial permit on steroids.  Federal supremacy, if under an AFM, especially over Federal, State, or Tribal lands - which is where a high proportion of SAR and DR flights occur - would have minimal issues with overflying private property even if that was a concern.  I think the thread is mixing constraints on private recreational UAS ops and OPS conducted under an FAA blessing for public or commercial use.  The questions may not yet be ripe for a focused discussion on a forum like CAPTALK.  We all know that seeking a sound interpretation of any law or reg might be better sought elsewhere... 

[Flying Pig]

FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act". 

Here it is Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

Note this:

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.

There are other prohibitions and I see no listed exception for SAR. So if you fly over PersonX's property and take a photo for any purpose ("other information") have you violated the Florida statute?

There is already one case pending in Florida regarding a homeowner who shot down a drone over his property. I think he was charged with the illegal discharge of a firearm. His defense is the Florida self-defenses of "stand your ground" and the Castle Doctrine. From what I remember about the case, the drone flyer had been warned repeatedly about flying a drone low over the shooters property. The flyer often did this when the shooter's wife was outside. No outside agency was willing to intervene. So one fine day he shot it down. Part of the shooter's self-defense claim is that drones can be armed and he had a reasonable expectation of harm as well as a violation of his property and privacy rights.

I live in Florida and if I was on the shooter's jury, I would vote for acquittal. I also expect this case to just disappear. I don't think anyone is going to want a trial over it.

You missed the SAR exemption?

(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.

[sardak]

From the August 2015 BoG minutes:
CAP believes there is a role for mini-UAVs to augment existing capabilities for emergency services missions at low altitudes, primarily below 500 feet above the ground.
-- This will fill the gaps when CAP aircraft may not be able to fly due to weather.
-- Provides more opportunities for ground teams to support imagery collection missions.
CAP has a test project that was started with DHS Science and Technology Directorate to develop a mini-UAV for operational mission use.
-- In the first phase of this project training curriculum and operational kit was developed for two units in Louisiana Wing. They have worked since March of 2014 on this, and have reported success, but have also made it clear that dedicated training is definitely required.
-- The second phase is being developed to field similar capabilities in each of CAP's 8 regions, providing training, equipment and assistance in developing local Certificates of Authorization (COA) over the next year, once FAA rules are hopefully finalized.
-- 1AF/A3 has offered assistance with COA coordination, advocacy and mission approval guideline development while we work phase two.
-- CAP expects to have limited mission capability available in FY17, and will consider expanding to additional wings as resources are available
Some wings have indicated that they have state agencies interested in providing CAP mini-UAV resources. CAP is not opposed to supporting these and gaining additional experience
-- CAP has discussed options with its insurance carrier, and knows what they will require
-- Operations will be limited to mission uses from safe locations where members are not exposed to excess risk like SAR and DR activities; CD and HLS activities in the field where members may be dangerously close to law enforcement activity will not be allowed.
-- Mission UAV use once coordinated will be approved through the NOC.

Underline and bold added by me. I think the bold phrase is the driver to what happens.

Mike 

[Holding Pattern]

Where do I locate the minutes, for my future reference? A google search just took me to assorted PDFs, and the knowledgebase sent me to the bottom of the eservices page, where if the link is still there, I'm skipping right over it.

[PHall]

Where do I locate the minutes, for my future reference? A google search just took me to assorted PDFs, and the knowledgebase sent me to the bottom of the eservices page, where if the link is still there, I'm skipping right over it.

e-services

[Holding Pattern]

Where do I locate the minutes, for my future reference? A google search just took me to assorted PDFs, and the knowledgebase sent me to the bottom of the eservices page, where if the link is still there, I'm skipping right over it.

e-services

Under which tab?

[sardak]

Left column, National Agenda/Meeting Minutes.

Mike

[Live2Learn]

The Washington Post has picked up the thread.  Driverless cars, airplanes, boats, ships, buses, trucks...  and implications for both employment and the economy at large.   https://theconversation.com/in-a-driverless-future-what-happens-to-todays-drivers-51973   The metaphor of horseless carriages takes on new meaning and personal importance when it's applied to pilotless planes   http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off.

Of course, pilotless (read that also as 'operatorless') SAR/DR aircraft - "robotic drones" - would soon follow.  Why have an operator when the artificial intelligence never sleeps, makes far fewer errors, is incredibly precise, ever vigilant?

[Live2Learn]

The Washington Post has picked up the thread.  Driverless cars, airplanes, boats, ships, buses, trucks...  and implications for both employment and the economy at large.   https://theconversation.com/in-a-driverless-future-what-happens-to-todays-drivers-51973   The metaphor of horseless carriages takes on new meaning and personal importance when it's applied to pilotless planes   http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off.

Of course, pilotless (read that also as 'operatorless') SAR/DR aircraft - "robotic drones" - would soon follow.  Why have an operator when the artificial intelligence never sleeps, makes far fewer errors, is incredibly precise, ever vigilant?  Never have a labor relations problem, wages?  What are those?  Bathroom breaks and holidays off???  Huh?

[Holding Pattern]

The "AI" isn't anywhere near that level yet. Most systems still need a Mk1 Eyeball to review incoming data.

[Live2Learn]

The "AI" isn't anywhere near that level yet. Most systems still need a Mk1 Eyeball to review incoming data.

Operative word:  "yet".  I don't disagree in any way that AI hasn't quite arrived.  But... while the Mk2 Eyeball is the current state of technology it will soon (on January 1, 2020 to be exact) be augmented (significantly) by required ADS/B, followed by other tech enhancements in the near future.  When several articles in the popular media discuss Federal efforts to harmonize 'driverless' vehicles, major car manufacturers invest very large sums in R&D beyond the concept stage, and the US military (and our primary competitors) are serious considering fully automated battle fields in 3-10 years, the historical 'horse' already has it's nose well outside of the barn door.

FWIW, the original topic of the thread is unchanged.  The phrase "long term relevance" is not where we are now, nor in the next year or two.  The clearly foreseeable future?  That's another matter.