2 Men Face Prison After Drones Fly In Super Bowl Airspace

[cgmaxed]

Newbie question... so in the situation involving the Super Bowl. Very large area they designated as a NFZ. Does that ground all drones or can recreational users still take theirs to the local park/field as long as they keep it away from the target area and keep it within a reasonable distance/elevation to themselves?

All is grounded within their 30 mile NFZ, no matter where why or how. The power of politics. 30 miles is insane.

 

[Thomas B]

The 30 miles is to allow authorities the time to intercept offenders regardless of aircraft.

 

[DoomMeister]

30 miles? thiiiirrrrtttttyyyy MILES !!!???? That's insane. These guys weren't even trying to fly into the superbowl or film anything related to it. Who knows what they were flying for. Yeah, its illegal, but geese. Take it easy. They aren't felons. Hopefully they won't be after the judge hears their cases. 30 miles should be illegal in itself. It's insanity.

Have you even read a TFR and know what the intended purpose of it is?

The thirty mile TFR was basically the same as the one used to protect POTUS, and it is not 30nm just because of drones.

The two main ones referenced in this thread did not violate the big TFR on game day. They broke one of the smaller ones that were in place during the week leading up to game day.

The one according to the flight path posted in the article also flew well beyond visual line of sight and into the TFR where there were crowds of people gathered for the Super Bowl Experience.

The biggest issue with your post is that the size of a TFR has no bearing on violating it. Flights can occur within a TFR if permission is requested from and granted by the authority listed in the TFR.

 

[cgmaxed]

Have you even read a TFR and know what the intended purpose of it is?

The thirty mile TFR was basically the same as the one used to protect POTUS, and it is not 30nm just because of drones.

The two main one referenced in this thread did not violate the big TFR on game day. They broke one to the smaller ones that were in place during the week leading up to game day.

The one according to the flight path posted in the article also flew well beyond visual line of sight and into the TFR where there were crowds of people gathered for the Super Bowl Experience.

The biggest issue with your post is that the size of a TFR has no bearing on violating it. Flights can occur within a TFR if permission is requested from and granted by the authority listed in the TFR.

Can't argue with that

 

[alesquire]

Wait a minute. The flight restrictions were 30 MILES. We don't even know why or where they were flying. The media is misleading. They could have simply been doing a 107 commercial project that just happened to be 25 miles away. We don't know if they had any intent to fly over the superbowl itself. Where were they in this insane 30 mile radius. 3 miles away, 10, 20, 25, 29. Where?


DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR AWAY THEY WERE? What if they were just doing roof inspection 25 miles away. Yeah, that would be a violation. 30 miles is insane. I bet those guys weren't even near the actual game/bowl.


30 miles? thiiiirrrrtttttyyyy MILES !!!???? That's insane. These guys weren't even trying to fly into the superbowl or film anything related to it. Who knows what they were flying for. Yeah, its illegal, but geese. Take it easy. They aren't felons. Hopefully they won't be after the judge he
unishment and financial harm on a son or daughter, mother or father? If as this post suggest, the distances also make no sense and are overreaching as well, would you believe this lawbreaker who was related deserved the most severe punishment possible?


ars their cases. 30 miles should be illegal in itself. It's insanity.

This is right on the money. All these replies of "throw the book at them", "send them to the gas chamber", "I hope they are given the maximum and they also punish their kids and grandkids as well" "Let's make an example out of this person, take away a large amount of money and then force them into community service". As someone who has been a prosecutor as well as being a defense attorney, I can without a doubt tell each and every one of you "give them the max" people, be careful what you wish for.

Giving people very harsh punishments for this type of stuff is just plain stupid. I know drug dealers who get easier sentences or pleas. We have become too heavy-handed with punishment and it shows in society now. People are not just satisfied with their ounce of flesh. They also now want to put them in the streets homeless and unemployable. Yes, that's right, the punishments people are saying are "deserved" will have the effect of someone losing their job or being fired, lose their freedom, whether through community service or jail, and possibly lose years of their lives having to deal with the system.

Before anyone throws out, "They deserve the MAX and I hope they are sent into community service and fined the full $30,000 think if it were you and how you would deal with those types of punishments handed down by a Judge to you. And please don't say, "Well I have better sense and would never do this or XXXXX". Things happen and there isn't a single person breathing today that has not broken some type of law that had very harsh penalties and punishments attached at the upper end of the scale. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time people, say this statement ONLY when you attach "I never break any rule or law for any reason" to this statement. Then I will think you know what you're talking about. Otherwise, learn to love living in an authoritarian society that is quickly descending upon our country because of views like the ones you hold.

 

[SkySteve83]

I have a few questions for the experts here. Doesn't everyone use an APP to check if it's legal to fly and get a clearance if necessary before taking off? I live in West Palm Beach and every time the president was in town, a friend of mine with a small DJI drone said it wouldn't let him fly it. Does the software in the drone know about the TFR? I'm just starting out getting my 107 hopefully in a few weeks, (I'm also a real PP but not current). I assume I have to check one of the ATC Drone APPS, get a clearance if necessary and then I could fly. Am I correct? So these guys had to know they were in a TFR, or were just stupid.

 

[SkySteve83]

All is grounded within their 30 mile NFZ, no matter where why or how. The power of politics. 30 miles is insane.

Well the purpose of the 30 miles is to provide a minimum amount of time for authorities to decide what action to take on an intruder. A small corporate jet can enter that airspace at 300 knots which would give ATC, FBI, FAA and the air force just about 5 minutes to decide what to do about it. 300 seconds to figure out who they are, if they are confused, a problem with the nav gear, an incapacitated pilot or a terrorist with bad intentions. Just saying...

 

[cwlewis123]

While you can make an argument that a 30 mi radius TFR could be overly restrictive, those two pilots knew it was in place and decided to fly anyways. The FAA made it crystal clear what the potential penalties would be for violating the TFR.



What is the reasoning for a 30-mile radius? I'm legitimately curious about that. At the outer edge of the TFR, you would be hard-pressed to find a drone that could make that distance and it wouldn't be a consumer drone.

How about choppers flying in that 30 mile NFZ preventing sick people or terrorists from causing a disaster at the game. There is alot of security measures planned months before to protect the area from these things.

 

[iamdorian]

Where are these places where the drone was observed it doesn't sound like they were particularly interested in the superbowl but were caught out on the periphery of the technically limited area - they mention a hotel.

More like ... someONE important was in that area, or there was a secret action no one wanted videocast, going on. This is most likely the answer to the WHY question of "why this area?" Obviously, if it was not due to Super Bowl helicopter News crews, then it was some other 'security' issue. What's wrong with that? When the issue is one of recording events, vs. real NAS safety ... i.e. when these restrictions are really about preventing public access to cameras ... this has a much darker side.

With ever more tight fisted restriction on free speech, no one wants an aerial camera system recording ... say ... a house-to-house gun grab, or some other non-constitutional military operation. Only the "official narrative" can be allowed under certain types of governments. Remember the sacred term (and legal excuse for most abridgments of what we used to call 'freedoms'): "National Security."

=======​

For me the biggest issue to come from the actions of these two,(unable to call them a name i would like to use,because of forum rules),is the detrimental effect it will probably have on all those people in the US who have gone to the trouble of passing their part 107,to demonstrate their commitment to flying in a safe and professional manner ,they should be prevented from ever flying again and their part 107s cancelled ,they did a disservice to us all...​

=======​

Not that the Constitution means anything any more, but the fact that ALL modern multi-copters/uas/drones are "eyes in the sky," becomes an underlying motivation for serious restrictions on little, bitty, plastic toys with cameras on them. Like a drum beat, ever more stringent restriction are being applied. From limiting flights, to mandatory location identity to user information uploaded and pilot location locks ... where is the end to this?

The best way to regulate is through promulgated events. Think that TWO people both trained, violated the FAA rules thinking that their location and identity-broadcasting UAS were not broadcasting their ID as they broke the law? I suspect this was not merely accidental stupidlty?

THINK:
How hard would it be for a regulation-hungry government agency (someone NOT the FAA, but part of DOD, for example) to register two of its agents, and then break local laws to force ever more restrictive legislation. Those who think this cannot happen, are simply ignorant of how policies are moved forward. False Flag operations have played a major role in political/military strategies since man first learned to lie. This is not "conspiracy theory" (used here in the pejorative sense) but simply historical fact!

The real skinny here is: ANY UAS is potentially an aerial surveillance platform. This makes it (by definition) a would-be strategic weapon to anyone who thinks this way (and there are many who do).

All of the safety arguments take a back seat to THIS single motivation.

Since I am editorializing, remember the FIRST big news item about these quadcopters? Remember when some errant little Phantom experienced a "fly away" ... in Washington D.C? How did this go? Someone working in/around security at the White House, who liked to fly his DJI Phantom from his apartment balcony, lost it. Do the geometry? It flew not on one of perhaps 720 different ½ vectors it might have flown on, in any particular direction. It flew the the White House!

One would argue: he must have used that location as HOME. Really? So this guy was working FOR the same government whose National Security rules he must have understood, and before he launched his Phantom over the city ... he flew it first FROM the White House lawn? Doubt this very much. And yet ... is landed there, 2 miles away?

The odds are 1 : 720 (or much more, I am granting it ½º of a 360º circle/radius it could have flown in) x the odds in terms of square feet in 2 miles distance. Those odds — AGAINST — it landing on that specific property ... were astronomically high!

Conspiracy Theory demands someone say it: "Looks like some AGENCY with a vested interested in control over UAS, HI-JACKED IT and landed it on the White House lawn. This then became the EXCUSE for the President Obama (reember, "drone-bomb Obama"?) to demand the FAA look into some regulations over these ... "drones."

Hence, this news is the next step. SHOW PILOTS how severe their punishment will be ... for flying of these little plastic spy cameras over TEMPORARY restricted spaces! Then, whenever they need — temporarily — for no one to SEE what is happening, then it's time for a 'temporary' NFZ.

History is not accidental; not most the big events. And sometimes the BIG picture is composed of much smaller ones. Tyranny is a mosaic … only revealed one tile at a time.

We now return you to our regularly regulated programming.

 

[Davros007]

More like ... someONE important was in that area, or there was a secret action no one wanted videocast, going on. This is most likely the answer to the WHY question of "why this area?" Obviously, if it was not due to Super Bowl helicopter News crews, then it was some other 'security' issue. What's wrong with that? When the issue is one of recording events, vs. real NAS safety ... i.e. when these restrictions are really about preventing public access to cameras ... this has a much darker side.

With ever more tight fisted restriction on free speech, no one wants an aerial camera system recording ... say ... a house-to-house gun grab, or some other non-constitutional military operation. Only the "official narrative" can be allowed under certain types of governments. Remember the sacred term (and legal excuse for most abridgments of what we used to call 'freedoms'): "National Security."

=======​

For me the biggest issue to come from the actions of these two,(unable to call them a name i would like to use,because of forum rules),is the detrimental effect it will probably have on all those people in the US who have gone to the trouble of passing their part 107,to demonstrate their commitment to flying in a safe and professional manner ,they should be prevented from ever flying again and their part 107s cancelled ,they did a disservice to us all...​

=======​

Not that the Constitution means anything any more, but the fact that ALL modern multi-copters/uas/drones are "eyes in the sky," becomes an underlying motivation for serious restrictions on little, bitty, plastic toys with cameras on them. Like a drum beat, ever more stringent restriction are being applied. From limiting flights, to mandatory location identity to user information uploaded and pilot location locks ... where is the end to this?

The best way to regulate is through promulgated events. Think that TWO people both trained, violated the FAA rules thinking that their location and identity-broadcasting UAS were not broadcasting their ID as they broke the law? I suspect this was not merely accidental stupidlty?

THINK:
How hard would it be for a regulation-hungry government agency (someone NOT the FAA, but part of DOD, for example) to register two of its agents, and then break local laws to force ever more restrictive legislation. Those who think this cannot happen, are simply ignorant of how policies are moved forward. False Flag operations have played a major role in political/military strategies since man first learned to lie. This is not "conspiracy theory" (used here in the pejorative sense) but simply historical fact!

The real skinny here is: ANY UAS is potentially an aerial surveillance platform. This makes it (by definition) a would-be strategic weapon to anyone who thinks this way (and there are many who do).

All of the safety arguments take a back seat to THIS single motivation.

Since I am editorializing, remember the FIRST big news item about these quadcopters? Remember when some errant little Phantom experienced a "fly away" ... in Washington D.C? How did this go? Someone working in/around security at the White House, who liked to fly his DJI Phantom from his apartment balcony, lost it. Do the geometry? It flew not on one of perhaps 720 different ½ vectors it might have flown on, in any particular direction. It flew the the White House!

One would argue: he must have used that location as HOME. Really? So this guy was working FOR the same government whose National Security rules he must have understood, and before he launched his Phantom over the city ... he flew it first FROM the White House lawn? Doubt this very much. And yet ... is landed there, 2 miles away?

The odds are 1 : 720 (or much more, I am granting it ½º of a 360º circle/radius it could have flown in) x the odds in terms of square feet in 2 miles distance. Those odds — AGAINST — it landing on that specific property ... were astronomically high!

Conspiracy Theory demands someone say it: "Looks like some AGENCY with a vested interested in control over UAS, HI-JACKED IT and landed it on the White House lawn. This then became the EXCUSE for the President Obama (reember, "drone-bomb Obama"?) to demand the FAA look into some regulations over these ... "drones."

Hence, this news is the next step. SHOW PILOTS how severe their punishment will be ... for flying of these little plastic spy cameras over TEMPORARY restricted spaces! Then, whenever they need — temporarily — for no one to SEE what is happening, then it's time for a 'temporary' NFZ.

History is not accidental; not most the big events. And sometimes the BIG picture is composed of much smaller ones. Tyranny is a mosaic … only revealed one tile at a time.

We now return you to our regularly regulated programming.

Absolutely agree!!

 

[CactusJackSlade]

It was posted in the press release from the DoJ specifically where one of them was flying. It was at at the USF Health, CAMLS building. According to Google Maps, that's a 5-mile drive from Raymond James Stadium. As the drone flies, it's much less:

View attachment 123947

The TFR for Super Bowl LV was a 30 mile radius around Raymond James Stadium. To put that in perspective, this is what that would look like:

View attachment 123948
It was a big TFR. and those pilots knew that they were flying inside it. They rolled the dice and came up with snake eyes. They can't plead ignorance, not with a Part 107 license. That's kind of the point of holding a 107, knowing not to do this.

I can't see any jail time, not for what appears to be a first offense, and (at least the pilot in the news release) they were a few miles away. Even if the DoJ says "no harm, no foul", there's going to be a fine. They wouldn't have bothered with a news release if they were just going to let them off with a warning. No matter what the legal penalties are, this is going to cost them real money in attorney fees.

Personally I find a 30 mile radius for a TFR for an event of this nature WAY over reach by the FAA. I mean... really?! Not condoning what these guys did, but IMO one or two miles would be sufficient.

 

[DoomMeister]

The TFR’s are actually put in place to protect the extraterrestrial survivors of the Roswell crash back in 1947 and have been running this country since that time. We can’t allow camera drones to accidentally capture their image and blow their cover. ?

 

[BigAl07]

Newbie question... so in the situation involving the Super Bowl. Very large area they designated as a NFZ. Does that ground all drones or can recreational users still take theirs to the local park/field as long as they keep it away from the target area and keep it within a reasonable distance/elevation to themselves?

First off WELCOME to the forum

FAA TFR's affect ALL aircraft regardless of hobby/commercial operations.

 

[Thomas B]

Personally I find a 30 mile radius for a TFR for an event of this nature WAY over reach by the FAA. I mean... really?! Not condoning what these guys did, but IMO one or two miles would be sufficient.

The experts, for good reason as pointed out earlier in this thread , made it appropriately sized for the needs.

 

[rp6]

For me the biggest issue to come from the actions of these two,(unable to call them a name i would like to use,because of forum rules),is the detrimental effect it will probably have on all those people in the US who have gone to the trouble of passing their part 107,to demonstrate their commitment to flying in a safe and professional manner ,they should be prevented from ever flying again and their part 107s cancelled ,they did a disservice to us all

I agree generally with the opinions shared in this thread. However, I do not think that persons who operate drones without a part 107 license should be be held to a lesser standard of responsibility. The purpose of the part 107 license, IMO, is to distinguish those persons who can engage in commercial operations from those who cannot. This is, IMO, similar to the difference between a private pilot's license vs a commercial or atp license. The duty to understand and comply with relevant law is not diminished by the level of one's license.

Insofar as the matter of the Super Bowl is concerned, the security requirements were/are so well known that, IMO, one would have to be deceased or in a persistent vegetative state to be unaware thereof.

 

[old man mavic]

I agree generally with the opinions shared in this thread. However, I do not think that persons who operate drones without a part 107 license should be be held to a lesser standard of responsibility. The purpose of the part 107 license, IMO, is to distinguish those persons who can engage in commercial operations from those who cannot. This is, IMO, similar to the difference between a private pilot's license vs a commercial or atp license. The duty to understand and comply with relevant law is not diminished by the level of one's license.

Insofar as the matter of the Super Bowl is concerned, the security requirements were/are so well known that, IMO, one would have to be deceased or in a persistent vegetative state to be unaware thereof.

@rp6 i do not fly professionally myself ,and my post was in no way meant to be disparaging,to any drone flyers who only fly for recreational purposes
the point i was trying to make ,was the fact that they had a part 107 ,and that meant that they should have known better

 

[Repaid1]

I have a few questions for the experts here. Doesn't everyone use an APP to check if it's legal to fly and get a clearance if necessary before taking off? I live in West Palm Beach and every time the president was in town, a friend of mine with a small DJI drone said it wouldn't let him fly it. Does the software in the drone know about the TFR? I'm just starting out getting my 107 hopefully in a few weeks, (I'm also a real PP but not current). I assume I have to check one of the ATC Drone APPS, get a clearance if necessary and then I could fly. Am I correct? So these guys had to know they were in a TFR, or were just stupid.

Not if you don't update the software. TFR=Temporary Flight Restriction. Therefor a week prior it was not in effect, so no update in a week, DJI will fly. However as 107's, They freakin knew it, and blew it

 

[Repaid1]

What most people fail to realize is that the broadcast networks are the main reason for the TFR’s around the games anyway. They don’t want anyone giving the game away for free on social media.

Public safety is only a secondary item.

So how do they stop those 1000's of fancy phones with those 5 camera lenses from filming it from the stands and direct streaming it? Every YouTube bootleg I have ever seen is done by someone simply taking the Free OTA local broadcast and spitting it out for the world to see?

 

[Davros007]

This is right on the money. All these replies of "throw the book at them", "send them to the gas chamber", "I hope they are given the maximum and they also punish their kids and grandkids as well" "Let's make an example out of this person, take away a large amount of money and then force them into community service". As someone who has been a prosecutor as well as being a defense attorney, I can without a doubt tell each and every one of you "give them the max" people, be careful what you wish for.

Giving people very harsh punishments for this type of stuff is just plain stupid. I know drug dealers who get easier sentences or pleas. We have become too heavy-handed with punishment and it shows in society now. People are not just satisfied with their ounce of flesh. They also now want to put them in the streets homeless and unemployable. Yes, that's right, the punishments people are saying are "deserved" will have the effect of someone losing their job or being fired, lose their freedom, whether through community service or jail, and possibly lose years of their lives having to deal with the system.

Before anyone throws out, "They deserve the MAX and I hope they are sent into community service and fined the full $30,000 think if it were you and how you would deal with those types of punishments handed down by a Judge to you. And please don't say, "Well I have better sense and would never do this or XXXXX". Things happen and there isn't a single person breathing today that has not broken some type of law that had very harsh penalties and punishments attached at the upper end of the scale. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time people, say this statement ONLY when you attach "I never break any rule or law for any reason" to this statement. Then I will think you know what you're talking about. Otherwise, learn to love living in an authoritarian society that is quickly descending upon our country because of views like the ones you hold.

Totally agree. Some of the laws, whilst I don’t advocate breaking them, need not only reigning in but protest against them. Only a moron would believe a 30mi no fly zone will stop a terrorist from using a drone, or that without it, multiple injuries are going to occur by drones crashing into crowds (which are illegal to fly over anyway). All it does is make pollies look like they’re doing something in a world of fear (used to control the masses). What I REALLY don’t understand is why we, as a drone community, “sit back and take it”, when there is very, very limited data to suggest any great threat from drones outside of an active war zone. It’s odd - the gun, biker, sea-shepherd, religious, diet, education, ex-army or any other community I know of would have a go-fund-me for those involved or legal support entitled by joining an association- and be a force to be reckoned with both legally and politically. Sad- but I see the drone community destroying itself and it’s own freedoms through criticism of each other when support and vigorous defence of current freedoms should be an absolute priority. I remember my father telling me once, when I asked why person was arguing for being allowed fully automatic weapons (no mods, this isn’t a discussion of weapons, it’s drawing a comparison to another group the public perceive as “fringe” - like drone users), which I knew they wouldn’t get and which sounded ridiculous (and he hated guns). He told me, “If you argue for a lot more than you know you’re gonna get, you might get what you want. If you argue for only what you want, you’ll be lucky to even get what you need”. Misquoted but to that affect! We should be fighting for beyond VLOS, flights near but not over any crowds, few to no NFZs etc etc. and only then we might see some sanity in international drone laws on this. If we kowtow and nod to the “enforcers”, pretty soon we’ll be watching other, licensed experts at a drone show do silly stunts, and the closest way we’ll come to controlling one is by ordering a pizza.
Yep, they broke the law. Hope the judges realise the silliness of laws based on no data, that they meant no harm, and they go easy on them. Unlike the more-than-likely 10s of drivers caught speeding drunk at the same event and endangering people far, far more (and facing likely far less possible consequences) with tons of steel, than a hyped up plastic toy possibly -but most unlikely - falling from the sky. And I hope we as a community can stick together, despite differences, to fight for drone use freedoms. Solidarity!

 

[BigAl07]

Do you member who keep harping on the 30mi radius even take the time to research this stuff?

A) The main TFR (30mi radius) is a Standard TFR affecting ALL aircraft and not UAS/Drone specific. Take just a moment and think BIGGER than our toy UAS. The TFR is standard and has been like this for many years and it definitely SHOULD be 30mi. So many in our industry want to be a Big Boy and be called pilot, get pilot privs, and be able to show off your "RPIC" but many of those same folks balk at having to follow the same AVIATION rules/laws that PILOTS follow. Drones/UAS operate in the National Airspace System (NAS) and we must follow standardized rules (for the same air) as the big boys and this includes the 30mi TFR. This isn't NEW and it isn't about DRONES in terms of the TFR.

B) There are multiple layers of restrictions and the operators mentioned in this thread weren't operating 29.9 miles from the event but operating downtown. Not only did they violate Flight Restrictions about the event they also violated several other UAS regulations in ADDITION to the TFRs.

C) For @Davros007 there is LEGAL support for a UAS operator if they so would have joined AMA. Honestly I'd say the AMA support would not apply here as they broke several UAS regulations and lost any hope of a legal defense many times over. Sucks to be them right now . ..

The caveat is they KNOWINGLY violated existing and well published TFR in addition to just doing very stupid things that all Part 107 operators know about. If this had been a 12y/o kid out flying his new toy in a park that just happened to be within restricted flying, maybe we could give some wiggle room. Fact of the matter these were grown men, who had studied/taken/passed a Part 107 test, who both admitted they KNEW a TFR was in place but they still decided that their desires to fly trump the Federal Rules & Restrictions. Those actions are not only stupid but they put EVERY other Part 107 operator in a very poor light. I see no reason for any type of solidarity to support either of these 2 clowns (or the roughly 70 others who were caught violating the Regs over the few days prior to and of the Super Bowl).

Play DUMB games you gotta accept the PAINFUL outcome of your poor decision making. It's time they reap the rewards of this stupid mistakes and I hope it burns deep and for a long time to come. I don't want to seem them ruined financially or unable to be a productive citizen but they should have their bank accounts hurt, their freedom restricted, not allowed to own/fly UAS ever again, and forced to spend a considerable amount of time doing Community Outreach to help teach others how/why being so stupid is such a bad idea.