36-year-old man from Barcelona REPORTED for flying a drone through the Catalan capital

[4006448]

I think it's impossible to say what a "fair fine" would be based on the evidence provided in the thread.

"He got fined for flying higher than 400ft, far away BVLOS, and over a city." OK, so that's a breach of the rules on three separate counts (that we know of). On it's own, that's probably a pretty steep cautionary fine, but still way less than the maximum limit of €220,000 - maybe in the hundreds or thousands of Euros depending what's typical for Spain and taking into account the exact nature of the flight, and given no actual harm appears to have been caused?

But then there's "several times without permit or insurance", so that's going to ratchet things up a bit. If he's been continuing to make these flights after being fined for earlier ones, then I'd expect that's going to be a fairly large uplift, if the pattern of behaviour only came to light after a single investigation, then maybe not so much, but potentially still a big chunk of change.

This is clearly someone who doesn't care for the rules or the safety of others, and I expect the judge is going to take that into account when deterimining what is a fair penalty for the infringement. Personally, I've got little sympathy for behaviour like this given it makes things a lot harder for the rest of us, so think a pretty steep fine is in order even if this is the first time he's been prosecuted. If he's been continuing to offend after earlier cautions or prosecutions, then the penalty should be increased accordingly, but even so I don't think it's going to come close to the €220,000 limit based on what we know so far.

Of course, the judge might just see this as a good opportunity to set an example to discourage others, in which case all bets are off.

I’ll offer this up - you run a red light and on this occasion, nobody is hurt. On another occasion, you run a red light, t-bone a car and kill an occupant. Are the circumstances different or just the outcome? What fine are you comfortable with? Should the fine be the same in both instances?

 

[zocalo]

I’ll offer this up - you run a red light and on this occasion, nobody is hurt. On another occasion, you run a red light, t-bone a car and kill an occupant. Are the circumstances different or just the outcome? What fine are you comfortable with? Should the fine be the same in both instances?

For penalties, most legal jurisdictions I am aware of tend to factor the harm caused into the punishment, sometimes with an increasing scale of penalities for repeated offences or taking some locational/situational specifics into account, which I think is a pretty fair and reasonable approach. To use your analogy, if I run a red light camera in the UK, even unintentionally, and no one gets hurt then I can expect to get a fixed penalty notice and three points on my driving license, which is the minimum tariff. If I run that same light and t-bone a car killing an occupant, then it's going to be court date, and the judge will have a choice of fines, disqualification from driving, and jail time by means of punishment once all the locational/situational circumstances are taken into account and sentencing guidance is applied. If I wipe out an entire family, then I'd expect an extended jail sentence to be just the starting point of my prospects in the judge's ruling, even if I accept full responsibility right from the get go.

Another way of looking at it is level of risk. Getting, back to drones, let's say if I do everything by the book (pre-flight checks, etc.) and follow all the rules, the chances of an in-flight failure that causes an incident are a million to one. Every time I bend those rules, the odds of an incident go up; over a city rather than open countryside might reduce it by a factor of 10, BVLOS, maybe by a factor of 5, extreme range, maybe another factor of 5. Combine the three and our odds have gone from 1m:1 to just 4,000:1 Still pretty good odds if you're a gambler, but the pilot in the article was supposedly doing this over and over. Think about calling a coin toss: do it once, and your odds of a correct call are 50:50, twice on the run? 4:1. Eight times? 256:1. It's an exponential pattern of increasing risk everytime you do it, and it's claimed that the pilot in the article made several of these flights (and, realistically, that would likely mean a lot more people are not aware of), so that aspect probably ought to be taken into account as well.

 

[Korrd]

You actually can do something: report this to EASA.
I did it a few weeks ago and they thanked me and said they'll start an investigation on Spanish rules.
Maybe if we all report it, they'll seriously do something.

This is the better approach.

Rules, established with reason and justice, can easily outlive their usefulness as circumstances change, yet can remain in force through inertia. It is then not only right, but useful, to challenge those rules as a way of advertising the fact that they have become useless-or even actually harmful.

 

[Jamesz]

Physics will never, ever change. A drone's mass will stay the same and have the same killing power if it drops on someone in the city from high above. You still won't be able to see your drone beyond 500m or spot the non- transponder equiped aircraft on a collision course. Props will remain sharp and spin fast. Rules are there for good reasons.

 

[aleph72]

Physics will never, ever change. A drone's mass will stay the same and have the same killing power if it drops on someone in the city from high above. You still won't be able to see your drone beyond 500m or spot the non- transponder equiped aircraft on a collision course. Props will remain sharp and spin fast. Rules are there for good reasons.

The same (or worse) is true for a car or motorcycle. Still, you can drive those in a city if you got your permit and a valid insurance.
For the drones someone made various studies and determined that a drone of class 0 or 1 falling from 120 meters of altitude does not transmit enough joules to break the skull of an adult.
It can still happen you say? Yes, sure. The same as with a car or motorcycle.
The important is to use your brain and follow the rules (i.e. do not fly over crowds).

 

[sar104]

The same (or worse) is true for a car or motorcycle. Still, you can drive those in a city if you got your permit and a valid insurance.
For the drones someone made various studies and determined that a drone of class 0 or 1 falling from 120 meters of altitude does not transmit enough joules to break the skull of an adult.
It can still happen you say? Yes, sure. The same as with a car or motorcycle.
The important is to use your brain and follow the rules (i.e. do not fly over crowds).

Interesting analogy. Do you often operate your car or motorcycle beyond visual line of sight?

 

[aleph72]

Interesting analogy. Do you often operate your car or motorcycle beyond visual line of sight?

Nope. Not even my drones.
I said "follow the rules".
I was just answering about the "killing power if it drops on someone in the city" thing.

 

[sar104]

Nope. Not even my drones.
I said "follow the rules".
I was just answering about the "killing power if it drops on someone in the city" thing.

Right - so as long as there are no fractured skulls involved you think it's fine to fly over people?

 

[aleph72]

Right - so as long as there are no fractured skulls involved you think it's fine to fly over people?

I don't know what are the rules where you live.
Here in Europe you can fly over people (not crowds) with a class 0 drone (<250g) and you should avoid it with a class 1 drone (<900g).
I don't have a small drone, so I completely avoid flying over people, but if I had a DJI Mini 2, for example, I would do it.

 

[D_The_Producer]

He got fined for flying higher than 400ft, far away BVLOS, and over a city.

Un veí de Barcelona s'exposa a 220.000 euros de multa per fer volar un dron des del balcó

L'home hauria enlairat l'aparell diversos cops des del balcó de casa, a la plaça Cerdà, a una altura superior a la permesa i posant en risc altres aeronaus

www.ccma.cat

I find this ridiculously unreasonable! He didn't do damage to anything, why fine him? Spain is going crazy about drones, people that don't have one most hate them... And that leads to situations like this one. It says that some neighbor reported the guy flying the drone and the police used DJI Aeroscope to locate him.

What's your opinion about this?

You can't be serious... He deserves to be fined for such reckless flying! He put lives in danger, both on the ground and up in the air, and the results of flying BVLOS at such a high altitude could've been catastrophic if any manned aircraft crashed against it.

Said that, 220k may be too much, considering that he did not harm anyone, but he did fly many times recklessly. I am so done being permissive to these kinds of pilots.

STOP justifying this type of behavior!

 

[Deleted member 103366]

but if I had a DJI Mini 2, for example, I would do it.

I am curious, what would you do if it came down and slashed some kid's face or dropped into the path of a car causing the driver to reflexively swerve and crash.
If it comes down on someone's solar panel and wrecks it, could you afford to replace the panel?
These are thoughts that are always in the back of my mind.
Yes the chances are slim but are you going to stand up and say that was my drone?

 

[aleph72]

I am curious, what would you do if it came down and slashed some kid's face or dropped into the path of a car causing the driver to reflexively swerve and crash.
If it comes down on someone's solar panel and wrecks it, could you afford to replace the panel?
These are thoughts that are always in the back of my mind.
Yes the chances are slim but are you going to stand up and say that was my drone?

I have insurance just for that. And the drone has its QR label attached, just for that reason.
The important is follow the rules, otherwise the insurance would not cover the accident.
I suppose you drive some kind of vehicle. Do yourself the same question: what if a kid runs into your car? Or you loose control and destroy a parked car?
It's just the same. If it's your fault, you'll have to pay, otherwise the insurance will cover you.

 

[Yaros]

He deserves to be fined for such reckless flying!

I agree.

220k may be too much, considering that he did not harm anyone

Exactly my point. Yes, it's fair to fine him for such flying, but the fine should be a couple of thousand dollars tops because he didn't harm anyone.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

Do yourself the same question: what if a kid runs into your car? Or you loose control and destroy a parked car?

To some extent I do but driving is more or less a necessity, flying a drone is not it's a recreation for most people.

Exactly my point. Yes, it's fair to fine him for such flying, but the fine should be a couple of thousand dollars tops because he didn't harm anyone.

Has the fine been imposed? If google translate is correct I believe the article you posted says "which can impose a penalty on the pilot of up to 220,000 euros."

 

[zocalo]

I agree.

Exactly my point. Yes, it's fair to fine him for such flying, but the fine should be a couple of thousand dollars tops because he didn't harm anyone.

That's up to the judge, existing precedent, and, if they exist, any sentencing guidelines that exist and apply if/when he's found guilty - especially the guidelines.

Still. BVLOS, above legal altitudes, over a major city, an multiple occasions, all supposedly logged by DJI Aeroscope. Ignorance of the law being no excuse, this could be seen as akin to repeatedly speeding in a school zone - multiple compounding violations on a theme. I agree that €220k is probably too much for this, but I don't think a ~€2-3k slap on the wrist will do either as it potentially makes rolling the dice for other pilots much more likely. There are too many people doing things like this, and countries need to start making examples that act as a deterrent or we're all going to be facing even stricter restrictions.

 

[aleph72]

To some extent I do but driving is more or less a necessity, flying a drone is not it's a recreation for most people.

Flying a drone is also far less dangerous than driving a car.
Look, we could discuss this all you want, but neither of us is going to change his mind.
I think that when you do something, you should do it using your brain and common sense.
When we fly we should do all that is in our hands to fly safe and not risk anyone else's integrity.

 

[Yaros]

countries need to start making examples that act as a deterrent or we're all going to be facing even stricter restrictions.

To a point where most people will not be following them, me included.
When too many restrictions are put in place, people will not follow them...

 

[Deleted member 103366]

Flying a drone is also far less dangerous than driving a car.
Look, we could discuss this all you want, but neither of us is going to change his mind.
I think that when you do something, you should do it using your brain and common sense.
When we fly we should do all that is in our hands to fly safe and not risk anyone else's integrity.

Agreed

 

[Yaros]

Has the fine been imposed?

That's not clear, but I assume that so.
Another point is: How in the world did this guy fly 6km distance from a place such as a balcony in Barcelona?? There is terrible signal interference. In the city, I could fly a maximum of 1.5km, but no further! This guy flew 6km away somehow.
Seems suspicious, doesn't it? I guess he used DroneHacks FCC or something similar to boost the signal massively, which is also illegal in Spain.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

To a point where most people will not be following them, me included.
When too many restrictions are put in place, people will not follow them...

And if people take that attitude governments have a fairly simple solution. Target the manufacturers or retail outlets i.e. compel drone manufacturers to write in or hardwire in un-hackable flight envelopes that comply with the laws at their most strict, with the obtaining of import permissions being dependant on that. e.g. "Write the following limits into the drone firmware otherwise the importation of your drones will be prohibited."
1) A maximum height of 400ft/120m or less relative to the take off point with no adjustment for terrain.
2) A maximum range that approximates the VLOS for the individual model of drone, e.g. 500m.

Or worse, either ban the import of drones altogether or restrict their sale to commercial users etc.

DJI already have an absolute ceiling at 500m above the take off point and they already have automated distance warnings. Those would not be too difficult for DJI to change and I doubt it would be too difficult to program in total no fly zones over towns and cities.