Awaiting 29 Dec Pre Trial Hearing.

[B52-D]

Ohio Drone Pilot Faces Imprisonment | Aero-News Network

Trouble Over Buckeye Country A Columbus, Ohio man is facing jail-time for operating a drone over Ohio Stadium in the hours preceding an Ohio St| Published: Thu, Dec 08, 2022 | Aero-News Network

www.aero-news.net

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Isn't the Cincinnati Bengals pilot up before the court soon too?

 

[Vic Moss]

Mr. Fentress should have never been charged for this. He was obviously not aware of the rules about TRUST, but the state should not have charged him. And of course the security team that confronted him were completely ignorant of TFR details.

The TRUST was set up by the FAA to be an educational opportunity. People are NOT supposed to be charged unless it's of willful and repeated violations. Of course the state can do when they want, but they should take a page out of the FAA's play book and just use it to educate.

I have some people trying to find Mr. Fentress' contact info for me. Unless he was combative during the incident, I am going to write an email on his behalf to be read to the Judge if this goes to trail.

This isn't about punishing people, it's about education first. Ohio needs to chill on this.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Mr. Fentress should have never been charged for this. He was obviously not aware of the rules about TRUST, but the state should not have charged him. And of course the security team that confronted him were completely ignorant of TFR details.

The TRUST was set up by the FAA to be an educational opportunity. People are NOT supposed to be charged unless it's of willful and repeated violations. Of course the state can do when they want, but they should take a page out of the FAA's play book and just use it to educate.

I have some people trying to find Mr. Fentress' contact info for me. Unless he was combative during the incident, I am going to write an email on his behalf to be read to the Judge if this goes to trail.

This isn't about punishing people, it's about education first. Ohio needs to chill on this.

Looking for you. Will IM if I get his contact info.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Mr. Fentress should have never been charged for this. He was obviously not aware of the rules about TRUST, but the state should not have charged him. And of course the security team that confronted him were completely ignorant of TFR details.

The TRUST was set up by the FAA to be an educational opportunity. People are NOT supposed to be charged unless it's of willful and repeated violations. Of course the state can do when they want, but they should take a page out of the FAA's play book and just use it to educate.

I have some people trying to find Mr. Fentress' contact info for me. Unless he was combative during the incident, I am going to write an email on his behalf to be read to the Judge if this goes to trail.

This isn't about punishing people, it's about education first. Ohio needs to chill on this.

Sent you an IM with his contact info.

 

[Vic Moss]

Sent you an IM with his contact info.

I literally just got it. I’m going to call him this weekend. Thanks!

 

[jmaganaski]

I literally just got it. I’m going to call him this weekend. Thanks!

So any movement on this? Curious.

 

[Dmcvey]

Sent you an IM with his contact info.

What happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse? If you are going to fly LEARN THE RULES.

 

[Dmcvey]

Ok, I have just about had it with the rec users crying about the FAA and the rules. 107 pilots have to follow strict rules. Rec pilots "aaahhh what the heck, I did not know". Jump on YouTube and you can see the idiots doing "range" test well past VLOS or any number of other stupid things. It has been plenty of time and we all know the rules or where to go to find them, it is time the FAA stopped educating and started dropping the hammer of some of this garbage.

I had a home inspector fly a drone during an inspection. I ask about his 107.....reply "less than 250g, I don't need it and don't need to register the drone". My friend was the realtor, I asked her if she knew that if he got fined, she would be in the hook for 10X his fine. i3D Imaging Process from Real Estate Imaging Service think he just flew his last job for her firm.

 

[Skywalkerair]

Ok, I have just about had it with the rec users crying about the FAA and the rules. 107 pilots have to follow strict rules. Rec pilots "aaahhh what the heck, I did not know". Jump on YouTube and you can see the idiots doing "range" test well past VLOS or any number of other stupid things. It has been plenty of time and we all know the rules or where to go to find them, it is time the FAA stopped educating and started dropping the hammer of some of this garbage.

I had a home inspector fly a drone during an inspection. I ask about his 107.....reply "less than 250g, I don't need it and don't need to register the drone". My friend was the realtor, I asked her if she knew that if he got fined, she would be in the hook for 10X his fine. i3D Imaging Process from Real Estate Imaging Service think he just flew his last job for her firm.

View attachment 158119

Checked out that guy’s website. That’s some of the oddest marketing and dialogue I’ve ever seen.

 

[Dmcvey]

Checked out that guy’s website. That’s some of the oddest marketing and dialogue I’ve ever seen.

Link?

 

[Heavydpj]

This should be interesting. 20 U.S.C. §32 – unquestionably defines a UAS as an “aircraft” as defined in 49 U.S.C. §40102 and 14 CFR 1.1 (a device that is “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air”).

Ohio Revised Code § 4561.14 (Prohibited Acts) states, "(A) No person shall operate any aircraft in this state unless such person is the holder of a valid aviator's license issued by the United States."

This would have some pretty broad implications.

 

[Heavydpj]

... I am going to write an email on his behalf to be read to the Judge if this goes to trail.

That's not the way trials work.

 

[Dmcvey]

This should be interesting. 20 U.S.C. §32 – unquestionably defines a UAS as an “aircraft” as defined in 49 U.S.C. §40102 and 14 CFR 1.1 (a device that is “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air”).

Ohio Revised Code § 4561.14 (Prohibited Acts) states, "(A) No person shall operate any aircraft in this state unless such person is the holder of a valid aviator's license issued by the United States."

This would have some pretty broad implications.

Not just US code, Courts have supported the position.

"Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. Raphael Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA-5730, Docket CP-217 (Nov. 18, 2014).

On November 18, 2014, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reversed an earlier decision by an NTSB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and held that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are properly considered “aircraft” and subject to Federal regulations that prohibit operation of “an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”

NTSB Finds That Drones Are “Aircraft” Under Federal Law | JD Supra

Order reverses an earlier ruling by an Administrative Law Judge in a closely watched case that challenged the FAA’s authority to regulate drones - ...

www.jdsupra.com

 

[bobmoore1954]

More than a few non-107 pilots are well aware of the requirement to obtain a TRUST Certificate, but refuse to do so.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

I am no fan of ignorant (new?) pilots. I think he should have been strongly reprimanded and fined... but prison time?... really? I think it is interesting that everyone gets wigged out on this (flying over a pro sports stadium) but those who have interfered with airports or wild fires get a slap on the wrist. Many may laugh, but broadcasting rights and the power of professional sports are some of the reasons they are so strict about TFR's during broadcasted games. If this were untrue it would be illegal to fly over stadiums any time they are being used (practice, other events etc). IMO it has less to do with safety and more to do with potential "unauthorized" footage of the game. Money talks.

 

[Deleted member 162835]

I am no fan of ignorant (new?) pilots. I think he should have been strongly reprimanded and fined... but prison time?... really? I think it is interesting that everyone gets wigged out on this (flying over a pro sports stadium) but those who have interfered with airports or wild fires get a slap on the wrist. Many may laugh, but broadcasting rights and the power of professional sports are some of the reasons they are so strict about TFR's during broadcasted games. If this were untrue it would be illegal to fly over stadiums any time they are being used (practice, other events etc). IMO it has less to do with safety and more to do with potential "unauthorized" footage of the game. Money talks.

Agreed. It also does not take a lot of effort for people to learn laws surrounding the hobbies they may pursue. Regarding drone flying, there is a buffet of knowledge out there not hidden at all and people who fly ignorant choose to leave themselves wide open for whatever legal ramifications await them.

 

[Vic Moss]

I'll be talking with James tomorrow.

 

[Vic Moss]

I am no fan of ignorant (new?) pilots. I think he should have been strongly reprimanded and fined

That isn't the purpose of TRUST. This is for new pilots to learn the rules. If an LEO rolls up on someone without TRUST, they're supposed to educate them about it. It was never designed to be used as an enforcement mechanism unless there we extenuating circumstances (such as repeated warnings, aggressive response, etc.)

This should have ended in a handshake and a promise from James that he'll get his TRUST.

 

[stevenws]

I am no fan of ignorant (new?) pilots. I think he should have been strongly reprimanded and fined... but prison time?... really? I think it is interesting that everyone gets wigged out on this (flying over a pro sports stadium) but those who have interfered with airports or wild fires get a slap on the wrist. Many may laugh, but broadcasting rights and the power of professional sports are some of the reasons they are so strict about TFR's during broadcasted games. If this were untrue it would be illegal to fly over stadiums any time they are being used (practice, other events etc). IMO it has less to do with safety and more to do with potential "unauthorized" footage of the game. Money talks.

Seems it's ALWAYS about the $$$