CAA requesting flight log details

[WithTheBirds]

Since we don't know the details of the OP's videos, it's just a guess over what the CAA is concerned about. But the CAA has fined drone operators in the past. That part we know is true.

If we are restricted to guessing the educated guess would be as follows- the NZ CAA would have no lawful authority to issue a fine for any breach that isn’t a prescribed offence under their legislation. You can expect, similarly to the operation of aviation regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, they leave the role of policing operation of sUAV from public/privately owned property to the owner/managing authority.

 

[anotherlab]

They would still need to prove he was flying a drone. Who knows- he may have found an SD card with a cool video on it.

He gave them that information already. In at least one of videos, he posted that he flew more than 2000 M before turning around and also he refers to the drones that he uses in the comments. The OP has posted enough information here to make it easy to find his YouTube channel. Or it's easy to find his post in this thread based on the information from his YouTube channel.

 

[anotherlab]

If we are restricted to guessing the educated guess would be as follows- the NZ CAA would have no lawful authority to issue a fine for any breach that isn’t a prescribed offence under their legislation.

From the OP' post, it seems that that there is something in a few of the OP's videos that have led the NZ CAA to believe that he may have committed violated a rule or regulation. They may want to see the logs to clarify that he was not flying in controlled airspace.

You can expect, similarly to the operation of aviation regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, they leave the role of policing operation of sUAV from public/privately owned property to the owner/managing authority.

I don't think that's a safe assumption to make. This ruling seems to indicate that the NZ CAA takes an active role with prosecuting illegal drone activities .

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

This ruling seems to indicate that the NZ CAA takes an active role with prosecuting illegal drone activities .

The judge seemed to make a fair . . . well, judgement ? on that case.
No conviction and a little under a grand NZ$ which would have been felt by the defendant.

I feel the CAA got their example case too, and it probably got some media attention over there.

I think we can all sometimes get a little blasé about just how good these drones are in flight and ability to maintain good air stability.

 

[WithTheBirds]

From the OP' post, it seems that that there is something in a few of the OP's videos that have led the NZ CAA to believe that he may have committed violated a rule or regulation. They may want to see the logs to clarify that he was not flying in controlled airspace.


I don't think that's a safe assumption to make. This ruling seems to indicate that the NZ CAA takes an active role with prosecuting illegal drone activities .

I am not saying the CAA won't take action against someone found to have contravened the legislation. That is asinine.

What I m saying is that The CAA will leave the policing of activities conducted from national parks to the relevant authorities (assuming the subject flights aren't alleged to have been flown outside CAA regulations). That might be the department of conservation in NZ, probably is. I haven't tried to confirm.

You can be confident the allegations being investigated by CAA don't include operation from a national park or other public authority controlled lands.

 

[anotherlab]

I am not saying the CAA won't take action against someone found to have contravened the legislation. That is asinine.

What I m saying is that The CAA will leave the policing of activities conducted from national parks to the relevant authorities (assuming the subject flights aren't alleged to have been flown outside CAA regulations). That might be the department of conservation in NZ, probably is. I haven't tried to confirm.

You can be confident the allegations being investigated by CAA don't include operation from a national park or other public authority controlled lands.

I don't disagree with any of that, I still think this happened because someone reported the videos to the CAA. The video's on the OP's YouTube channel don't appear to be over any national parks. The flights may have been over controlled airspace where permission was required, but the OP would know more about that.

My gut feeling is that someone reported his videos to the NZ CAA (or to another NZ agency who then passed the complaint to the CAA) and they are asking for the logs to see if the complaint has any merit. It doesn't look like he was flying anywhere he shouldn't have been, but I don't know the areas that he was flying in or how they were zoned. It seems like overkill to go after a 78 year man, posting what look to be fairly innocuous videos. While Google will hand over user information to law enforcement, they do not bend over backwards to hand out that information. The NZ CAA had to serve Google (search warrant, subpeona, or court order) in order to get that information. That's not something a government agency is going to do unless they had a pretty good reason for doing so.

The only thing that you can say with reasonable certainty from his YouTube channel is that he was the drone operator and that he was flying beyond what could be considered a reasonable VLOS distance (2 KM). That comes from his own video descriptions and in the comments for his videos. Which is why he should get legal counsel that knows the jurisdiction and the laws related to operating a UAS in New Zealand. It's unfortunate because because the channel just has videos from someone who just want to share his hobby.

Getting back to the OP's original question about deleting the logs...

Deleting the logs after getting a request from a government agency is not a smart move. It implies guilt and (depending on NZ law) may be considered destruction of evidence. It was easy to find the OP's YouTube channel, it would be just as easy to find this message thread using only the information from that YouTube channel. If he deletes the logs, the CAA could come back with his post that started this thread. It's hard to get a break from a law enforcement agency when it can be shown that you had asked about destroying evidence.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I still think this happened because someone reported the videos to the CAA.

It's unfortunate because because the channel just has videos from someone who just want to share his hobby.

You are probably right about it being reported.
I see some pretty bad videos on YT from time to time, some so blatantly dangerous it is not just a simple lack of common sense in the flight ops.

Still it would probably have to be bad for someone to report a flight(s), mostly in Oz / NZ people have a sort of negative sentiment to 'snitching' or 'dobbing' on others, especially to authority. (That does seem to be changing in general in recent years though.)

Yes, sometimes the shot seems to be worth going out on a limb, be it one you could lose your equipment to flight difficulty, or if outside technically full legal status, whether slightly or way outside the rules.

 

[dgarzoli]

On the one hand most of us are looking to be compliant with rules and regulations. On the other hand, at least in the U.S., you have a right against self-incrimination. Seriously, the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra sounds nice but I'm guessing every lawyer and many in LE would tell you don't offer information in an exchange with xyz authority where everything you say can and will be used against you.

I would be asking a lot of questions before I voluntarily gave up my flight logs in this situation.

Truth. I'm a retired cop in the US. I don't give the government a [Language Removed by Admin] thing voluntarily, because the government isn't planning to give you a birthday cake or Christmas bonus, they are planning to prosecute you.

If they have the evidence they will arrest you WITHOUT you handing them the evidence they need to convict you. If they don't have the evidence then they will at least need enough probable cause to get warrant forcing you to produce it. If they don't have that, they don't have a case, unless you open your mouth and start handing them evidence they didn't earn.

Zip your lip, do not CONSENT to a search of anything under your control; and **** sure your drone doesn't accidentally get run over in the driveway.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Truth. I'm a retired cop in the US. I don't give the government a GD thing voluntarily, because the government isn't planning to give you a birthday cake or Christmas bonus, they are planning to prosecute you.

If they have the evidence they will arrest you WITHOUT you handing them the evidence they need to convict you. If they don't have the evidence then they will at least need enough probable cause to get warrant forcing you to produce it. If they don't have that, they don't have a case, unless you open your mouth and start handing them evidence they didn't earn.

Zip your lip, do not CONSENT to a search of anything under your control; and **** sure your drone doesn't accidentally get run over in the driveway.

And those who are the most cooperative are often the ones that should be looked at.

Every defence barrister will tell you to not assist the authorities. Nothing you can say or do will help your cause.

 

[dgarzoli]

And those who are the most cooperative are often the ones that should be looked at.

Every defence barrister will tell you to not assist the authorities. Nothing you can say or do will help your cause.

Dang I like this guy!

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Truth. I'm a retired cop in the US. I don't give the government a [Language Removed by Admin] thing voluntarily, because the government isn't planning to give you a birthday cake or Christmas bonus, they are planning to prosecute you.

If they have the evidence they will arrest you WITHOUT you handing them the evidence they need to convict you. If they don't have the evidence then they will at least need enough probable cause to get warrant forcing you to produce it. If they don't have that, they don't have a case, unless you open your mouth and start handing them evidence they didn't earn.

Zip your lip, do not CONSENT to a search of anything under your control; and **** sure your drone doesn't accidentally get run over in the driveway.

Thanks for your service and I appreciate your candor. I was raised in the age where you were taught to be compliant with those in authority. If we were hanging out on the street corner at night and a cop say go home you went home. If he asked a question you answered it. Our society has gone totally in the opposite direction but my basic instinct is to comply. That said I've learn over the years from lawyer and LEO relatives and friends that you can be respectful but exercise your right to keep your mouth shut and your information secure. It's why the 4th and 5th Amendments exist.

 

[grahamjohnson10]

I have been asked to provide flight log details of a couple of YOUTUBE uploads. Can I delete them from my remote and say I haven't got any records. Only keep a video record of the flights.

Won't the flight logs be on DJI's servers.

 

[Myha]

Simple:
Youtube/aka Google dropped the dime on him. They (NZCAA) asked for contact info on the you tube poster.

And they got it.

That's how it works here in the US. I know of a few incidents that the Dept. of Fish and Game used you tube to get a couple of folks that had flow in a wildlife refuge, and prosecuted for same.
FAA has done this too, Remember the rule: "The furtherance of a business".....

Posting any legit details of yourself on YouTube or Google is a definite "NO-NO".
For activities like these you should always create a special email for just this activity. Use the name John Smith or better still find a Russian name in Cyrillic and use this. Too many people are setting themselves up for self-incrimination!!!

 

[deepwater52]

How would they know you have flight logs? You must have shown that you have a DJI Drone cause not all drones save logs. Lesson to those who exceed the laws and then post videos. Share them with friends but dont ask for the attention of the law.

 

[CallSignShadow]

Odds are, if you don't respond, they'll just go to the Russians..... ? ? ?
No, joking aside, if you were flying someplace you were not supposed to be, they probably have you. I don't know how they handle "flights for income", and certification rules, but my guess is it's about the "monetization" of said video....

Same in Canada. Transport Canada reviews drone footage on all platforms. Their rationale is that anything uploaded COULD earn the uploader money, therefore allowing them to make sure all pilots are licensed, approved and insured for any areas that are regulated for that day. Source, wife works for Transport Canada.

Sometimes I wish she worked for a coffee shop....

 

[JSchneid]

In the US the FAA increased a fine when they did not receive a response.

In April of this year, Mr. Burciaga’s drone was returned to him alongside a letter listing what an FAA spokesperson calls “a litany of violations,” and a $14,700 fine. Making matters worse, Burciaga failed to respond to any of the FAA’s letters for months, missing the appeal period and racking up additional “late fees” that now brings his total owed to nearly $20,000.

 

[BigAl07]

Posting any legit details of yourself on YouTube or Google is a definite "NO-NO".
For activities like these you should always create a special email for just this activity. Use the name John Smith or better still find a Russian name in Cyrillic and use this. Too many people are setting themselves up for self-incrimination!!!

It's not at all difficult to get your details from the online platform beyond your simple name and email address. Many MANY people operate under an alias with a "disposable" emaiil addrress. Unless you really go out of your way to hide your identity your IP address etc will often times point directly to you. Hiding your name and email address is not going to do much if they sincerely desire to make contact with you.

 

[anotherlab]

How would they know you have flight logs? You must have shown that you have a DJI Drone cause not all drones save logs...

The OP identified himself as the drone operator and that he uses a Mavic and another DJI model on his YouTube channel.

To save people some time:

• It's not hard to link the OP's YouTube account and his MavicPilots account, from either direction. That makes deleting the logs now a violation of law.
• For YouTube to have handed over his identification to the NZ CAA, the NZ CAA would have had to serve Google with a legal request. There's a cost to that, a civil agency is not going to incur that cost unless they had reason to believe that the OP MAY have been in violation of something. Or someone filed a complaint and the NZ CAA is trying to resolve that complaint.
• For those people suggesting to use a fake name on YouTube, you need more than that to post anonymously. Google would turn over the IP addresses that the videos were uploaded from.

 

[Tbredhed]

Transport could care less whether you make money from flying your drone.

The regulations state that you must have either a basic or advanced pilot's certificate. The basic to fly outside an airport's restricted airspace(5.6 km) and an advanced to fly within that space.
Cheers

Same in Canada. Transport Canada reviews drone footage on all platforms. Their rationale is that anything uploaded COULD earn the uploader money, therefore allowing them to make sure all pilots are licensed, approved and insured for any areas that are regulated for that day. Source, wife works for Transport Canada.

Sometimes I wish she worked for a coffee shop....

 

[MacCool]

On the one hand most of us are looking to be compliant with rules and regulations. On the other hand, at least in the U.S., you have a right against self-incrimination. Seriously, the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra sounds nice but I'm guessing every lawyer and many in LE would tell you don't offer information in an exchange with xyz authority where everything you say can and will be used against you.

I would be asking a lot of questions before I voluntarily gave up my flight logs in this situation.

Yeah...this. I don't know how it works in New Zealand, but in the US, the appropriate next step would be to be cooperative but ask them to provide a court order/search warrant. I would assume that if they had a solid case for a violation then they would have already done that. I would never provide them with fish for their fishing expedition. It's rare that anything good ever comes from giving up any component of one's constitutional rights.

This post is a good reminder though....anyone who publishes their drone videos should frequently clear their flight logs.