California man gets 1-year probation for flying drone near gyrocopter, blimp, Coast guard copter , Published 12-29-2023

[StevenBrodsky]

California man gets 1-year probation for flying drone near gyrocopter, blimp, Coast guard copter

The incidents with the gyrocopter and the blimp both occurred last year. He flew his drone near the Coast Guard helicopter in March.

www.eastbaytimes.com

This UAV pilot was handed down this sentence for 3 separate incidents. What he did is explained in the article. How he got caught, isn't explained, besides the fact he pleaded guilty.

 

[mavic3usa]

On the first two incidents, it is likely he got too close and scared the other pilots. A drone hovering and postering and scatting about could look pretty ominous and somewhat out of control. What's too close, I dunno but nothing was done about it until the coast guard incident. I bet the drone pilot didn't think 200 feet was too close....but, yeah that's too close when it comes to the coast guard. Upon questions on the helicopter incident, drone pilot probably admitted to the other ones as well; no harm when it's all lumped together for a plea.

I think we are starting to see a pattern here. Overwhelm the suspect with weighty federal charges (that you cannot beat) and have them plead to lesser charges that often include no jail time, small fines, and short probation (i.e. a no-brainer). Basically a slap on the wrist. But it allows unintentional or careless (not reckless) incidents to be logged as crimes. Seems there are never any drone "accidents" unless they are single-drone crashes (i.e. you crash your own drone).

So what constitutes "too close?" I dunno but I guess you know it when you see/feel it. That's concerning because there are some pilots who fly manned aircraft who feel drones have no business in the airspace. So much for shared airspace. Until drones get better parity, this "experiment" is going nowhere. And just for the record, I believe drones should go hunting and looking for things to see on the ground, not in the air.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Read the article.

Justice was too easy on him.

 

[Droning on and on...]

So what constitutes "too close?"

Whatever the human beings in the air feel is too close, within reason of course. 1000ft would be well within reason, IMO, but I'm not stating regulation. Just my opinion.

Certainly whatever the remote pilot thinks over a mile away safe and snug sitting on land isn't worth the dog excrement he could pack in his lunchbox.

If it isn't clear, I'm really pissed about this guy. I think the regs are way too restrictive for a lot of passive flight over objects, buildings, vista's, etc.

When it comes to manned aircraft, I think the FAA needs to take a harsher stand.

 

[mavic3usa]

Read the article.

Justice was too easy on him.

Yeah I missed that part about 1.5 miles out, a bit too far. But something tells me even if there were 300 feet out, nothing would have changed. No one was hurt or injured....you know, I guess I would like one of these cases to actually go to trial so we can see what a vigorous defense looks like. But the prosecutors are afraid because they know they'll never get a conviction with jail time for someone who hasn't hurt or killed anyone. A trial against a capable defendant (not a smuck) will open this up to scrutiny. You can drive 140mph on the highway and never have a accident and lose your car and you license and get a big fine but hardly sentences to prison (you will spend the night in jail). Let's have a big federal case and see what the people (or a judge) thinks about it. Guess we'll never know (and continue to play games meaning slap on the wrist judgments) until someone wants to be the test case. This, hanging over our head, is not good for anyone.

 

[mavic3usa]

When it comes to manned aircraft, I think the FAA needs to take a harsher stand.

Agreed, when you leave the bolts off the plug and it blows off in mid flight....oh wait, you're talking about the pesky drone. Yeah let's jail the drone pilots and do nothing about the repeated careless and negligent activities from near misses to ignoring warnings to sloppy maintenance. But yeah, I agree the FAA needs to get busy.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Only where it concerns other's safety and lives.

@mavic3usa have you ever flown a small plane, like a Cessna 152?

Having that real experience is very instructive in how basically helpless small manned aircraft, usually traveling 100mph+, are to Mavic size drones.

The regs say when aware of an aircraft in the area we are to descend to low altitude unquestionably removing the risk. Covered in TRUST.

I feel that anyone that deliberately risks another's life without them knowing or consenting should be punished very harshly.

 

[mavic3usa]

I feel that anyone that deliberately risks another's life without them knowing or consenting should be punished very harshly.

No one argues with that. What about if it's not deliberate?

 

[Cafguy]

What a Dangerous Idiot. He is endangering peoples Lives! In case any of us needed the tip lol. The idea is to keep out of the way and avoid other Aircraft Not flt towards them for a great Shot.
People like This Bozo will get us all thrown onto FRIA's-- And I guess we all know who to Blame if the Discovery Channel runs its anti-Drone Documentary.
Flying toward a Coast Guard Helicopter? This guy has a few screws loose.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Most of us know that being in the Air at the time of any responders is a no GO !
But how do they Fail on not knowing what Drone the guy had ?

So far I have found 3 Different PIctures of Drone for this incident and none of them seem to be correct.




Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water and Land when you see anything in the Air.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

Most of us know that being in the Air at the time of any responders is a no GO !
But how do they Fail on not knowing what Drone the guy had ?

So far I have found 3 Different PIctures of Drone for this incident and none of them seem to be correct.


View attachment 172588View attachment 172589

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water and Land when you see anything in the Air.

A lot of article (and TV shows for that matter) use stock photography. It's cheaper and easier to get.

 

[BigAl07]

So far I have found 3 Different PIctures of Drone for this incident and none of them seem to be correct.

For those who aren't "Drone Immersed" a drone is a drone is a drone. They, like @MavicAir2Marc stated, grab a STOCK photo and don't give it a 2nd thought. There was a time when EVERY drone picture or clip was a Phantom simply because those were the most readily available images.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

So basically what your saying is , this was the drone being flown in the incident, gotcha, lol



Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water.

 

[StevenBrodsky]

The point of justice and its discipline is to make sure the guilty party doesn't perform the illegal action again. I believe justice was served. I am sure he won't be performing the type of stunts that got him in trouble ever again. Justice is not to be confused with anger and vengefulness.

 

[mavic3usa]

The point of justice and its discipline is to make sure the guilty party doesn't perform the illegal action again. I believe justice was served. I am sure he won't be performing the type of stunts that got him in trouble ever again. Justice is not to be confused with anger and vengefulness.

Ha, some will argue the recidivism rate for drone pilots is in the single digits so the harsh punishment and [non-existent] rehabilitation must be working, eh? I would argue the vast majority of the offenders had no idea they were breaking the law and once they are "educated," they have no intention of breaking the law ever again. Especially if it means going thru the nightmare that is when you get caught. So I agree with you, likely the inevitable plea bargain means never being allowed to fly a drone again which is probably fine for the "victim" who quickly finds out recreational flying drone they are not cut out for. Pretty sure you get caught once and that's the last time. However, I know the common response will be this pilot probably repeated broke the law for years and finally he was caught and now everyone is safer.....you know, like the FPV flyers who buzz around the abandoned structures without a spotter.

 

[BigAl07]

Ha, some will argue the recidivism rate for drone pilots is in the single digits so the harsh punishment and [non-existent] rehabilitation must be working, eh? I would argue the vast majority of the offenders had no idea they were breaking the law and once they are "educated," they have no intention of breaking the law ever again. Especially if it means going thru the nightmare that is when you get caught. So I agree with you, likely the inevitable plea bargain means never being allowed to fly a drone again which is probably fine for the "victim" who quickly finds out recreational flying drone they are not cut out for. Pretty sure you get caught once and that's the last time. However, I know the common response will be this pilot probably repeated broke the law for years and finally he was caught and now everyone is safer.....you know, like the FPV flyers who buzz around the abandoned structures without a spotter.

I don't agree with your logic especially when some of our own (in this very thread) admit to breaking the rules simply because the rules don't fit the way they "want" to fly. Many of the rule breakers know good and well what they are doing is wrong and are merely "counting on" not getting caught.

Comparing what this guy did (3x) putting HUMAN LIVES in danger to an FPV operator blindly buzzing an abandoned structure is like comparing an apple to a mudhole. Completely off base and has zero use in this post what so ever.

 

[crlmjohnson]

No one argues with that. What about if it's not deliberate?

Where is the article?

 

[StevenBrodsky]

Comparing what this guy did (3x) putting HUMAN LIVES in danger to an FPV operator blindly buzzing an abandoned structure is like comparing an apple to a mudhole. Completely off base and has zero use in this post what so ever.

I suppose you can liken the criminal behavior of this guy to a car driver who repeatedly runs red lights just at the time when pedestrians are about to cross the lane. He sees the pedestrians, but he runs the red anyway.

Then you have to ask, what punishment by the police he would get? He would get a ticket for running the red light only. He would not get in trouble for something like attempted manslaughter, even though he came inches away from hitting pedestrians.

What's my point? I don't know. I really don't. I guess I'm just giving a better relative example of what this guy did and the punishment he incurred upon himself.

 

[BigAl07]

I suppose you can liken the criminal behavior of this guy to a car driver who repeatedly runs red lights just at the time when pedestrians are about to cross the lane. He sees the pedestrians, but he runs the red anyway.

Then you have to ask, what punishment by the police he would get? He would get a ticket for running the red light only. He would not get in trouble for something like attempted manslaughter, even though he came inches away from hitting pedestrians.

What's my point? I don't know. I really don't. I guess I'm just giving a better relative example of what this guy did and the punishment he incurred upon himself.

What you're missing (by a mile) is the fact that Aviation doesn't have the luxury of pulling over on the side of the road to evaluate and discuss things should a near miss happens. When MANNED aircraft are Low & Slow they have minimal maneuverability without creating a life ending event (stall/spin to terra firma). When your UAS causes a Manned Aircraft to avoid/divert you have potentially started a chain of events that could be DEADLY! Even without an IMPACT the mere evasive maneuver could cause loss of control and impact with the ground.

One reason why US Aviation has had such a great SAFETY record is because of these "over bearing regulations" and also because, up until the modern MultiRotors came on the scene, the vast majority of Aviators took it seriously and got the required training, practiced, and took Aviation Safety very seriously. They did this because they had a lot of "Skin in the game"... literally their butt was in the seat. Today's UAS Operators have a very Lack Luster view on SAFETY and overall Aviation. They are more worried about "Getting that awesome shot for their family scrapbook/FB/YT etc etc than realizing their actions could literally put people into their graves. They are standing SAFE on the ground doing things that could very negatively affect those with their butt in the seats IN THE AIR.

So again, comparing this horrible UAS operator's actions to a car running a stop sign is a totally INVALID and grossly inadequate comparison.

 

[Torque]

A lot of article (and TV shows for that matter) use stock photography. It's cheaper and easier to get.

The investigators know exactly what drone was being flown, probably down the the serial number. When the media reports, they grab a stock shot of "a drone" to accompany their article. They are not sharing a photo of the offending drone...