FAA FINES PHILADELPHIA DRONE PILOT

[karlblessing]

I also think people who post "let's see the range of this drone" and fly it out 2-5 miles are idiots as well. Does not take a lot of brainpower to know that is well outside VLOS. (Mod Removed Language)anything outside of 1000-1500 feet (depending on the drone and if you have lights) is hard to keep in sight...would need extremely good eyes for that. Want to know just how far you are able to see your drone? Find a large field or very flat straight road. Have someone hold the drone and keep walking till you can no longer make it out. That's about as far as you should fly. Add to that sun, clouds, and other weather anomalies and it will be shorter. If I'm flying at 400 feet directly over my head I have a hard time seeing the Mini 2. Now go out a 500-1000ft and it's not even a dot anymore.

Just saw that the other day on FB quite a few new flyers... but we're not allowed to "drone police" or call em out.



And so on.

And I concur about the distance, with the little DJI Mini 2, if I'm out in the wilderness, on a mostly overcast day. I can barely see the Mini 2 shortly before getting 2000 feet away at roughly 150-200 feet high. The firehouse Arc "V" light on the bottom helps at least figure out where in the sky it is, but it's just a little blinking light there's no reliable sense of distance in relation to other objects that far away to really count as VLOS. So for me 1,500-ish feet away is about the limit where I could rely on VLOS to navigate it a bit with some good margin of error clearing over certain structures, and least be able to manually fly it back in if the phone craps out.

 

[Droning on and on...]

...
Not sure that's true, as a building would still count as as the ground.
...

Buildings are not the ground. (Pretty much by definition.)

 

[Scubadiver1944]

I had a look last night at his latest post on YouTube. Near to tears at times, the penny seems to have dropped with him at last that there are situations, where if you ignore reasonable regulations, which are there for a purpose, that you can't do what you want, when you want, to who you want, without repercussions. Problem is that the attitude he displayed in his "cowboy" flying antics, if copied by others, could lead to even further restrictions on those of us who do abide by the rules. Mikey got himself into this mess, I hope he can get himself out of it.

Mikey has been warned numerous times by other drone enthusiasts that he was being reckless. I can’t mention on this forum the vulgarities he threw at all detractors but suffice it to say he’s getting his comeuppance. It’s irresponsible fliers like Mikey that threaten this hobby for the rest of us. Anyone that supports him is also part of the problem.

 

[PhantomFandom]

I'd assume he's flying too close to Phila. Intl. Airport.

It depends on the flight. I only watched one of them from start to finish (which I referenced in an earlier response), and in that particular video he flew over the Comcast Center in Philadelphia. That is clear airspace due to a carve out in the Class B airspace. The Class B shelf sits at 1500 feet there and he got up to about 11 feet. Since he is so cavalier and has no regard for regulations, i am sure there are flights where he was inside controlled airspace.

Seems that each one has a fine in the area of $1500. Perhaps I'm just "wired differently", but I would have taken the first one seriously.

EXACTLY! Stop crying the blues and pleading ignorance when the FAA kept sending letters.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Only one I’m slightly confused about. Assuming he wasn’t in controlled air space (which it seems he obviously was), isn’t it 400 feet above above ground, 400 feet above buildings, a 400 feet above a building within a radius of 400 feet?

I don’t know the area the person in the video is flying and what types of flight restrictions are there. But if the limit in the area of the sky scrapers is 400 feet, and one of the buildings is 500 foot tall, couldn’t he fly as high as 900 feet legally if he theorically maintains line of sight and the proper distance to the building?

No problem being a novice. You ask questions and that is how you learn.

I fly in this area ll the time and know the airspace very well.

The 400 foot rule you referenced (up to 400 feet above a building or tower within a 400 foot radius of the structure) applies only to certificated Part 107 pilots on a Part 107 flight. This rule is not applicable to recreational pilots or flights. All such flights are limited strictly to 400 feet AGL. Also the 400 foot rule above a structure does not apply if you are flying under LAANC authorization (the approved altitude is absolute) or if the altitude would cause you to enter controlled airspace.

 

[VenomXts]

I am done on this topic and notifications of it... Who wants to talk gun control it's easier.

 

[PhantomFandom]

2) It also appears that there's a lot of little pockets of restricted space in Philly that are classified as prisons.

Prisons and multiple national landmarks, all of which are officially restricted by the FAA. They are all also very well documented on any chart you reference. A pilot must be very careful in this area.

Not sure that's true, as a building would still count as as the ground.

It is true. Recreational flights/pilots can not fly above 400 feet AGL.

 

[karlblessing]

Prisons and multiple national landmarks, all of which are officially restricted by the FAA. They are all also very well documented on any chart you reference. A pilot must be very careful in this area.


It is true. Recreational flights/pilots can not fly above 400 feet AGL.

Good to know, so basically if you have a 300 foot building, the maximum you can go over it (assuming you're not invading anyone's privacy or approaching a heliport) is 100 ft (ie: total 400 agl).

 

[PhantomFandom]

Good to know, so basically if you have a 300 foot building, the maximum you can go over it (assuming you're not invading anyone's privacy or approaching a heliport) is 100 ft (ie: total 400 agl).

Yes that is correct.

A part 107 flight however could exceed the building height by 400 feet.

So this interesting point comes up, which I have run across myself...
I can fly after dark if it is purely a recreational flight. I can fly almost 400 feet above the tallest building in Philadelphia (Comcast Tower tops out at 1122 feet AGL) except I am restricted to 1500 feet by Class B airspace above it, if I am flying a Part 107 flight. However I cannot fly to that same altitude at night without an FAA waiver because I cannot fly at night as a Part 107 flight and I cannot fly to that altitude as a recreational flight.

 

[EricJT]

Novice here. Don’t kill me.

I understand most of the violations he’s made. Especially flying out of VLOS, etc.

Only one I’m slightly confused about. Assuming he wasn’t in controlled air space (which it seems he obviously was), isn’t it 400 feet above above ground, 400 feet above buildings, a 400 feet above a building within a radius of 400 feet?

I don’t know the area the person in the video is flying and what types of flight restrictions are there. But if the limit in the area of the sky scrapers is 400 feet, and one of the buildings is 500 foot tall, couldn’t he fly as high as 900 feet legally if he theorically maintains line of sight and the proper distance to the building?

Besides the question of flying over a building, as soon as the pilot edges past the permiter of the building, he is 900 feet AGL.

 

[spsphotos]

Buildings are not the ground. (Pretty much by definition.)

Not true. At least in terms of Part 107 licenses.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Besides the question of flying over a building, as soon as the pilot edges past the permiter of the building, he is 900 feet AGL.

The rule for Part 107 flights ONLY is that you can fly up to 400 feet above the structure as long as you are within 400 feet laterally of that structure. So even if you are not directly over the structure, you are still legal.

 

[PhantomFandom]

mightypilot2000 said:
Buildings are not the ground. (Pretty much by definition.)

Not true. At least in terms of Part 107 licenses.

Sorry but you are not correct. Ground and structures (buildings) are two very different things even under Part 107 regulations. Yes a Part 107 pilot can fly 400 feet above buildings, but they are still NOT considered ground. This is a very important distinction in many ways. For instance if you have Class B airspace above your head at 1500 feet, that is ALWAYS in reference to actual ground and not a structure. The same applies to LAANC authorizations. Those are always in reference to ground. Under your definition of ground being the same as building height, you would break through the altitude limits imposed by these two examples.

 

[spsphotos]

Besides the question of flying over a building, as soon as the pilot edges past the permiter of the building, he is 900 feet AGL.

For recreational pilots, it is 400ft AGL. PERIOD. But if you have a Part107 license, the rules are a bit different. According to the rule, a pilot can fly their drone above 400 feet if they are within 400 feet of a structure. So, this clown admits to NOT having a license and goes ahead and flies upwards of 1200 feet (from what I saw of one of his more recent Mini 2 vids). He tries to pretend he is not flying and makes up a fake voice of what is supposed to be a "licensed" pilot, but it's so blatantly comical that you know it's BS. So, even after getting nailed he STILL is going out and breaking the law.

 

[mayneunit]

I disagree, coming down hard on stuff like this is a complete overreach. I haven't watched any of his stuff but that amount of money for this even stacked upon is a failure of the way they police this.

I’m sure he was paid from YouTube about that much for the content he was showing. So if he earned that much showing illegal flights then its fair.

But hope this doesn’t set a new president of fining of other RPAS pilots

 

[Repaid1]

Just a add on, they (FAA) are fining him as a 107 pilot so any applicable rules or fines are considered as he is indeed a 107 commercial pilot. They are not citing him as breaking any recreational guidelines it is all in 107ish rules and procedures. This per his conversations with Youtuber OriginaldoBo and the actual FAA documentation submitted to butthead...not that it makes a difference per say..just tossing that in there.

 

[Repaid1]

I’m sure he was paid from YouTube about that much for the content he was showing. So if he earned that much showing illegal flights then its fair.

But hope this doesn’t set a new president of fining of other RPAS pilots

Read the whole thread, he made pennies on his videos. He has no real following, subs or view time, if this was Casey Neistat it wouldn't be a big deal he would write them a check and be on his merry way...and on that, he (Casey) should have been the first to be caught and fined..he pretty much started all this youtube drone breaking the law for hits thing. As it was, as a "Celebrity" FAA gave him a warning and a "pass" (He listened to their warnings) complied, and got his 107. And now flies in compliance with regs. (More or less)

 

[JOHNVOSS]

Re:VLOS I wonder what percentage of the Youtube videos out there violate this reg. With my 82 year eyes I lose sight of my MM1 very quickly.

 

[Repaid1]

Re:VLOS I wonder what percentage of the Youtube videos out there violate this reg. With my 82 year eyes I lose sight of my MM1 very quickly.

If I were to hazard a guess at what I see...about 90% at one video or another. Which BTW is his "Defense": Why me...everybody else is doing it

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Re:VLOS I wonder what percentage of the Youtube videos out there violate this reg. With my 82 year eyes I lose sight of my MM1 very quickly.

Regarding VLOS - I do not think that any of the infractions that he incurred had anything do do with flying beyond VLOS based on the infractions he mentioned and read last night.

Everyone surpasses VLOS and when they do we bring it back, its that simple.
The FAA is not out get out anyone with Common Sense so VLOS is good practice but its not a witch hunt in any way.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in the Rain and Float on Water.