FAA FINES PHILADELPHIA DRONE PILOT
- Thread starter wilkie647
- Start date
- Status
Badgersurfer
Well-Known Member
Am I missing something here. So this silly fellow flying illegally and being told so many times as such. 184000+ and dronefolk are endorsing it? He whines about his family, but what about the family he could easily destroy if he hit an aircraft whilst flying BVLOS or simply clipped a building and dropped through the screen of an on coming car. I suppose that would just be an inconsequential occurrence.
The way I see it, any egotistical narcissist can ignore the law but smart flyers stick to it.
The way I see it, any egotistical narcissist can ignore the law but smart flyers stick to it.
Donnie Frank
Well-Known Member
I agree with you. I tried to watch the "Mikey's explanation" videos but I don't have 45 minutes to gather 60 seconds of data.
What I gather is he didn't cause injury or damage. So $182K seems ridiculous.
I also question why the FAA would wait for a 123 infractions before deciding to press charges. Seems very arbitrary to me.
D
His ignoring 123 infraction notices seems more ridiculous.
So if 123 is arbitrary, what is non-arbitrary? 1, 23, 99, 694? I guess the FAA assumed they were dealing with an individual with a modicum of intelligence, thinking he would come to his senses...not the case.
Oh well, it has made for an enjoyable read today....the reactions have been enlightening.
I fully expect the only safe future hobby we can all partake in will be stamp collecting. That way, no one will be injured or offended. As a society we have become so overburdened with rules, regulations, and ‘laws’ that following all of them is an impossibility. And while what he did was foolish, (or reckless) bankrupting the man is also unnecessary. Because you’re not only hurting him, but everyone that also depends on him. I am saddened.
How many have gotten a ticket for driving a vehicle?
Was the fine to the ticket the amount that he has to pay?
Remember even if you do like the fellow or what he did, if they are allowed to do that to him then they can fine you the same amount.
Then what are you going to do?
They saw an opportunity to make some money when all they had to do was to take away his drone.
Don't you see this is a set up for when the law changes?
Hit you were it really counts.... in your wallet.
Was the fine to the ticket the amount that he has to pay?
Remember even if you do like the fellow or what he did, if they are allowed to do that to him then they can fine you the same amount.
Then what are you going to do?
They saw an opportunity to make some money when all they had to do was to take away his drone.
Don't you see this is a set up for when the law changes?
Hit you were it really counts.... in your wallet.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Have you ever had over 100 unpaid tickets and failed to respond to them? I'm pretty sure they would put you in jail.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2018
- Messages
- 8,344
- Reactions
- 13,540
- Age
- 55
At first I thought this same way than I realized of all the Youtubers they could have choosen he has zero money, only 3000 subs and on welfare and food stamps.
I honestly think that because he was flying every day in the same spots that the People in line of his drone were the ones that called the FAA and put them in a position to do something to stop him.
You have the Crane Operators that were not happy, The train conductor that was very alarmed and the people in the building and those boaters out on the water.
Makes sense if they kept calling into the FAA that they would send an infraction letter hoping to stop it.
I noticed in one of the videos that there were two helicopters that forced him down out of the Crane area that day as they were swinging the cranes around ,
I really think the FAA has done there best to say out of everyone business except when forced to have to do something such in this case.
There is a questions on the 107 Test that asks if you knowingly break and FAA regulation should you contact the FAA and the answer was NO , they will contact you. This was such a powerful statement.
A warning letter would have worked for anyone of us in this forum.
Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in the Rain and Float on Water.
And he's lying.
I know of at least two (& there are others) who told him what he was doing wrong and how to do it right multiple times. He knew he should have applied for LAANC approvals and just didn't want to.
He deserves everything coming to him.
Remote Pilots Australia
Well-Known Member
Oh wow, a lot of Black and White opinions here, but it's not that black and white to me. Maybe I need to have a little more human compassion burned out of me before my opinions are fit for the mainstream.
Full disclosure, I know Mikey fairly well. He's a loveable idiot to many and an annoyance to others. I'm in the former category. I wouldn't call him unintelligent by any means. Uneducated, probably. He certainly graduated from the school of hard knocks. To answer one rather unkind question here, I'm pretty certain that he is totally clean and has been for many years but his life experiences have obviously left him with some emotional scars that I am sure have some bearing on how this has all played out.
I can't watch his videos personally, too much yelling and screaming and theatre for me. I still have a touch of PTSD and it sets me off so I don't watch.
I told him along time ago it wasn't going to end well in my eyes, I wasn't the only one by any means but he thought differently and now we're here.
I would never EVER do what he did. I'm a commercial operator, I have thousands invested in training, equipment and business related expenses and that sort of "act now care later" attitude is not in my make up. I don't defend him in any way and we all know and agree that he certainly had something coming.
So, let's look at the other side of this. We all as individuals have an obligation to conduct ourselves in an equitable manner that does not affect the life style and safety of others. That's why we have regulatory bodies, to ensure this. Those regulatory bodies in turn have an obligation to deal with the public in an equitable manner. We all like to point out and down cry others who don't abide by the restrictions that we abide by willingly and cheer from the side lines when they inevitably fall but is this penalty in this equitable? I'd argue not.
We only know what we have been told, Mike says and probably quite rightly that as this is still active he is limited to what he can say wisely. As far as anyone knows at this point he was not breached for flying over population, airspace violations etc. The only confirmed breaches we know about are "flying in the rain", "flying in fog" and the like and everything else he has done the FAA seems have covered with the blanket charge of "Reckless flying". More charges may, probably will, come out in time but that's what we know now.
What we do know for sure is that FAA knew about this for over a year, indeed they sent him correspondence every month (not for every flight as someone else claimed) listing their concerns which, being an idiot (loveable or not) he ignored. Well I'm sorry, FAA can't have it both ways.
If this was an issue of public safety how does the FAA justify allowing it to knowingly continue daily for over a year while taking no affirmative action to stop it? Here in Australia my door would have been kicked in about the time I ignored the first letter, in fact there would have been no letter in a case of genuine safety concerns. I would have been collared personally. Rightly so.
If on the other hand as suggested by the lack of affirmative action there was no clear and immediate danger to the public then how is this level of penalty justifiable? Remember, we all agree he had something coming but it is a basic underpinning of western democracy and our justice systems that "The punishment should reflect the gravity of the crime". No more and no less. Remember, no one was actually harmed, frightened or offended during the course of his infractions.
Let's put aside the "lynch mob mentality" for a minute. I don't expect my regulatory bodies to sit by for a year and allow something to go on and then when it has reached some arbitrary point to all of a sudden jump in and punish an individual by literally destroying his life. I have serious concerns for Mike's personal safety. Are we all going to feel righteously vindicated and that justice is done when Mike offs himself and his family suffers, let's not forget them, who have done nothing but how are they going to be affected by a $184004 fine? On the streets much? Don't tell me "he should have thought of that before hand" because we've all done stuff we should have thought of before hand. "When you are up to your neck in alligators it's hard to remember that the original intention was to drain the swamp". We're past that point now.
What should of happened is that as soon as it became apparent what Mike was doing he should have been pinged then and there, breached for his actions and faced a just $4 - $5k fine which I am pretty sure would have been quite a speed bump in his life while still allowing him a life to go on with.
In my mind such heavy handed actions by regulatory bodies become an obvious exercise in compliance not in safety and as such they reduce the repute and the respect given to the authority taking these actions. When you don't respect the regulatory body the incentive to take them seriously is greatly lessened.
Also, fair go chaps. You might not agree with me and that's fine but let's play the ball and not the man. I'm not calling anyone out here personally because I have a different opinion. I'd appreciate the same.
Regards
Ari
Full disclosure, I know Mikey fairly well. He's a loveable idiot to many and an annoyance to others. I'm in the former category. I wouldn't call him unintelligent by any means. Uneducated, probably. He certainly graduated from the school of hard knocks. To answer one rather unkind question here, I'm pretty certain that he is totally clean and has been for many years but his life experiences have obviously left him with some emotional scars that I am sure have some bearing on how this has all played out.
I can't watch his videos personally, too much yelling and screaming and theatre for me. I still have a touch of PTSD and it sets me off so I don't watch.
I told him along time ago it wasn't going to end well in my eyes, I wasn't the only one by any means but he thought differently and now we're here.
I would never EVER do what he did. I'm a commercial operator, I have thousands invested in training, equipment and business related expenses and that sort of "act now care later" attitude is not in my make up. I don't defend him in any way and we all know and agree that he certainly had something coming.
So, let's look at the other side of this. We all as individuals have an obligation to conduct ourselves in an equitable manner that does not affect the life style and safety of others. That's why we have regulatory bodies, to ensure this. Those regulatory bodies in turn have an obligation to deal with the public in an equitable manner. We all like to point out and down cry others who don't abide by the restrictions that we abide by willingly and cheer from the side lines when they inevitably fall but is this penalty in this equitable? I'd argue not.
We only know what we have been told, Mike says and probably quite rightly that as this is still active he is limited to what he can say wisely. As far as anyone knows at this point he was not breached for flying over population, airspace violations etc. The only confirmed breaches we know about are "flying in the rain", "flying in fog" and the like and everything else he has done the FAA seems have covered with the blanket charge of "Reckless flying". More charges may, probably will, come out in time but that's what we know now.
What we do know for sure is that FAA knew about this for over a year, indeed they sent him correspondence every month (not for every flight as someone else claimed) listing their concerns which, being an idiot (loveable or not) he ignored. Well I'm sorry, FAA can't have it both ways.
If this was an issue of public safety how does the FAA justify allowing it to knowingly continue daily for over a year while taking no affirmative action to stop it? Here in Australia my door would have been kicked in about the time I ignored the first letter, in fact there would have been no letter in a case of genuine safety concerns. I would have been collared personally. Rightly so.
If on the other hand as suggested by the lack of affirmative action there was no clear and immediate danger to the public then how is this level of penalty justifiable? Remember, we all agree he had something coming but it is a basic underpinning of western democracy and our justice systems that "The punishment should reflect the gravity of the crime". No more and no less. Remember, no one was actually harmed, frightened or offended during the course of his infractions.
Let's put aside the "lynch mob mentality" for a minute. I don't expect my regulatory bodies to sit by for a year and allow something to go on and then when it has reached some arbitrary point to all of a sudden jump in and punish an individual by literally destroying his life. I have serious concerns for Mike's personal safety. Are we all going to feel righteously vindicated and that justice is done when Mike offs himself and his family suffers, let's not forget them, who have done nothing but how are they going to be affected by a $184004 fine? On the streets much? Don't tell me "he should have thought of that before hand" because we've all done stuff we should have thought of before hand. "When you are up to your neck in alligators it's hard to remember that the original intention was to drain the swamp". We're past that point now.
What should of happened is that as soon as it became apparent what Mike was doing he should have been pinged then and there, breached for his actions and faced a just $4 - $5k fine which I am pretty sure would have been quite a speed bump in his life while still allowing him a life to go on with.
In my mind such heavy handed actions by regulatory bodies become an obvious exercise in compliance not in safety and as such they reduce the repute and the respect given to the authority taking these actions. When you don't respect the regulatory body the incentive to take them seriously is greatly lessened.
Also, fair go chaps. You might not agree with me and that's fine but let's play the ball and not the man. I'm not calling anyone out here personally because I have a different opinion. I'd appreciate the same.
Regards
Ari
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reactions
- 896
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MI
- Site
- karlblessing.com
Noticing a common trend that most of the folks who are coming to his defense... haven't watched his footage and are trying to use his ignorance or stubbornness as a defense. I mean, you could be a crappy driver for lack of better analogy (since you don't have to take a test to be a recreational flyer), but you can't keep being an idiot without repercussions, you'll get your license taken away at the very least constantly doing it.
So being defensive, but not acknowledging the willful recklessness (in this case by not even watching the content in question) is basically wearing horse blinders and its a bit telling about one's character of what they'll ignore in the name of friendship.
Far as playing the ball and not the chap... the people who actually watched the footage, and compared it to the infractions he's being charged with... they are calling out the behavior that is impacted, they're not slapping him down just because he has a silly/obnoxious YouTube personality. We have plenty of that online, but they're not ignoring hundreds of notices and claiming ignorance. At the same time, the personality doesn't help with any kind of angle where may end up trying to claim being an activist of sort (which is hard to do if you already claimed ignorance).
So being defensive, but not acknowledging the willful recklessness (in this case by not even watching the content in question) is basically wearing horse blinders and its a bit telling about one's character of what they'll ignore in the name of friendship.
Far as playing the ball and not the chap... the people who actually watched the footage, and compared it to the infractions he's being charged with... they are calling out the behavior that is impacted, they're not slapping him down just because he has a silly/obnoxious YouTube personality. We have plenty of that online, but they're not ignoring hundreds of notices and claiming ignorance. At the same time, the personality doesn't help with any kind of angle where may end up trying to claim being an activist of sort (which is hard to do if you already claimed ignorance).
Now that the FAA has his attention, I'm sure the fine will be reduced to something that he can reasonably work with but still hurt.
Remote Pilots Australia
Well-Known Member
I've watched enough to know what he was doing, I couldn't have warned him it was going to end badly if I hadn't known. I just can't watch his regular broadcasts as it sets me off.
Although others might be trying to I'm not defending him in any way at all. He's guilty. I've already said that I would never do it and make no excuses for it.
The "playing the ball not the man" comment was aimed at expected comments towards myself not Mike (and I'm not in any way suggesting that you have said anything untoward, your comment is all fair)
My main point is that I believe the penalty is OTT and the FAA in allowing it to knowing go on for over a year and doing nothing abrogates the right to portray this as an action motivated in the interests of safety.
Regards
Ari
Remote Pilots Australia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reactions
- 896
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MI
- Site
- karlblessing.com
Cost wise I do feel like it's over the top as far as putting a price on an infraction. I imagine they did so for two reasons (and this is purely speculative).
1) They're more likely to go after corporations or larger companies for infractions, and smaller fines won't really be a deterrent, that is if there was any real likelihood of those fines ever actually being paid.
2) Larger numbers create a media spectacle, which is a sort of round-about free publicity PSA of saying "We're not f'ing around"... despite not doing anything quite so drastic until after a year, waiting for a live-feed that could be seen as a taunt of sort. The probably would have kept sending notices for a while, eventually having a court summon, but then probably saw the live streaming as intentionally challenging their authority.
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
Thanev
Well-Known Member
Looks like a lot of operators saw this reaction to not only infractions,but the posting of such.At test case...perhaps. A warning...for sure. Wonder how many more posts on social media we will see showing disregard for laws/rules placed upon our hobby...and the reaction from the public on their perceptions of us as responsible drone /RPAS pilots.We may be doomed.
- Status
Similar threads
