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.
First of all, I commend you for looking at both sides and being as objective as possible about someone you know fairly well. You laid out valid points without making it all about emotion or sympathy for someone you know.
Life is not always black and white, and certainly this case is not either. However, this is about as close to one side (guilty as charged) as one could probably ever ask for. If this were a legal criminal case, the prosecuting attorney would be in heaven with all of the self-incriminating evidence that is out there on public display. There are videos with telemetry, him narrating, and views of him on the control sticks. It is the proverbial slam-dunk.
His attitude and contempt towards the FAA certainly does not help either. Yes contempt, as I saw in one interview with three other YouTube drone flyers. The number of times he told the FAA to go blank themselves was appalling. Admittedly I have not watched much of his videos because I am not a fan of the non-funny curse-laden commentary, and contradictory statements regarding all of this. However I have seen enough to note that he has indeed broken almost every possible FAA regulation imaginable, disregarded repeated warnings from the FAA, disregarded valid advice from others who know him, and still claims he did no wrong or that he didn't know.
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.
Fair enough. I don't know the man so I can not comment on his level of intelligence. In one of his videos he claims that he personally feels he is not dumb and that he considers himself rather intelligent. He also talks about the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of hours he spent tearing apart his MM and getting to know everything about it. If that is all true then how can he come out and say that the FAA regulations are too complex, and that they change too often to keep up? Neither of those two statements are true in my opinion. Sure the actual laws were written by attorneys and bureaucrats which makes for very tough reading; however the regulations are very well summarized on the FAA site and constantly covered in forums like these. If he is so intelligent then there is no reasons to claim ignorance of the regulations. In fact in some videos he intentionally switches characters over to his "imaginary Part 107 pilot friend" when in a situation that would require such certification (like flying over buildings at altitude over 400 feet). If he had no knowledge of such regulations, then how does that commentary arise?
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 totally agree with you. Don't question his sobriety and other aspects of his life unless you have direct knowledge. I give him great credit for losing the weight and kicking the drug habit, as those are both incredibly difficult things to do. However those things lend nothing to this situation in either direction. The public should not doubt his sobriety because it has nothing to do with this. Likewise he should personally stop comingling the two as if getting past those hurdles gives him a free pass to do whatever he likes with a drone...yes he constantly mentions his past in connection with this situation. They are totally separate things...keep them separate.
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.
Of course the penalty here is very very very harsh. You must remember a few things though. He disregarded repeated warnings over the course of an entire year from the FAA. Had he looked into this after the very first letter, he wouldn't be where he is today. What "intelligent person" disregards over 100 letters/warnings from the FAA over the course of a year?
Also these are the proposed fines, and await his response as well as negotiation. In most cases the FAA will negotiate a more equitable settlement amount and educate the RPIC as to proper operation of a UAS. However he needs to own up to the fact that he was WRONG and stop putting the blame on others.
If he starts to take it seriously and shows that he is willing to learn and change, the FAA will most likely work out a reduced fine that will still hurt but be more in line with what he can actually manage to pay off over time.
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.
Sorry but this is ridiculous. He has been spouting off about this situation and the fined amount all over the place. Yet he has yet to say anything about what the actual content of the letters. Even in an ongoing legal case, the actual content of the letters would not hurt neither party, nor prevent the case from being settled equitably. It is his commentary and attitude that hurt his case, and yet that continues. Any competent attorney would just tell him to shut up!
Flying in the rain is not against regulations, as long as it does not impeded VLOS. I think there needs to be other content in those letters that we just don't know about.
Reckless flying may indeed be a blanket charge, but in these flights it fits very well. As stated previously, I know this area very well and fly here all the time. His flights were definitely reckless. It is abundantly clear that he flies BVLOS, he flies over people, he flies over moving vehicles, he flies well over 400 feet, and he has zero regard for flying in controlled airspace.
Many RPIC constantly complain about the DJI warnings and Geo Zone restrictions, including dozens on this very forum. Yet Mikey repeatedly gets those warnings and simply skips over them. This is problematic in a few ways. First, would not an "intelligent man" wonder about why those warnings are coming up and actually research what they refer to? Second it points out why the warnings are necessary for DJI. Sure they say it is to promote safe flying, but it's more of a legal issue so that a wayward RPIC does not attempt to sue the deep pockets of DJI. Third, it shows those that complain, why the warnings and restrictions will only get worse, not better. It is people like Mikey that make things worse for those of us who try our best to follow the regulations while flying legally and safely.
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.
The authorities in the USA and in Australia obviously work very differently. The FAA is actually short staffed and underfunded. Enforcement actions do take time and they really do try to work out an equitable solution before using a heavy handed approach. Mikey kept ignoring the warnings and this is why it has come to this.
As to the FAA FSDO here in Philadelphia, I will say that they have not been at all friendly or particularly knowledgeable when I have reached out to them. That is indeed a problem, since they have neither the man-power nor the will to actually talk to and help pilots seeking guidance or assistance. You still CAN NOT ignore them though!
Remember, no one was actually harmed, frightened or offended during the course of his infractions.
This is conjecture about no one being frightened or offended. Either way, frightening or offending someone is not against the FAA regulations, unless you are actually flying in a manner that breaks personal privacy laws.
No one being harmed is rather besides the point. Do we need to wait until someone is harmed in order to take action? Isn't the point of these regulations to prevent people from being harmed? In fact the mission of the FAA is to promote safety in all aspects of aviation. Just because no one was hurt, does not make Mikey's actions any less serious.
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
No lynch mob here. Just the culmination of repeated offenses by a person who ignored all rules and regulations and now the chickens have come home to roost. The regulatory body did NOT sit idly by for a year. They sent over ONE HUNDRED letters and warnings. The only one who sat idly by was Mikey. He needed to address the issue after the very first letter from the FAA.
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.
If he had addressed the issue immediately after the first letter, the fine was likely only $1,500 and may have even been reduced or waived altogether if he agreed to educate himself on the regulations and flown in accordance with them from then on. He chose not to do so.
So at this point the FAA will most likely still negotiate the total fine and it may become much more "reasonable". Not sure if it will get down to $5K but I would certainly hope that it can be negotiated to well under $20K.
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.
Very fair and even handed posting by you sir. I don't agree with everything you said, but I don't disagree with all of it either. The point is that we can have a fair, open, and honest discussion without personal attacks.
