FAA FINES PHILADELPHIA DRONE PILOT

[Chip]

One hopes that the FAA is still regulated by a human being, and there is still some modicum of compassion if the accused pleads guilty.

Yes, one would hope that in addition to honesty and competency, there would be ethics and compassion. I just checked out the article linked in Corsair's post and then the actual Senate report it references (linked below).

The FAA ignored safety issues ahead of deadly crashes, cozied up with companies it was supposed to regulate, and retaliated against whistleblowers, according to an explosive congressional investigation

An explosive congressional report released on Friday found "significant lapses in aviation safety oversight and failed leadership" at the Federal Aviation Administration.

The report determined that the agency repeatedly ignored safety warnings ahead of fatal crashes, was cozy with the companies it was supposed to regulate, and retaliated against whistleblowers who raised concerns. It also said the FAA and Boeing improperly influenced tests meant to determine if 737 MAX aircraft were safe to fly again, and that the FAA let Southwest Airlines put "millions of passengers at potential risk" by not knowing if planes were safe. The report summarizes the findings of a nearly two-year-long Senate investigation prompted by two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX planes, which the FAA cleared to fly again last month.

A few of the major points from the report include:

During tests meant to determine if the 737 MAX was safe to fly again, Boeing "inappropriately influenced" flight simulation tests.

FAA senior leadership "may have obstructed" a review of the crashes conducted by the Department of Transportation's inspector general. (The FAA said it "conducted a thorough and deliberate review" along with international regulators and was "confident" that the safety issues that played a role in the crashes have been addressed.).

The FAA "repeatedly permitted Southwest Airlines to continue operating dozens of aircraft in an unknown airworthiness condition for several years. These flights put millions of passengers at potential risk."

FAA leadership repeatedly overruled and undermined the agency's frontline safety inspectors and ignored their warnings - and, in at least one case, the warning preceded a fatal crash.

Multiple whistleblowers alleged a culture of "coziness" between the FAA and Boeing as well as other companies within its regulatory scope.

The FAA provided "contradictory and misleading" information to congressional investigators, refused to answer more than half of its questions and refused to let them interview many of its staff.

The FAA "continues to retaliate against whistleblowers."

Senate Report

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FFDA35FA-0442-465D-AC63-5634D9D3CEF6

 

[Ex Coelis]

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

Well said; fairest and most well balanced comment of the lot.

 

[Reginald E Johnson]

Well said; fairest and most well balanced comment of the lot.

The only thing I can add to this that the Man is fearless! I don’t have the nerve or intestinal fortitude to fly like that! If he needs donations to help him, I’m down for that!

 

[hiflyer201]

What would you do if you were responsible for public safety and you saw his videos?

 

[spsphotos]

Well said; fairest and most well balanced comment of the lot.

Well, not really. Sure the FAA should have stepped in faster, but that is not an excuse. As RPA he was fully aware of his actions. As for hurting people...he was flying in the city...would almost certainly hit someone or something if it had fell. Thus, reckless. FAA likes to educate first, punish last. But if you refuse to be educated...well...

 

[Rich QR]

I think neither side should have let the fines accumulate so high before taking decisive action to bring the situation to conclusion. But it took two sides ignoring things to let it go this far.

On the other hand, a couple hundred thousand is peanuts compared to the potential liability exposure from bringing a helicopter down into a crowded city. If he wasn't licensed, I'll bet he didn't have valid liability coverage. He should be grateful to the authorities for putting a halt to things before they started getting really expensive.

 

[FASTFJR]

His honestly one of the obnoxious people I've see on YT

 

[cgmaxed]

If this is a civil suite, which it is, the Judge will have to weigh in. If he is fined the full amount, bankruptcy will easily remove the debt. However, the judge may reduce the fines and give him some sort of community service and restrict drone use. Does anyone know his court date?

 

[cgmaxed]

What would you do if you were responsible for public safety and you saw his videos?

I certainly wouldn't search youtube for the rest of his videos and fine him again and again. I would talk to my supervisor. I would ask for maybe one fine and void the rest of his infractions, seeing how ludicrous the amount of fines there are in this case. Then restrict his flight or make him take the 107 test.

 

[Classic flyer]

If this is a civil suite, which it is, the Judge will have to weigh in. If he is fined the full amount, bankruptcy will easily remove the debt. However, the judge may reduce the fines and give him some sort of community service and restrict drone use. Does anyone know his court date?

Reduce the fine to $50,000....2yrs jail time... no more drones... and 1500 hours of community service....all that would send a very strong message...jmo...be smart fly safe

 

[cgmaxed]

Reduce the fine to $50,000....2yrs jail time... no more drones... and 1500 hours of community service....all that would send a very strong message...jmo...be smart fly safe

It's a civil case. Not criminal. No jail, sorry. Oh, by the way, I think the FAA has sent their message. It's quite clear.

 

[Classic flyer]

It's a civil case. Not criminal. No jail, sorry. Oh, by the way, I think the FAA has sent their message. It's quite clear.

Ok then make the fine $75,000 in Lew of jail time

 

[Classic flyer]

It's a civil case. Not criminal. No jail, sorry. Oh, by the way, I think the FAA has sent their message. It's quite clear.

If it's not enforced then the message is mute

 

[vfrailing]

MA2 317" data-source="post: 1146998" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

That's what I thought. $1,500 for the first one, and then another 122 after that.

"...received 123 letters from the FAA. Each letter fining him for $1,500 for various violations. The total amount in civil penalties adds up to a staggering $184,500."


Better call Saul. ?

Yikes! Glad to see some enforcing, though

 

[Rich QR]

I would ask for maybe one fine and void the rest of his infractions, seeing how ludicrous the amount of fines there are in this case. Then restrict his flight or make him take the 107 test.

How are you going to restrict his flight or make him take the 107 test? He obviously doesn't listen to authority.

The FAA has been asking him for a year to obey the most basic altitude and airspace restrictions, and put him on notice that the violations make him liable for severe fines. His response has consistently been to ignore the laws and the fines, and repeat the misbehavior that got him in trouble before.

Do you think that telling him not to fly will have a different result? If you ask him to get a 107 license, do you think he'll do it? I believe his violation record ought to make him ineligible, but if he somehow gets a 107 license, do you think he'll suddenly start obeying the rules?

"I asked you nicely not to do that. You now leave me no choice but to ask you nicely once again."

His repeated behavior has convinced me that he's not going to follow the rules. The important thing is to prevent him from hurting someone. I'd consider a deal where he could have 99% of the fine deferred, on the condition that he forfeits his drone and never again fly any powered vehicle in US airspace. If he's caught flying a drone, the full fine becomes due immediately. I don't know if that sort of deal is legally possible.

 

[cgmaxed]

How are you going to restrict his flight or make him take the 107 test? He obviously doesn't listen to authority.

The FAA has been asking him for a year to obey the most basic altitude and airspace restrictions, and put him on notice that the violations make him liable for severe fines. His response has consistently been to ignore the laws and the fines, and repeat the misbehavior that got him in trouble before.

Do you think that telling him not to fly will have a different result? If you ask him to get a 107 license, do you think he'll do it? I believe his violation record ought to make him ineligible, but if he somehow gets a 107 license, do you think he'll suddenly start obeying the rules?

"I asked you nicely not to do that. You now leave me no choice but to ask you nicely once again."

His repeated behavior has convinced me that he's not going to follow the rules. The important thing is to prevent him from hurting someone. I'd consider a deal where he could have 99% of the fine deferred, on the condition that he forfeits his drone and never again fly any powered vehicle in US airspace. If he's caught flying a drone, the full fine becomes due immediately. I don't know if that sort of deal is legally possible.

Point taken. A judge can come up with almost any line of punishment conditions. If anything, I expect he will have to declare bankruptcy. He's screwed. Bankruptcy sucks. I wonder if we will ever hear the ruling.

 

[dirkclod]

Well he might make a video on his channel about it when it does. ?

 

[Deleted member 103366]

Is he still broadcasting?

 

[dirkclod]

Is he still broadcasting?

?‍ Don’t know don’t care to look ?

Added.. couldn’t stand it I looked and believe he is. Several months back with a Mini 2. Would post it but he has a mouth on em ?

 

[Tomk_]

I've never watched any of his videos... but he has posted drone footage within the last week. Perhaps it's old footage, but seeing as how this has been going on for months... it looks like he is still flying based on he has posted footage from at least three different drones since he posted about the fine. Mini 2, Air 2, and the Autel Evo.