FAA to UAS Violation Enforcement for December 2021 (hopefully one of many)

[BigAl07]

As you'll soon be hearing from @Vic Moss and Greg @pilotinstitute have been working to get more "information" released to the public about enforcement actions/fines/sanctions that have been taken against UAS operations. In our FAA Safty Team report we finally had a tid bit we can share.

This is taken directly from the EMAIL but expect more from those I mentioned at the start of this:

"Recent Drone Enforcement Case
In December 2021, the FAA issued a fine to a drone operator for flying a drone over protest events in upstate New York. The regulations violated by the recreational flyer that happened during a series of three separate flights in October and November 2020. The self-proclaimed recreational flyer did not comply with all of the eight requirements listed in section (a) of 49 USC § 44809 — the exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. Section (b) of the statute states when recreational flyers fail to comply with any of the eight limitations contained in section (a), they must comply with the applicable regulations governing the operation of drones. In this case, since the drone was a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS), 14 CFR part 107 was the applicable regulatory part.
The FAA investigation revealed the flights were over people, at night, in controlled airspace without an authorization, and posed a hazard to people and property below. As a result, the FAA determined the operator of the drone was in noncompliance with section 44809 and therefore subject to 14 CFR part 107. The following list of regulations were cited in the enforcement case:

1. 107.12(b): no remote pilot certificate.
2. 107.13: drone not registered.
3. 107.19(c): posing a hazard to people, aircraft, or property.
4. 107.23(a): careless or reckless flying.
5. 107.29(a): flying at night without a waiver (prior to the new operations over people or at night rule).
6. 107.39: flying over people without a waiver (prior to the new operations over people or at night rule).
7. 107.41: flying in controlled airspace without authorization.
8. 107.65: no 24 month recency of knowledge.

The drone operator was assessed a civil penalty for $15,205 which had to be paid immediately.

Hopefully this is the first of many publications so we can actually let you know what CAN happen if you insist on being "That guy/girl".

 

[Vic Moss]

The FAA Safety Team announced today (3/30) in an email to their Drone Pros that they have fined a drone operator $15,205 for reckless and non-compliant drone operations.

Article here: FAA publishes $15,205 fine for reckless and non-compliant UAS flight. - Drone Service Providers Alliance

 

[brett8883]

The FAA Safety Team announced today (3/30) in an email to their Drone Pros that they have fined a drone operator $15,205 for reckless and non-compliant drone operations.

Article here: FAA publishes $15,205 fine for reckless and non-compliant UAS flight. - Drone Service Providers Alliance

I take some issue with this. According to the article technically the only clear recreational rule he broke was flying in controlled airspace without authorization which they contend means he doesn’t qualify for the recreational exception and therefore was a part 107 flight and they charged him with breaking all the part 107 rules that wouldn’t apply to recreational flight.

I think there should be sanctions for flying in controlled airspace without authorization and I by no means condone that but I think it’s screwy they charged him for not having a remote pilot certificate, not having a 24 recency of knowledge, flying over people, flying at night, and so on all things not against the law for a recreational pilot.

They also charged him with both posing a hazard to people, aircraft, or property AND careless or reckless flying which sound like the same thing to me and it’s unclear if they determined flying over people at night in controlled airspace was what posed a hazard and was what was careless or reckless in and of itself. I don’t know if there was more to it but by the way they charged him with everything else it seems plausible.

Again not condoning flying in controlled airspace without authorization but to my knowledge they weren’t issuing authorization to fly at night in controlled airspace to recreational pilots even though that isn’t forbidden in the law. Not an excuse but maybe a extenuating circumstance.

To be clear I’m not saying they were wrong under the law to charge him as a part 107 pilot I just think it’s screwy.

 

[BigAl07]

I take some issue with this. According to the article technically the only clear recreational rule he broke was flying in controlled airspace without authorization which they contend means he doesn’t qualify for the recreational exception and therefore was a part 107 flight and they charged him with breaking all the part 107 rules that wouldn’t apply to recreational flight.

I think there should be sanctions for flying in controlled airspace without authorization and I by no means condone that but I think it’s screwy they charged him for not having a remote pilot certificate, not having a 24 recency of knowledge, flying over people, flying at night, and so on all things not against the law for a recreational pilot.

They also charged him with both posing a hazard to people, aircraft, or property AND careless or reckless flying which sound like the same thing to me and it’s unclear if they determined flying over people at night in controlled airspace was what posed a hazard and was what was careless or reckless in and of itself. I don’t know if there was more to it but by the way they charged him with everything else it seems plausible.

Again not condoning flying in controlled airspace without authorization but to my knowledge they weren’t issuing authorization to fly at night in controlled airspace to recreational pilots even though that isn’t forbidden in the law. Not an excuse but maybe a extenuating circumstance.

To be clear I’m not saying they were wrong under the law to charge him as a part 107 pilot I just think it’s screwy.

If you bust the Protective Bubble of ~44809 you are, by default, and have always been, held liable for ALL of Part 107. If no protection you are liable. You can't be "partially" protected. That's why he got the full Monty as he should.

 

[brett8883]

If you bust the Protective Bubble of ~44809 you are, by default, and have always been, held liable for ALL of Part 107. If no protection you are liable. You can't be "partially" protected. That's why he got the full Monty as he should.

Again I’m not saying that isn’t correct per the law, all I’m saying is that it’s screwy. It’s like if a requirement to having a driver’s license was you couldn’t speed so if you are caught speeding that means automatically your driver’s license is invalid and you can also be charged with not having a driver’s license, using a public road for unapproved purposes, etc all in addition to the speeding.

If this followed common sense the way it would work is if you are flying for recreational purposes and that is your intent for the flight then you are flying under the recreational set of rules and if you break the recreational rules then you will be sanctioned for breaking the recreational rules you broke, not a myriad of other rules recreational pilots are even required to know. It’s screwy

 

[sar104]

Again I’m not saying that isn’t correct per the law, all I’m saying is that it’s screwy. It’s like if a requirement to having a driver’s license was you couldn’t speed so if you are caught speeding that means automatically your driver’s license is invalid and you can also be charged with not having a driver’s license, using a public road for unapproved purposes, etc all in addition to the speeding.

If this followed common sense the way it would work is if you are flying for recreational purposes and that is your intent for the flight then you are flying under the recreational set of rules and if you break the recreational rules then you will be sanctioned for breaking the recreational rules you broke, not a myriad of other rules recreational pilots are even required to know. It’s screwy

It's not screwy at all, and that's a poor analogy because there is no equivalent recreational drivers license. It's an allowance that relieves you of Part 107 rules provided that you fly within certain other restrictions. If you fail to adhere to those restrictions then you are back under Part 107. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[brett8883]

It's not screwy at all, and that's a poor analogy because there is no equivalent recreational drivers license. It's an allowance that relieves you of Part 107 rules provided that you fly within certain other restrictions. If you fail to adhere to those restrictions then you are back under Part 107. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Well ok new analogy. It’s like if you get caught speeding with a regular drivers license and that automatically means you had to have had a commercial driver’s license even though it is also a violation for cdl holders to speed. They ticket you for not having a cdl even though you had no intention of doing anything that would require a cdl and they tack on a bunch of other violations that are ok with a regular drivers license but aren’t under cdl rules even though to get your regular drivers license you weren’t taught any cdl rules and therefore didn’t know they existed.


I think what you are saying would make sense if all drone pilots were required to get a remote pilot license but if flying for recreational purposes and under these certain restrictions they could be relieved of certain part 107 rules.

This is all my subjective opinion and I understand that’s not how the law was written even if I think that probably wasn’t what they meant.

 

[sar104]

Well ok new analogy. It’s like if you get caught speeding with a regular drivers license and that automatically means you had to have had a commercial driver’s license even though it is also a violation for cdl holders to speed. They ticket you for not having a cdl even though you had no intention of doing anything that would require a cdl and they tack on a bunch of other violations that are ok with a regular drivers license but aren’t under cdl rules even though to get your regular drivers license you weren’t taught any cdl rules and therefore didn’t know they existed.
View attachment 146058

I think what you are saying would make sense if all drone pilots were required to get a remote pilot license but if flying for recreational purposes and under these certain restrictions they could be relieved of certain part 107 rules.

This is all my subjective opinion and I understand that’s not how the law was written even if I think that probably wasn’t what they meant.

I think it's exactly what they meant. Recreational pilots don't need to be intimately familiar with all the Part 107 rules because they don't need to follow them if they follow the recreational rules. Just like you don't need to understand all the CDL rules provided you don't drive anything requiring a CDL. But if you get caught driving a tractor trailer then they will apply to you.

 

[Vic Moss]

I take some issue with this. According to the article technically the only clear recreational rule he broke was flying in controlled airspace without authorization which they contend means he doesn’t qualify for the recreational exception and therefore was a part 107 flight and they charged him with breaking all the part 107 rules that wouldn’t apply to recreational flight.

I think there should be sanctions for flying in controlled airspace without authorization and I by no means condone that but I think it’s screwy they charged him for not having a remote pilot certificate, not having a 24 recency of knowledge, flying over people, flying at night, and so on all things not against the law for a recreational pilot.

They also charged him with both posing a hazard to people, aircraft, or property AND careless or reckless flying which sound like the same thing to me and it’s unclear if they determined flying over people at night in controlled airspace was what posed a hazard and was what was careless or reckless in and of itself. I don’t know if there was more to it but by the way they charged him with everything else it seems plausible.

Again not condoning flying in controlled airspace without authorization but to my knowledge they weren’t issuing authorization to fly at night in controlled airspace to recreational pilots even though that isn’t forbidden in the law. Not an excuse but maybe a extenuating circumstance.

To be clear I’m not saying they were wrong under the law to charge him as a part 107 pilot I just think it’s screwy.

There is much, much, much more to this. I talked with one of the folks originally involved with this investigation this morning. This guy put himself out there are a commercial drone pilot and he wasn't. And he knew it. The incident that broke the camel's back involved some very reckless and aggressive behavior towards law enforcement. He also had imagery of flights at 2K AGL plus in flight paths above clouds.

I can't share everything yet, but this idiot is lucky to walk away with only $15K. He should be doing jail time.

 

[Vic Moss]

Well ok new analogy. It’s like if you get caught speeding with a regular drivers license and that automatically means you had to have had a commercial driver’s license even though it is also a violation for cdl holders to speed. They ticket you for not having a cdl even though you had no intention of doing anything that would require a cdl and they tack on a bunch of other violations that are ok with a regular drivers license but aren’t under cdl rules even though to get your regular drivers license you weren’t taught any cdl rules and therefore didn’t know they existed.

Your analogy only works if CDL was the default. It's not. 107 is.

I think what you are saying would make sense if all drone pilots were required to get a remote pilot license but if flying for recreational purposes and under these certain restrictions they could be relieved of certain part 107 rules.

In order to fly under 49 USC 44809 is satisfy ALL 8 (7 current) sections. If you can't do that, you're flying under 107. That's the law. And if you're flying under 107 w/o a Remote Pilot Certificate, then you are violating that.

Plus, he put himself out there as a commercial drone pilot. And he knew the rules. They were explained to him plenty of time.

This low grade moron deserves more than he got.

This is all my subjective opinion and I understand that’s not how the law was written even if I think that probably wasn’t what they meant.

 

[brett8883]

I think it's exactly what they meant. Recreational pilots don't need to be intimately familiar with all the Part 107 rules because they don't need to follow them if they follow the recreational rules. Just like you don't need to understand all the CDL rules provided you don't drive anything requiring a CDL. But if you get caught driving a tractor trailer then they will apply to you.

If a pilot is flying for non-recreational purposes then yea throw the part 107 book at them, I agree, which is the equivalent to what you are saying about being caught driving a tractor trailer.

Just like driving a tractor trailer or not determines what set of drivers license you must have and what set of rules you must follow so too should wether you are flying for recreational purposes or not should determine what license and rules you must follow.

If I remember correctly and I may not, this is how it worked for part 101 right? I don’t remember them sanctioning recreational pilots under part 107 rules unless they weren’t flying for recreation but I could be wrong

 

[Vic Moss]

If a pilot is flying for non-recreational purposes then yea throw the part 107 book at them, I agree, which is the equivalent to what you are saying about being caught driving a tractor trailer.

Just like driving a tractor trailer or not determines what set of drivers license you must have and what set of rules you must follow so too should wether you are flying for recreational purposes or not should determine what license and rules you must follow.

If I remember correctly and I may not, this is how it worked for part 101 right? I don’t remember them sanctioning recreational pilots under part 107 rules unless they weren’t flying for recreation but I could be wrong

Again, Part 107 is the default set of rules. If you can satisfy all 7 current 44809 requirements, then you're flying recreationally. If you don't satisfy just one of them, they you're covered under 107. That's how the law is written. So he's being charged under 107. As he should be.

And he should be charged with criminal negligence too. But that story will have to come out at another time. Hopefully.

 

[brett8883]

Your analogy only works if CDL was the default. It's not. 107 is.

Well that goes to what’s screwy about it. Can you give another example of licensing structure that works like that?

In order to fly under 49 USC 44809 is satisfy ALL 8 (7 current) sections. If you can't do that, you're flying under 107. That's the law. And if you're flying under 107 w/o a Remote Pilot Certificate, then you are violating that.

As I have said I don’t dispute that and I agree that’s the law I just don’t think it makes logical sense. Why do we have to make this complicated, it should be one set of rules if you fly recreational and one set of rules for non recreational or just one set of rules if we must.

Plus, he put himself out there as a commercial drone pilot. And he knew the rules. They were explained to him plenty of time.

This low grade moron deserves more than he got.

I’m sure he did and I don’t doubt that at all as I find the FAA to be on the lenient side of reasonable about when they issue sanctions

 

[MARK (LI)]

The actual FAA regs are not complicated...until you break them from both recreational and professional sides of the fence ....with all your analogies, you have not argued that he has not broken these laws...just that he has been actually charged with breakng them

 

[brett8883]

Again, Part 107 is the default set of rules. If you can satisfy all 7 current 44809 requirements, then you're flying recreationally. If you don't satisfy just one of them, they you're covered under 107. That's how the law is written. So he's being charged under 107. As he should be.

In a logical world wether or not you are flying recreationally would be determined by if you are flying for recreation or not

 

[brett8883]

The actual FAA regs are not complicated...until you break them from both recreational and professional sides of the fence ....with all your analogies, you have not argued that he has not broken these laws...just that he has been actually charged with breakng them

To be clear I agree that he has broken the law. I agree that he has broken the law even if the system worked the way I think it should. He should be punished I just think what he should be punished for things that make logical sense.

He flew in controlled airspace without authorization, you can’t do that and he should be punished for it.

He flew without a registration mark, you can’t do that and he should be punished for it.

Even though it isn’t explicitly spelled out in the law I think he should be punished for flying carelessly and recklessly if he was.

The article I read at least made it seem like it was for those reasons above that he was also charged for not having a remote pilot’s license even though he was flying for recreational purposes. Maybe he wasn’t flying for recreational purposes in which case I take back everything I said but if he was flying for recreational purposes I don’t think he should be punished for not having a remote pilots license. I find that screwy. Maybe nobody agrees with me and that’s fine

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Again, Part 107 is the default set of rules. If you can satisfy all 7 current 44809 requirements, then you're flying recreationally. If you don't satisfy just one of them, they you're covered under 107. That's how the law is written. So he's being charged under 107. As he should be.

And he should be charged with criminal negligence too. But that story will have to come out at another time. Hopefully.

The argument is 107 should NOT be the default. Forget this particular individual. Holding someone whose intent is recreation with violating commercial rules is a backwards approach to enforcement. A kid in his backyard happens to fly over his brother should be charged based on any violation of 107 that may have occurred? Really? If the regulations are written that way the focus is punishment and Intimidation not education.

 

[spudster]

Well ok new analogy.

That's not even close. Try this. Driving a truck with a GVWR of 26k or over requires you to have a CDL. If you have a regular operators license and are driving a 26k GVWR truck over 26k pounds you can not only charged with the over weight truck, but not having a CDL and any other violations that pertain to a CDL license holder.

 

[brett8883]

The argument is 107 should NOT be the default. Forget this particular individual. Holding someone whose intent is recreation with violating commercial rules is a backwards approach to enforcement. A kid in his backyard happens to fly over his brother should be charged based on any violation of 107 that may have occurred? Really? If the regulations are written that way the focus is punishment and Intimidation not education.

This guy gets it.

 

[brett8883]

That's not even close. Try this. Driving a truck with a GVWR of 26k or over requires you to have a CDL. If you have a regular operators license and are driving a 26k GVWR truck over 26k pounds you can not only charged with the over weight truck, but not having a CDL and any other violations that pertain to a CDL license holder.

I don’t know what all that means so you’ll have to dumb it down for me but I think we all agree driving a large heavy truck should require additional training and licensing and anyone caught driving a big heavy truck without the proper license should be punished for all things related to a big heavy truck. Big heavy truck is the important determining factor. If you drive a small car is there anything you can do that would get you into trouble for not having a CDL? Towing a big heavy truck doesn’t count lol.

Like wise with drones we have come to agree that recreational activities do not require the same level of licensing and training as non-recreational (commercial) activities. However, under the current law you could be caught without a registration mark which has nothing to do with flying commercially (non-recreationally) and also be charged with not having a remote pilots license even though you were flying recreationally. That doesn’t make sense