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

[thispilothere]

Where did this happen?

 

[brett8883]

Where did this happen?

It just says upstate New York

 

[thispilothere]

It just says upstate New York

Yeah. It's odd that it's not narrowed down. It's a protest so I wonder if it's Albany or maybe a college.

 

[Cymruflyer]

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.

Okay that's better but still not good.

Better said would be that you drive with your car driver's licence and must not speed but you must also stay in your neighborhood when driving. Now you get caught driving on roads that you would normally need special permission to drive on and would need a CDL and you were speeding and driving at night and driving down the centre median.

Therefore you are now open to be fined for all the things you did wrong, starting with being on a road you were not allowed to be on (being the controlled airspace) and would have needed a CDL to be there anyway and would have needed to get special permission to be on with a CDL and then on top of all that you were speeding plus you were driving down the centre median where people were also walking (flying over people not close by them).

Added to all this, he did not even have a licence (was not register with the FAA), even for his car and had no licence plate (FAA Registration number on his drone) and had no tag on his car's licence plate (TRUST TEST Paperwork). Maybe now you can understand how many driving rules you just broke. I hope this makes sense!

 

[The Drone Ranger 1]

I would LOVE to see a post like this every day. I'm tired of reading about people who think being a scofflaw with a drone is in any way acceptable or cool. Fine their *** and make it public!

 

[Cymruflyer]

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.

Assuming his brother agreed that he could fly over him, then that would be okay. However, that is not quite what this kid did. He flew outside of his backyard and flew over a strangers backyard plus flew right over the stranger. Now it is more akin to what the guy did, that got busted.

Had this guy that was busted, done as you state and flew in his own backyard and only over his family members, then nothing would have happened to him.

 

[BigAl07]

Oye this conversation is beyond believable

14 CFR Part 107 - SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS encompasses all Civil UAS Operations UNLES you are operating under an Exception. ~44809 is the Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft and if you aren't operating within that very narrow protective bubble you are liable for Part 107.​

It's like being in a rainstorm with a thin bubble (~44809) "Protecting" you from the rain (Part 107). If your BUBBLE of protection is pierced (~44809), you're going to get wet regardless of how much you argue and complain. Your protection (~44809) from the rain (aka Part 107) is gone and you're going to get the full effects of the rain (Part 107) period. Not just one small drop but all of the rain destined to land on you.

When you lose/violate your ~44809 you are liable for all of Part 107. It's not mix & match... it's Either Or.

 

[spsphotos]

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.

Enough with the strawman arguments.

The Straw Man Fallacy: Meaning and Examples

A Straw Man Fallacy is a sly debating technique where an individual misrepresents another person’s argument to make it easier to attack. In simpler terms, it's like setting up a dummy version of an opponent's

grammarist.com

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Our fines in Canada are pretty mild compared to what is given in the USA.
Transport Canada documents them with manned and unmanned fines.

 

[spsphotos]

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

BINGO. If you meet all 7 requirements of 44809 then you are flying recreationally. If not, as Vic says, you are NOT flying recreationally. Not sure why you insist that's silly.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

If you drive a small car is there anything you can do that would get you into trouble for not having a CDL?

I have had that exact scenario happen to me. I used to be a delivery driver in a small upscale city delivering 8X10 photographic prints or rolls of blueprints in a Ford Escort. We had permission from parking enforcement to double park to run in for a minute to deliver as long as we had our flashers on and our sign displayed in the vehicle. I happened to stop for a delivery in front of one of the police officers and put on my flashers (it was a 4 lane street so there was plenty of room for him to go around) and ran in for about 15 seconds to drop off a package. I got back out there and he was writing me a ticket for double parking. I explained to him (politely) that we were allowed by parking enforcement to do that at which point he asked for my CDL. I was delivering paper in a small car, no passengers and it was never explained to me in any way shape or form that I needed a CDL. So whether I needed it or not, I got my CDL and was let off with court costs. I still don't know if the CDL rules applied to what I was doing or not. I was young and have always been brought up to cooperate with law enforcement. So obviously there is a precedent (for me) of getting in trouble for not having a CDL when driving a small car.

 

[spsphotos]

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

But there is the flaw in your argument. You keep saying he was flying recreationally. He was NOT. He passed himself off as a certified part 107 pilot, so he was no longer flying recreationally. Remember INTENT is a big part of it.

 

[spsphotos]

Our fines in Canada are pretty mild compared to what is given in the USA.
Transport Canada documents them with manned and unmanned fines.

View attachment 146062

You need to remember though...it's per event. So you do it 20 times that 20x500 or 10K.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Talk about a thread going off topic...geesh

 

[Chaosrider]

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".

Sounds like somebody who deserved to get whacked to me...

That penalty is pretty stiff, but they probably won't have to issue many of those, if they publish the fact that they're doing it.

Thanks for the info!

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

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.

"Protective Bubble of 44809"

That's a nice way of putting it. It paints a clear image of how that works.

Thx!

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

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.

With that clarification, I retract my observation that the fine was "petty stiff".

I have zero sympathy for people who get mouthy with law enforcement.

The only valid place to do that, if there is one at all, is in a courtroom.

Thanks for this additional info!

TCS

 

[MS Coast]

Sounds like somebody who deserved to get whacked to me...

That penalty is pretty stiff, but they probably won't have to issue many of those, if they publish the fact that they're doing it.

Thanks for the info!

TCS

Amen. Those of us with Part 107 certificates worked to get them honestly. When someone lies about having the same qualifications and certificate that we have, they deserve to be punished. I'd like to see the punishment include a prohibition against flying for some period.

 

[Chaosrider]

Amen. Those of us with Part 107 certificates worked to get them honestly. When someone lies about having the same qualifications and certificate that we have, they deserve to be punished. I'd like to see the punishment include a prohibition against flying for some period.

I'd be good with that.

For a first offense, I'd be inclined that the grounding should be months, not years.

For repeat offenders, multi-year groundings or lifetime bans might be appropriate.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Vic Moss]

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.

There is no such thing as "commercial rules". The word commercial isn't mentioned in 14 CFR 107. 107 is the default set of rules. If you want to fly outside of them there are 3 or 4 sets of exceptions. Don't confuse yourself by using the word commercial. It's not a valid argument.

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?

Using such an absurdity undermines your argument. That would never happen. You and I both know that. So what is the point of even bringing it up? The idiot that is being charged in this case isn't even close to your scenario.

If the regulations are written that way the focus is punishment and Intimidation not education.

The FAA isn't into punishment and intimidation. Their scope is education and safety. Fines are a last result, and only used in extreme cases such as this. I've been involved in a number of investigations and counseling sessions over the last couple of years, including two firefighting TFR violations. Those have all been about education. Even if one where it was a kid with an attitude. That could have gone very poorly for him, but his father (& two of us) helped him see the error of his ways. That was ripe for potentially high fines, but education was the final outcome.

This guy was blatantly violation rules, as well as flying incredibly reckless. There is so much more to this story than presently public.