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

[dart106]

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.

Are there specifics of this “recreational” drone flight available for review, other than the eight violations issued by the FAA?

 

[Dbez1]

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.

There are a few guys on this forum that have gone more than the extra mile for us. If Vic, BigAl, Sar, OMM, and SOME OTHERS, say it, I believe it! When Vic states the above, that’s good enough for me. Thanks for the information Vic!

 

[Vic Moss]

Are there specifics of this “recreational” drone flight available for review, other than the eight violations issued by the FAA?

Not publicly yet.

 

[Photo Booth]

Just the simple fact that the offending pilot had NOT registered as a recreational pilot means Part 107 automatically applies to him. It's pretty clear... to be considered a recreational pilot you MUST meet ALL conditions of ~44809. You can't meet just some of them and then claim you are flying for recreation.

I fail to understand why some people can't seem to understand that.

Mark

 

[dart106]

A tongue in cheek quote from the FAA that’s been around for eons, “We’re not happy until you’re not happy”.

The first two rules of aviation were developed by Orville & Wilbur back in the day.
1. Don’t scratch the paint.
2. Don’t make anyone bleed.

Every aviation rule and regulation since then has been established as a result of one or both of these rules being violated, most of the time from bad judgement. Today, we operate under a massive collection of such rules and regulations intended to prevent bad judgement. Problem is, bad judgement can’t be prevented by rules and regulation.

 

[sar104]

Problem is, bad judgement can’t be prevented by rules and regulation.

Nothing is ever entirely prevented by rules and regulations, but a lot of things can be reduced or substantially mitigated by them.

 

[Vic Moss]

Problem is, bad judgement can’t be prevented by rules and regulation.

You're right, but if you define the parameters of "bad judgement", you can punish people who break them with full intent. Educate those who break them w/o intent or knowledge, but punish those who willfully break them.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

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.

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.

When an individual goes to the FAA website to check the requirements for flying a drone it is broken down into two segments...

Recreational​

I fly under The Exception for Recreational Flyers…
✓ I fly purely for fun or personal enjoyment » Learn More
✓ I’ll take a free online test called The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) » TrustFAA
✓ One registration covers all of my eligible recreational drones

Part 107​

I fly under Part 107 or as a Public Aircraft…
✓ I fly for commercial, government, or other non-recreational purposes » Learn More
✓ I’ll take an in-person test to earn my Remote Pilot Certificate
✓ My unmanned aircraft will be registered separately with a unique registration number

This clearly conveys that there are two sets of rules based on whether you're flying for recreation or flying for business purposes. No absurdity was used in my argument. What's absurdity is your idea that someone looking to fly on a recreational level (flying a drone in their backyard or local park) as REFERENCED ON THE FAA WEBSITE is going to dive into the weeds of 14 CFR 107. That's absurd and holding those individuals to the requirements of 107 if they should cross a line during their recreational flying should be violated based on 107 regulations is also absurd. As stated, the rules as structure are more about punishment and intimidation than education, a practice you want to pass off with the claim that the word "commercial" isn't used in the 107 regulations. Nonsense.

 

[Vic Moss]

When an individual goes to the FAA website to check the requirements for flying a drone it is broken down into two segments...

Recreational​

I fly under The Exception for Recreational Flyers…
✓ I fly purely for fun or personal enjoyment » Learn More
✓ I’ll take a free online test called The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) » TrustFAA
✓ One registration covers all of my eligible recreational drones

Part 107​

I fly under Part 107 or as a Public Aircraft…
✓ I fly for commercial, government, or other non-recreational purposes » Learn More
✓ I’ll take an in-person test to earn my Remote Pilot Certificate
✓ My unmanned aircraft will be registered separately with a unique registration number

This clearly conveys that there are two sets of rules based on whether you're flying for recreation or flying for business purposes. No absurdity was used in my argument. What's absurdity is your idea that someone looking to fly on a recreational level (flying a drone in their backyard or local park) as REFERENCED ON THE FAA WEBSITE is going to dive into the weeds of 14 CFR 107. That's absurd and holding those individuals to the requirements of 107 if they should cross a line during their recreational flying should be violated based on 107 regulations is also absurd. As stated, the rules as structure are more about punishment and intimidation than education, a practice you want to pass off with the claim that the word "commercial" isn't used in the 107 regulations. Nonsense.

What you're looking at is one of the FAA's summary pages. They're notorious for oversimplification. Yes, it uses "commercial", but don't confuse a summary with the language of a bill. Stuff like this causes no end of consternation to many FAA regulators.

In this case, they're using "commercial, government, or other non-recreational purposes" as a disqualifier to flying under 44809. So they're not really defining 107 as a commercial certification.

It's nuanced, but accurate.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

What you're looking at is one of the FAA's summary pages. They're notorious for oversimplification. Yes, it uses "commercial", but don't confuse a summary with the language of a bill. Stuff like this causes no end of consternation to many FAA regulators.

In this case, they're using "commercial, government, or other non-recreational purposes" as a disqualifier to flying under 44809. So they're not really defining 107 as a commercial certification.

It's nuanced, but accurate.

I think you've forgotten where you came from. You're looking at this from the standpoint of a seasoned, very experienced pilot. That's not how new people approaching the activity for the first time view the issue.

We are dealing with two very different segments of the population. The idea that 107 is the starting point to get to recreational flying is totally the opposite approach we take when it comes to involvement in other activities. If the goal is education you don't start at the professional level and work your way back to recreational.

When someone is considering starting in the hobby and they go to start at FAA summary page, they are not going to dive into 14 CPR 107. And when they get to the FAA summary page their focus is going to be the left side of the page, recreational flying not flying for commercial, government and non-recreational purposes as referenced on the right side of the page.

 

[Photo Booth]

When someone is considering starting in the hobby and they go to start at FAA summary page, they are not going to dive into 14 CPR 107. And when they get to the FAA summary page their focus is going to be the left side of the page, recreational flying not flying for commercial, government and non-recreational purposes as referenced on the right side of the page.

Fine. Focusing only on recreational flying, what part of "You must register your drone" did this yo-yo in New York not understand?

Mark

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Fine. Focusing only on recreational flying, what part of "You must register your drone" did this yo-yo in New York not understand?

Mark

If you read my initial post I said forgetting about this particular individual. My comments are about the general practice of holding recreational pilots responsible for violations of part 107 regulations.

 

[MS Coast]

If you read my initial post I said forgetting about this particular individual. My comments are about the general practice of holding recreational pilots responsible for violations of part 107 regulations.

If they violate the terms of the 44809 recreational flying exception, they're not recreational pilots.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

If they violate the terms of the 41809 recreational flying exception, they're not recreational pilots.

And your statement highlights the problem with the way the regulations are written. They violate what are suppose to be the simpler rules of recreational flying and you then want to hold them responsible for violating the more stringent rules of commercial flying. It makes no rational sense not if the goal is education leading to encouragement to flying and safety versus punishment and intimidation.

 

[Skwirl]

I take it as, every pilot is subject to p107 regs. But, if your only flying per 44809 regs and dont violate any, your good. But your still subject to p107, cause that's the law for uav operations.

 

[MS Coast]

And your statement highlights the problem with the way the regulations are written. They violate what are suppose to be the simpler rules of recreational flying and you then want to hold them responsible for violating the more stringent rules of commercial flying. It makes no rational sense not if the goal is education leading to encouragement to flying and safety versus punishment and intimidation.

The 44809 exception is brief, straightforward, and readily understandable. The rules are simple and it's simple to abide by them.

Regulations and rules don't generally have an educational component. But, the FAA's TRUST program is a pretty good step toward educating new pilots. And, as we've seen here, when there's an egregious violation, the FAA does an effective, gentle, and lenient job of dealing with pilots who have far exceeded things like simple LOS and altitude regulations. There was no intimidation or punishment, just a letter and a meeting or phone interview.

Drones are a complex issue and the Part 107 rules try to address everything from what are essentially toys to 55-pound highly technical equipment for inspection, surveying, agriculture, and mapping. Because the rules are so complex, the FAA created a straightforward exception for the kinds of drones most of us fly.

The more I think about what you've said, the more I appreciate what the FAA has done with 44809. There's no need for the typical recreational pilot to wade through Part 107. They just need to follow eight simple rules. Minor infractions are not pursued. Significant infractions are handled with a warning. They do prosecute major infractions, like lying about having a Part 107 ticket, flying into a stadium during a major sporting event, or repeatedly violating 44809 rules and aggressively bragging about on social media.

I just don't see much to complain about.

 

[brett8883]

I know I have pushed some buttons here and that wasn’t my intent. I understand the intention of the OP was to bring awareness to the fact that the FAA is enforcing the rules and to educate about how the system works and I took the discussion in a different direction which I apologize for. My discussion probably belonged in its own thread as I think people mistook what as I was as I didn’t think this person should be punished which just isn’t the case

 

[BigAl07]

I know I have pushed some buttons here and that wasn’t my intent. I understand the intention of the OP was to bring awareness to the fact that the FAA is enforcing the rules and to educate about how the system works and I took the discussion in a different direction which I apologize for. My discussion probably belonged in its own thread as I think people mistook what as I was as I didn’t think this person should be punished which just isn’t the case

I think it's clear you aren't wanting to pardon the offending operator who is the heart of this thread/topic.

My summation of your thoughts:

44809 and Part 107 should not be linked. Part 107 should not be the Default and by simply violating 44809 you should not be liable for Part 107.

Is that accurate?

 

[mobilehomer]

There is an old saying - ignorance of the law is no excuse. Try claiming "I didn't know" in front of a judge.

Flying over people is illegal(non-107), if someone posted a video and the FAA(after someone reported the video) called, the FAA would try to educate instead of punish. In the stated instance, the guy KNEW the rules and intentionally disregarded them. BIG difference. A bit off subject, but after reading many reports and incidents, I have concluded that the FAA might be the ONLY U.S. government agency that actually helps people.

 

[brett8883]

I think it's clear you aren't wanting to pardon the offending operator who is the heart of this thread/topic.

My summation of your thoughts:

44809 and Part 107 should not be linked. Part 107 should not be the Default and by simply violating 44809 you should not be liable for Part 107.

Is that accurate?

Yes exactly.