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

[brett8883]

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.

I understand the point you are making and it’s a good one but actually recreational pilots are not prohibited from flying over people. BVLOS might have been a better example.

 

[hiflyer201]

I’ve just completed three days of ground school to renew my CFI. I was very dismayed by the Gleim ground school classes information on what the FAA has planned for the future of airspace and general aviation drones. I get the feeling that a 107 is going to be required for flight outside of designated free airspace and that aftermarket ADS B out is going to be greatly restricted.
The FAA says that there has been a big downturn in hobby drones (?) and that the market for commercial drones (?) has exploded upward. Since the FAA is charged with not only regulating aviation but also advancing it, I fear the worst.
They made the point that while there are 2 million drones registered, a much smaller percentage of pilots have a 107.
Someone has to wake them up real quick.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

Your understanding of the rules is correct. The problem isn’t your understanding of the rules but the fundamental fairness of the rules as structured. You punch a lower classification of pilot based on the stricter rules for a higher classification of pilot. It’s like punishing someone riding a skateboard as if they violated rules governing commercial drivers. The skateboarder makes a right on red where it’s not allowed and he also gets written up for not having the proper lighting for commercial vehicles.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

I think you're another individual that has forgotten where they came from. 44809 is anything but simple. I say that as a part 61 instrument rated pilot that has been involved in aviation since the 1960's (Aviation High School Flushing, NY). Have you forgotten what it was like the first time you saw a sectional chart or looked at a Metar? Please. But accepting your argument, if 44809 is easy why would you punish someone that has violated 44809 with violating the more stringent rules of the commercial aspects of 107? It makes no sense other than if your goal is exacerbating the punishment and a means of intimidation.

 

[Photo Booth]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Mark

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

How about this one. In order to drive a car on a public road you must have a license. If you drive without it, you get cited for driving without a license. Except if you are learning to drive, under certain conditions (e.g. you must have an adult in the passenger seat) you can drive with learner's permit. But if you get in a car by yourself with your learners permit and get stopped you no longer satisfy the conditions of the the exception, and you get cited for driving without a license.

 

[MS Coast]

I think you're another individual that has forgotten where they came from. 44809 is anything but simple. I say that as a part 61 instrument rated pilot that has been involved in aviation since the 1960's (Aviation High School Flushing, NY). Have you forgotten what it was like the first time you saw a sectional chart or looked at a Metar? Please. But accepting your argument, if 44809 is easy why would you punish someone that has violated 44809 with violating the more stringent rules of the commercial aspects of 107? It makes no sense other than if your goal is exacerbating the punishment and a means of intimidation.

44809 has eight simple limitations. There are no acronyms mentioned. Not METARs, not sectional charts, not TFRs, not ATCs, ... 44809 is simple. It's unreasonable to dispute that.

Here's one last attempt at logic. Part 107 addresses all drone operations. Yes, it's complex. But if you're willing to abide by eight simple rules, you can ignore every bit of it. As I said, I see nothing to complain about.

There's no more exacerbation of punishment or intimidation in that than there is in all the other rules, regulations, laws, that a civil society places on itself.

I'm going to go have a look at the photos of the stone walkway I just finished building. I used the Mini 2; it was an act of premeditated and blatant recreation (1). I followed safety guidelines (2). I kept it in sight (3) and didn't didn't interfere with manned airplanes (4). I stayed out of controlled airspace (5) and never exceeded 150' AGL (6). My TRUST certificate was on my phone (7) and the registration number was on the drone (8). Piece of cake.

Further comments may be addressed by reference to post #65. Now, as the saying goes, "Over and out."

 

[Rich QR]

If 44809 is easy why would you punish someone that has violated 44809 with violating the more stringent rules of the commercial aspects of 107? It makes no sense other than if your goal is exacerbating the punishment and a means of intimidation.

I can see both positions as reasonable. To me, having a minor violation of 44809 trigger the applicability of 107 makes perfect sense, but that may be because I've read too many laws for too long (as an aside, read US immigration law some time. If you read it enough, it will seem intuitively obvious that any alien who doesn't have non-immigrant status is classified an immigrant, even if said immigrant has lived his entire life within ten miles of his birthplace high in the Peruvian Andes, and has no intention of ever crossing any international boundary.)

It's reasonable to think that a violation of part of 44809 should hold one liable only for that violation, and not for all of Part 107. That's a reasonable position, but it's not the position that Congress had when Congress enacted 44809.

One fairly fundamental principle of the US legal system is that Congress gets to write the laws. As long as a law that Congress writes isn't contrary to the US Constitution, then the law as Congress wrote it is the law to be enforced. The people who enforce the laws don't get to rewrite them, second-guessing Congress and changing them to something more "reasonable".

Congress delegated certain regulatory powers to the FAA. The wording of Part 107 is a product of the FAA's regulatory process. But section 44809 is something that Congress enacted directly. And Congress wrote the language that says that if a person doesn't comply with every bit of 44809, they are responsible for complying with all of the other applicable regulations.

So if you dislike it, take it up with Congress.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

44809 has eight simple limitations. There are no acronyms mentioned. Not METARs, not sectional charts, not TFRs, not ATCs, ... 44809 is simple. It's unreasonable to dispute that.

Here's one last attempt at logic. Part 107 addresses all drone operations. Yes, it's complex. But if you're willing to abide by eight simple rules, you can ignore every bit of it. As I said, I see nothing to complain about.

There's no more exacerbation of punishment or intimidation in that than there is in all the other rules, regulations, laws, that a civil society places on itself.

I'm going to go have a look at the photos of the stone walkway I just finished building. I used the Mini 2; it was an act of premeditated and blatant recreation (1). I followed safety guidelines (2). I kept it in sight (3) and didn't didn't interfere with manned airplanes (4). I stayed out of controlled airspace (5) and never exceeded 150' AGL (6). My TRUST certificate was on my phone (7) and the registration number was on the drone (8). Piece of cake.

Further comments may be addressed by reference to post #65. Now, as the saying goes, "Over and out."

How do you determine what is or isn't controlled airspace with a means for them to determine airspace classifications? What does line of sight represent (numerous discussions on this forum regarding what it entails)? There are questions regarding aviation weather in the trust exam. But you're still missing the larger point. You don't penalize someone that violates a lower standards (44809) even more by holding them to an even higher standard (107).

 

[BigAl07]

I can see both positions as reasonable. To me, having a minor violation of 44809 trigger the applicability of 107 makes perfect sense, but that may be because I've read too many laws for too long (as an aside, read US immigration law some time. If you read it enough, it will seem intuitively obvious that any alien who doesn't have non-immigrant status is classified an immigrant, even if said immigrant has lived his entire life within ten miles of his birthplace high in the Peruvian Andes, and has no intention of ever crossing any international boundary.)

It's reasonable to think that a violation of part of 44809 should hold one liable only for that violation, and not for all of Part 107. That's a reasonable position, but it's not the position that Congress had when Congress enacted 44809.

One fairly fundamental principle of the US legal system is that Congress gets to write the laws. As long as a law that Congress writes isn't contrary to the US Constitution, then the law as Congress wrote it is the law to be enforced. The people who enforce the laws don't get to rewrite them, second-guessing Congress and changing them to something more "reasonable".

Congress delegated certain regulatory powers to the FAA. The wording of Part 107 is a product of the FAA's regulatory process. But section 44809 is something that Congress enacted directly. And Congress wrote the language that says that if a person doesn't comply with every bit of 44809, they are responsible for complying with all of the other applicable regulations.

So if you dislike it, take it up with Congress.

BINGO!

If the FAA had their way, every UAS operator would be flying under Part 107 (or some version of it) or not flying at all. Some BIG $$ went to Capital Hill several years ago and lobbied (successfully) to Congress so that they would create some level of protection for Hobby fliers. Hence the fact that 44809 is tucked INSIDE of Part 107 as it should be.

This Bubble of Protection has been there since 2012 and if someone wants to fly under 44809 that is their choice but they are flying within the Bubble of Protection whether they like it or not. They don't HAVE to fly UAS but if they do they abide by the structure of 44809 or Part 107 or they don't fly.

 

[Rich QR]

You don't penalize someone that violates a lower standards (44809) even more by holding them to an even higher standard (107).

Then how WOULD you penalize them? What would the penalty be for exceeding the 400' AGL altitude limitation in 44809? The operator has no license that could be suspended or revoked. There's no authority to confiscate a drone written into 44809. There's no authority to levy a fine written into 44809, nor is there any guidance for how high or low the fine might be. And of course there's no authority to imprison an operator for going up to 450'. Congress didn't put ANY guidance for enforcement or punishment into 44809 when they wrote it. The only thing they said was that if someone doesn't meet all of the requirements to fly under 44809, then they fall under the other applicable rules.

And those rules are the ones with defined consequences.

 

[spudster]

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.

It's not just "big heavy trucks". Many "box trucks" can be rated at 26k lbs GVWR and only requires a regular operators license. If you drive one (such as a 26' UHaul truck) and overload it so it weighs over 26k you would need a CDL.

I had a 36' 5th wheels trailer that I vacationed with. Using my GMC 3500 D/A Dually pickup it came in just a tab above 25k GVRW. If, instead of a regular 5th wheel, had a 40' toy hauler it would have easily been over 26k GVRW. And that is a purely recreational vehicle.

 

[sar104]

I’ve just completed three days of ground school to renew my CFI. I was very dismayed by the Gleim ground school classes information on what the FAA has planned for the future of airspace and general aviation drones. I get the feeling that a 107 is going to be required for flight outside of designated free airspace and that aftermarket ADS B out is going to be greatly restricted.
The FAA says that there has been a big downturn in hobby drones (?) and that the market for commercial drones (?) has exploded upward. Since the FAA is charged with not only regulating aviation but also advancing it, I fear the worst.
They made the point that while there are 2 million drones registered, a much smaller percentage of pilots have a 107.
Someone has to wake them up real quick.

ADS-B out is prohibited on sUAS.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Then how WOULD you penalize them? What would the penalty be for exceeding the 400' AGL altitude limitation in 44809? The operator has no license that could be suspended or revoked. There's no authority to confiscate a drone written into 44809. There's no authority to levy a fine written into 44809, nor is there any guidance for how high or low the fine might be. And of course there's no authority to imprison an operator for going up to 450'. Congress didn't put ANY guidance for enforcement or punishment into 44809 when they wrote it. The only thing they said was that if someone doesn't meet all of the requirements to fly under 44809, then they fall under the other applicable rules.

And those rules are the ones with defined consequences.

Very easy, you create a penalty that fits the violation while flying as a recreational pilot. Have them pay a fine, confiscate the drone, require them to take remedial training, suspend their ability to get a 107 for a year. Should the penalties for a part 61 pilot flying a C-150 while impaired be the same as those for a part 141 pilot flying a 737 while impaired? With the higher level of training and privileges that come with that training come a higher level of responsibility AND negative consequences for violating regulations.

 

[thispilothere]

Then how WOULD you penalize them? What would the penalty be for exceeding the 400' AGL altitude limitation in 44809? The operator has no license that could be suspended or revoked. There's no authority to confiscate a drone written into 44809. There's no authority to levy a fine written into 44809, nor is there any guidance for how high or low the fine might be. And of course there's no authority to imprison an operator for going up to 450'. Congress didn't put ANY guidance for enforcement or punishment into 44809 when they wrote it. The only thing they said was that if someone doesn't meet all of the requirements to fly under 44809, then they fall under the other applicable rules.

And those rules are the ones with defined consequences.

It's impossible to answer that until we see the specifics of the flight(s) he was fined for. At this point, we don't even know where this happened.

In general, someone flying a few feet above AGL is far different than someone doing an altitude test to 10k+ feet. You shouldn't use their temporarily barely high altitude as an excuse to then fine them for not having a 107 cert. or getting approval or anything else. If we used temporary or accidental violations as an excuse to issue thousands of dollars in fines, everyone on this site would be fined regularly.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'd guess a $15K fine would need to be extreme violations across multiple flights. At this point, we just don't know enough.

 

[Rich QR]

Very easy, you create a penalty that fits the violation while flying as a recreational pilot. Have them pay a fine, confiscate the drone, require them to take remedial training, suspend their ability to get a 107 for a year. Should the penalties for a part 61 pilot flying a C-150 while impaired be the same as those for a part 141 pilot flying a 737 while impaired? With the higher level of training and privileges that come with that training come a higher level of responsibility AND negative consequences for violating regulations.

Under what statuatory authority do "you create a penalty that fits the violation"? My point is that only Congress can grant authority to create penalties, and they haven't granted such authority for anyone to create penalties for 44809.

If you want to rephrase that as "Congress should create a penalty that fits the violation...", that seems reasonable enough. Or if you want the FAA create such penalties, that also seems reasonable, but you've got to get Congress to allow the FAA to do that.

My point is that it has to start with Congress. Until they provide a framework for penalties, or they delegate authority for determiing penalties to someone, it's not going to happen. Right now, Congress said that the only possible consequence for any violation of any part of 44809 is that it makes the operator subject to the other applicable regulations, with their penalties.

 

[Skywatcher2001]

Here's one last attempt at logic. Part 107 addresses all drone operations. Yes, it's complex. But if you're willing to abide by eight simple rules, you can ignore every bit of it. As I said, I see nothing to complain about.

I'm going to go have a look at the photos of the stone walkway I just finished building. I used the Mini 2; it was an act of premeditated and blatant recreation (1). I followed safety guidelines (2). I kept it in sight (3) and didn't didn't interfere with manned airplanes (4). I stayed out of controlled airspace (5) and never exceeded 150' AGL (6). My TRUST certificate was on my phone (7) and the registration number was on the drone (8). Piece of cake.

BRAVO!!! Nicely done . . .

 

[Big Bro]

One thing to take into consideration is that this fellow is still allowed due process. There is an appeal process in place that he can use. From the FAA website:

The FAA initiates civil penalty matters by providing notice of the civil penalty or notice of the proposed assessment. An entity may appeal the notice, and a hearing before one of the Department of Transportation's or National Transportation Safety Board's administrative law judges (ALJ) is available. Any decision by an ALJ may be appealed to the FAA Administrator or the NTSB, respectively. Final decisions by the Administrator or the NTSB may be appealed to a United States court of appeals.

 

[Zbip57]

I'm going to go have a look at the photos of the stone walkway I just finished building. I used the Mini 2; it was an act of premeditated and blatant recreation (1). I followed safety guidelines (2). I kept it in sight (3) and didn't didn't interfere with manned airplanes (4). I stayed out of controlled airspace (5) and never exceeded 150' AGL (6). My TRUST certificate was on my phone (7) and the registration number was on the drone (8). Piece of cake.

Wait, what? I'm confused (again). This would require a full Part 107, no?

Didn't we already have this discussion in another thread? Recreational flying is purely for your own fun and entertainment. A flight conducted for any beneficial purpose (i.e. rain gutter inspections) cannot be considered as "recreational", even if using a sub-250g Mini. So using your Mini 2 to take photos for inspection purposes of your stone walkway is premeditated and blatant non-recreational, no?

See: mavicpilots.com/threads/boss-asked-me-to-record-a-video-do-i-need-a-107-license.115342/page-2#post-1301453

 

[MS Coast]

Wait, what? I'm confused (again). This would require a full Part 107, no?

Didn't we already have this discussion in another thread? Recreational flying is purely for your own fun and entertainment. A flight conducted for any beneficial purpose (i.e. rain gutter inspections) cannot be considered as "recreational", even if using a sub-250g Mini. So using your Mini 2 to take photos for inspection purposes of your stone walkway is premeditated and blatant non-recreational, no?

See: mavicpilots.com/threads/boss-asked-me-to-record-a-video-do-i-need-a-107-license.115342/page-2#post-1301453

That was intended to be more amusing than confusing. I'd guess that issue has come up in several dozen threads.

There was no official inspection and no benefit to anyone else. I was just looking at my finished job and being happily entertained that I'd arranged six tons of material into an acceptable configuration. It's no different from shooting a photo of my house or the big live oak tree out back for my own use, and that wouldn't be non-recreational either. I think this is a clear-cut case.

The looking-at-the-gutters issue came up in a real sense recently. I'm having gutters installed on the house. When discussing the details with the gutter company, I mentioned that I had a commercial drone license if they ever needed any assistance. The owner of the company had just bought a Mini 2 and understood that since it weighed less than 250 grams, he didn't need to register it and didn't need a license. I limited my response to, "You might want to do a little reading about that."

One of the best justifications for getting my Part 107 certificate was avoiding having to worry about things like this.