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

[brett8883]

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.

That could be the case and if so it makes a little more sense to me why they are doing it the way they are doing it.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

I think you are addressing the specific incident mentioned in the OP. The issue RickQR is addressing is the broader issue penalizing a recreational pilot to the same extent as a 107 pilot

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.

Two separate issues. The primary issue is whether the current structure of the regulations is fair. My answer to that is no. You should not penalize a recreational pilot by adding on violations of the rules for commercial pilots. As to how to address that unfairness, that a separate question but it should be addressed.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

BRAVO!!! Nicely done . . .

I question the phrase "eight simple rules". When you first saw a sectional chart did you think it was simple? Be real. Were you 100% clear on what the phrase "within line of sight" meant the first time you read it? I'd say most people are not clear on either issue given all of the discussions on this forum that center around just those two issues. We can't even come to a consensus on what constitutes recreational flying.

So save the "eight simple rules" mantra.

 

[vindibona1]

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.

That adds more sense to the weight of the fine.

 

[spudster]

I question the phrase "eight simple rules". When you first saw a sectional chart did you think it was simple? Be real. Were you 100% clear on what the phrase "within line of sight" meant the first time you read it? I'd say most people are not clear on either issue given all of the discussions on this forum that center around just those two issues. We can't even come to a consensus on what constitutes recreational flying.

So save the "eight simple rules" mantra.

They are really straight forward if you read the rules for what they are. Problem is people try to find ways and excuses to not have to follow the rules. In the first case, "sectional rules" are nowhere in 44809 exception does it state you need to understand them. What the FAA web sight does say is "Note: Flying drones in certain airspace is not allowed. Classes of airspace and flying restrictions can be found on our B4UFLY app or the UAS Facility Maps webpage." Simple.

In the second "line of sight" that is simple also. The FAA states "Keep your drone within the visual line of sight (defined in MW dictionary as a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision) or use a visual observer who is co-located (physically next to) and in direct communication with you." I am not sure how much simpler it can be then that?

 

[MARK (LI)]

Greg from @pilotinstitute just released one of his weekly updates and threw a little more light on the subject...as it turns out the offender had been 107, but let it lapse ...more info here

 

[Deleted member 93449]

They are really straight forward if you read the rules for what they are. Problem is people try to find ways and excuses to not have to follow the rules. In the first case, "sectional rules" are nowhere in 44809 exception does it state you need to understand them. What the FAA web sight does say is "Note: Flying drones in certain airspace is not allowed. Classes of airspace and flying restrictions can be found on our B4UFLY app or the UAS Facility Maps webpage." Simple.

In the second "line of sight" that is simple also. The FAA states "Keep your drone within the visual line of sight (defined in MW dictionary as a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision) or use a visual observer who is co-located (physically next to) and in direct communication with you." I am not sure how much simpler it can be then that?

You say simply in hindsight but given the NUMEROUS discussions on this and other forums seeking clarifications they are not as simple as you and others claim. Again, define “controlled airspace” and tell me with a straight face that outlining controlled airspace on a sectional chart is a “piece of cake”. How many average folks can define “civil twilight”?

Legal recreational flying has become much more complicated over the years. The fact the drones now have to be registered and a test taking is clear evidence of that fact. This is true whether the intention is to fly a drone 100’ above your backyard, in wide open spaces in rural Pennsylvania or on a deserted lake front property during the middle of winter in North Carolina. Why has this happened? Has there been a rash of accidents, injuries and deaths?

Here is the full text of 44809. Show it to someone starting out with no knowledge of flying drones and airspace regulations, have them read it one time through and then have them give a “simple” explanation of the text without any coaching from you. Then come back and tell me it’s “simple”.

(a)In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49,United States Code, aperson may operate asmall unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
(1)
The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
(2)
The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.
(3)
The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.
(4)
The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.
(5)
In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(6)
In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(7)
The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
(8)
The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this titleand proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Here is the full text of 44809. Show it to someone starting out with no knowledge of flying drones and airspace regulations, have them read it one time through and then have them give a “simple” explanation of the text without any coaching from you. Then come back and tell me it’s “simple”.

Showing anyone "starting out with no knowledge" how to do anything is the same deal....try reading instructions for assembling a barbecue, read a manual on how to operate a lathe, or a 3D printer....even how to drive a car, or how to solve algebra problems ....if you don't already have any experience with it you don't know the subject matter and cannot grasp it and would not be able to give any repeat of the contents.....So it is not unlike learning anything...you start with no knowledge....start asking questions, which in turn can foster more questions until you get a foundation for more information on the subject...I do agree that Class E airspace gets tricky, but finding and determining other controlled airspace is really easy...my observation about all the questions for "clarification" is that they seem for the most part to be from people who object to the rules, and seem to think that if they start throwing out imaginary scenarios that it would make their concept of the rules acceptable. If you are willing to learn and take the time to do so...it gets very simple

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Showing anyone "starting out with no knowledge" how to do anything is the same deal....try reading instructions for assembling a barbecue, read a manual on how to operate a lathe, or a 3D printer....even how to drive a car, or how to solve algebra problems ....if you don't already have any experience with it you don't know the subject matter and cannot grasp it and would not be able to give any repeat of the contents.....So it is not unlike learning anything...you start with no knowledge....start asking questions, which in turn can foster more questions until you get a foundation for more information on the subject...I do agree that Class E airspace gets tricky, but finding and determining other controlled airspace is really easy...my observation about all the questions for "clarification" is that they seem for the most part to be from people who object to the rules, and seem to think that if they start throwing out imaginary scenarios that it would make their concept of the rules acceptable. If you are willing to learn and take the time to do so...it gets very simple

Then we have a real disagreement over the meaning of the word simple. Here is the definition of simple...
"easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty."

You can twist it anyway you want but the 44809 regulations for recreational flying are not simple and the proof of that are the many discussions on this forum regarding aspects of those regulations. We ALL start out with no knowledge of sectional charts and there is a multi-step process involved in learning how to read and decipher them. The 400' rule is discussed on numerous occasions because the rule is not simply 400' AGL but changes based on where you are flying (are there any other altitude restrictions) and what is adjacent to where you are flying.

Your post ends with "it gets very simple", more confirmation that it's not simple. And it's not just about "people who object to the rules" as seems to be the case with the individual discussed in the OP. The issue is whether for flying a drone in my backyard, local park, remote area away from large populations are the rules necessary. And beyond that, back to the issue of penalties, do we really want to subject a recreational flyer that happens to break a rule with violation of rules that apply to 107 pilots?

 

[Rich QR]

The 400' rule is discussed on numerous occasions because the rule is not simply 400' AGL but changes based on where you are flying (are there any other altitude restrictions) and what is adjacent to where you are flying.

The 400' rule in 44809 is always 400' AGL. It's in 44809(a)(6) and applies to class G airspace. In controlled airspace, 44809(a)(5) says you're required to obtain prior authorization and comply with all airspace restrictions and prohibition. The authorization you obtain will tell you the maximum altitude you are permitted to fly at.

To me, the altitude limit of "400' AGL or whatever your authorization says" is pretty darn simple. How would you simplify it?

Note that there's nothing in 44809 altitude restrictions regarding what you're flying adjacent to. There is such a provision in the not-quite-so-simple Part 107 rules, but the 44809 flyer doesn't need to worry about that, since it doesn't apply.

Unless he fails to comply with 44809.

 

[Skwirl]

I find 44809 pretty simple and I'm glad for it. Did it create a few questions, sure. But nothing a small dose of common sense couldnt get me thru. I found this forum cause I had a few questions, probably still do, just dont know it yet.
I've seen many flights in the crash sub forum that make me scratch my head, flying in town, over people, traffic. Flying in areas I wouldnt fly, just my opinion.
The item missing in this thread is that the FAA considers all pilots to be 107. 44809 is an exception.
Instead of complaining about the rules and/or penalties, we should be thanking the FAA for their effort to educate first.
With all the flagrant disregard for safety I've seen/read, I'm surprised 44809 is still available.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Your post ends with "it gets very simple",

VERY simple as opposed to simply....simple

 

[Deleted member 93449]

The 400' rule in 44809 is always 400' AGL. It's in 44809(a)(6) and applies to class G airspace. In controlled airspace, 44809(a)(5) says you're required to obtain prior authorization and comply with all airspace restrictions and prohibition. The authorization you obtain will tell you the maximum altitude you are permitted to fly at.

To me, the altitude limit of "400' AGL or whatever your authorization says" is pretty darn simple. How would you simplify it?

Note that there's nothing in 44809 altitude restrictions regarding what you're flying adjacent to. There is such a provision in the not-quite-so-simple Part 107 rules, but the 44809 flyer doesn't need to worry about that, since it doesn't apply.

Unless he fails to comply with 44809.

Actually your three paragraph explanation did NOT fully cover the attitude limit but I'll leave you to figure out what important element you missed. Not as simple as you claim.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I find 44809 pretty simple and I'm glad for it. Did it create a few questions, sure. But nothing a small dose of common sense couldnt get me thru. I found this forum cause I had a few questions, probably still do, just dont know it yet.
I've seen many flights in the crash sub forum that make me scratch my head, flying in town, over people, traffic. Flying in areas I wouldnt fly, just my opinion.
The item missing in this thread is that the FAA considers all pilots to be 107. 44809 is an exception.
Instead of complaining about the rules and/or penalties, we should be thanking the FAA for their effort to educate first.
With all the flagrant disregard for safety I've seen/read, I'm surprised 44809 is still available.

Rich QR's explanation of the altitude limit omitted an important element. What was it?

 

[MARK (LI)]

I'm sure you are busting to say what it is...please end the suspense and enlighten us

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I'm sure you are busting to say what it is...please end the suspense and enlighten us

Busting??? Why would I be busting to tell you something that is so simple?

Your thinking, and the others that claim this is so simple, are an example of a systemic problem in our society. Legislators and regulators feel like they aren't doing their job if they are not constantly creating new legislation and regulations. Piles of regulations to fix problems that don't exist and if someone isn't willing to read a three hundred page document that has references to scores of other documents that need to be understood to make sense of the new regulations, you're lazy. You have members of Congress that admit they haven't read a 2,000 page bill but pass it anyway without knowing the underlying consequences...but I digress.

My attitude regarding drone regulations has nothing to do with being lazy or being a rebel and everything to do with making the hobby unnecessarily complicated.

Btw, structures play a role in altitude limitations. Some how that "simple" fact didn't manage to get into Rich QR's simple explanation of altitude restrictions.

 

[Jurgen]

I question the phrase "eight simple rules". When you first saw a sectional chart did you think it was simple? Be real. Were you 100% clear on what the phrase "within line of sight" meant the first time you read it? I'd say most people are not clear on either issue given all of the discussions on this forum that center around just those two issues. We can't even come to a consensus on what constitutes recreational flying.

So save the "eight simple rules" mantra.

Recreational flying is exactly that. Until someone else decides for you that it's not.

 

[BigAl07]

@2edgesword when you say, "structures play a role in altitude limitations" is baffling me as well. Could you elaborate as I'm not seeing the omission for 44809.

 

[MS Coast]

...

Btw, structures play a role in altitude limitations. Some how that "simple" fact didn't manage to get into Rich QR's simple explanation of altitude restrictions.

But, it did.

From post #90 by Rich QR:

"Note that there's nothing in 44809 altitude restrictions regarding what you're flying adjacent to. There is such a provision in the not-quite-so-simple Part 107 rules, but the 44809 flyer doesn't need to worry about that, since it doesn't apply."

He did mention it and it's simply not relevant to 44809 operations.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

But, it did.

From post #90 by Rich QR:

"Note that there's nothing in 44809 altitude restrictions regarding what you're flying adjacent to. There is such a provision in the not-quite-so-simple Part 107 rules, but the 44809 flyer doesn't need to worry about that, since it doesn't apply."

He did mention it and it's simply not relevant to 44809 operations.

Are you saying the limitations related to structures do not apply to recreational fliers?