Getting in trouble with the law

[Deadshot08]

For the past 6 months of having my drone and flying it legally while traveling around the country, I've done many research prior to launching it just to make sure I'm flying within city, state, and federal regulations. However, when I'm on YouTube or other social media sites, I often see people posting pictures or videos that are being taken from these NFZ areas. Now I know there are two types of drone pilots...hobbyists and licensed. I also know that not all videos or pictures being posted are from licensed pilots, which means those pictures or videos were most likely taken "illegally".

My question is, when/how would you get in trouble for this? Does it have to be at that present moment when the drone is being flown and you get caught or can it be after you have flown it and the picture/video is posted when the city, state, or federal officials see it? I guess a better way of asking this question is, can you be cited if someone finds the picture or video online?

 

[UAVNV]

theres a video out there where a guy was served a ticket at home after posting video of flying in a national park, found through his youtube channel, must be the latter.

 

[ksmusa]

I think you are correct, FAA enforcement is spotty at best but there are a few notable exceptions. After numerous incursions in NYC, Casey Neistat was investigated by the FAA and no longer conducts illegal drone flights in the city. There of also been a few cases of Youtubers receiving fines for flying in National parks.

 

[swooshdave]

I saw one person who posted a drone video from Crater Lake. That didn't look smart.

 

[ksmusa]

Yes correct, I have seen that video.

 

[swooshdave]

Unfortunately local laws are less clear. The worse are the ones that say "park official discretion". But at least in National Parks it's pretty clear.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Unfortunately local laws are less clear. The worse are the ones that say "park official discretion". But at least in National Parks it's pretty clear.

Just an FYI. As with the National Park System, most state parks also prohibit aircraft from taking off or landing in the park boundaries. State parks like in New York didn't create this rule due to rotorcraft becoming a problem like the National Park System did, it is actually an older rule originally pertaining to full-scale aircraft and since the government deemed airborne RC's "aircraft" it applies. They do have the option of issuing a permit to take off and land in NY state parks.

 

[choo choo]

I think the answer to the question is. This is a right old ‘can of worms’ question.
I suppose the moment you fly illegally, a potential offence (offense for my US cousins) is committed. Whether that offence is charged as a violation of drone or park laws or reckless endangerment I suppose depends on a lot of circumstances of proof.
For example It could be argued that the take off/landing point was outside the boundary of a national park. Is the entire airspace above a park a NFZ? Does it extend to space?
A YouTube or whatever video is evidence towards prosecution of an offence. I say evidence towards prosecution because it would have to be proven it was you flying the drone on that day/time, and not someone who had access to your drone and YouTube channel etc etc. Unless of course you appear on the video telling the world how cool it is to fly a drone above one of the most crowded cities in the world.

Personally speaking now.... NYC has to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world. When vids are shot with care & professionalism, and many are, they are simply stunning and promote the city in ways which the tourism industry would have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to get that sort of coverage...and it’s done free of charge for them!!!

 

[Deadshot08]

So I'm getting pulled in all different directions b/c of what was said to me in another forum. I was told, but do not believe, that if you fly to the inside of the airspace of a National Park but took off and landed outside the boundaries of it, you are safe. I personally find that hard to believe. The whole point is to prevent drones to be in the airspace so nothing would happen inside the National Park. As far as local laws go, I think it's still a grey area for the police. Some know that it's ok for you to fly and says it's ok or know it's not and say no. Some are hesitant and will tell you sure or that it's not allowed. What I get really frustrated about is, if a local park or any park (state or federal), prohibits drones, why can't they add it to the signs posted on the property just like they do for campfires, smoking, etc.? Even the park sites aren't always clear. You literally have to go digging for bits and pieces before coming to a conclusion. A lot of the apps out there also don't define the clear boundaries of NFZs so that makes things harder as well.

But overall from what I've gathered and common sense, the answer is, if you know you shouldn't fly there, don't do it. If you are close to a NFZ, you can still fly but just have proper footage (of you being within the limits) to back yourself up in case something happens.

 

[Tinmania]

I think you are correct, FAA enforcement is spotty at best but there are a few notable exceptions. After numerous incursions in NYC, Casey Neistat was investigated by the FAA and no longer conducts illegal drone flights in the city. There of also been a few cases of Youtubers receiving fines for flying in National parks.

As popular as his vlog is it's interesting to note that the investigations were all closed, without enforcement action, due to insufficient evidence. It's also worth noting that the complaints all seemed to be from people who watched his vlogs (and there weren't really many complaints, relatively).

Full details here: EXCLUSIVE: Details of Casey Neistat's FAA investigations | Andy's Travel Blog



Mike

 

[xtrmtrk]

I would totally stay away from US National Parks when flying.

Due to Team Black Sheep’s super belligerent attitude and legal actions towards Park Service rangers several years ago, rangers today are very sensitive to any RC activity. It’s a small community and they share information.

 

[ac0j]

Lots of armchair attorneys will say taking off outside a park and flying in is ok. They will also say using goggles to fly without VLOS is ok. They will try to say that if you have an observer or spotter you are exempt from your VLOS requirements. All are grey areas that will wash out in the future. For me, I’ll just not fly if there is any question wether I should or not. People are free to do what they want and suffer whatever consequences befall them because of it.

 

[motopokep]

My question is, when/how would you get in trouble for this? Does it have to be at that present moment when the drone is being flown and you get caught or can it be after you have flown it and the picture/video is posted when the city, state, or federal officials see it? I guess a better way of asking this question is, can you be cited if someone finds the picture or video online?

Just like with any other crime or ordinance violation, if there is a clear video of it that can tie you to the act, you can be prosecuted. That's how we get speeding and red light tickets in the mail by cameras catching us. It's a gray area though, because they gov't has to prove it's you who actually did it. You can always present a defense that someone stole your drone and flew it illegally and then returned it to you and you posted their illegal flight on your channel . The reason those red light and speeding camera tickets are not moving violations against your license, at least in my state, is because if they went to court, they would be thrown out as 99% of those cameras don't show your face behind the wheel. I had 2 traffic tickets against me dismissed in court, on 2 separate occasions. In both instances, it was a cop sting operation, when one cop would pull you over because he saw the offense take place, and he would direct you to a spot ahead where the other cop would write you, and like 10 other people waiting in line, a ticket. This is more efficient for them, they can catch more violators. The problem is, only the cop who wrote the ticket would show up in court to testify, and since the 2nd cop didn't witness the violation can't testify how it happened because he doesn't have firsthand knowledge, the tickets got dismissed. It's a grey area sometimes. I remember back in my motorcycle days guys would post wheelies and high speed runs on the internet and some got caught and prosecuted, though I'm not sure what the outcome was since you can almost never see the rider's face in that video.

I'm not sure how FAA is going after the drone pilots who post illegal flights, since they can't see the pilot's face and them doing the actual flying. I guess the gov't is bending the rules of law in their favor. But I don't think violating FAA rules is criminal. It's civil in nature, correct me if I'm wrong, because it's codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and with civil law, the burden of proof is "by preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal law, which is a higher standard. So I guess, by preponderance of the evidence, if you post a flight on your youtube channel, it's presumed that you were the pilot.

But what if I download someone else's youtube video that I like and post it on my channel? I'd like to see the FAA go after me and prove that I was the pilot.

 

[choo choo]

Just like with any other crime or ordinance violation, if there is a clear video of it that can tie you to the act, you can be prosecuted. That's how we get speeding and red light tickets in the mail by cameras catching us. It's a gray area though, because they gov't has to prove it's you who actually did it. You can always present a defense that someone stole your drone and flew it illegally and then returned it to you and you posted their illegal flight on your channel . The reason those red light and speeding camera tickets are not moving violations against your license, at least in my state, is because if they went to court, they would be thrown out as 99% of those cameras don't show your face behind the wheel. I had 2 traffic tickets against me dismissed in court, on 2 separate occasions. In both instances, it was a cop sting operation, when one cop would pull you over because he saw the offense take place, and he would direct you to a spot ahead where the other cop would write you, and like 10 other people waiting in line, a ticket. This is more efficient for them, they can catch more violators. The problem is, only the cop who wrote the ticket would show up in court to testify, and since the 2nd cop didn't witness the violation can't testify how it happened because he doesn't have firsthand knowledge, the tickets got dismissed. It's a grey area sometimes. I remember back in my motorcycle days guys would post wheelies and high speed runs on the internet and some got caught and prosecuted, though I'm not sure what the outcome was since you can almost never see the rider's face in that video.

I'm not sure how FAA is going after the drone pilots who post illegal flights, since they can't see the pilot's face and them doing the actual flying. I guess the gov't is bending the rules of law in their favor. But I don't think violating FAA rules is criminal. It's civil in nature, correct me if I'm wrong, because it's codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and with civil law, the burden of proof is "by preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal law, which is a higher standard. So I guess, by preponderance of the evidence, if you post a flight on your youtube channel, it's presumed that you were the pilot.

But what if I download someone else's youtube video that I like and post it on my channel? I'd like to see the FAA go after me and prove that I was the pilot.

Exactly my point in my earlier post. This is gonna be a real money maker for the attorneys arguing about points of law. The problem we have, as you say, it’s a grey (gray) area, simply because drone flying is so new and gained popularity so fast, the laws haven’t yet managed to catch up. Cars have been around for 100 or so years, and in that time there has been hundreds of thousands (millions?) of cases, plenty of time to test the laws, and where the law fails, the loophole gets closed.
In the U.K. we have to provide information on who was driving a speeding vehicle, or be liable to prosecution for not providing it. For the average Joe Public, Speeding in the UK is classed as an ‘absolute offence’ because there is no defence. You are presumed guilty, no defence, except hope to challenge the calibration of the camera or procedure.

 

[ScubaBob]

So I'm getting pulled in all different directions b/c of what was said to me in another forum. I was told, but do not believe, that if you fly to the inside of the airspace of a National Park but took off and landed outside the boundaries of it, you are safe. I personally find that hard to believe. The whole point is to prevent drones to be in the airspace so nothing would happen inside the National Park. As far as local laws go, I think it's still a grey area for the police. Some know that it's ok for you to fly and says it's ok or know it's not and say no. Some are hesitant and will tell you sure or that it's not allowed. What I get really frustrated about is, if a local park or any park (state or federal), prohibits drones, why can't they add it to the signs posted on the property just like they do for campfires, smoking, etc.? Even the park sites aren't always clear. You literally have to go digging for bits and pieces before coming to a conclusion. A lot of the apps out there also don't define the clear boundaries of NFZs so that makes things harder as well.

But overall from what I've gathered and common sense, the answer is, if you know you shouldn't fly there, don't do it. If you are close to a NFZ, you can still fly but just have proper footage (of you being within the limits) to back yourself up in case something happens.

To think that if you take off outside a NFZ and then land outside a NFZ but between take-off and landing you fly into a NFZ is OK is the dumbest logic I have ever heard. NFZ means NO FLY ZONE. Only the Russians and Syrians fly in NFZs. But if you want to test, go to a nearby Federal prison and take off outside the NFZ and then fly over the prison and wait to see what happens. I don't think your drone (or you) will be welcomed.

 

[Skyspy007]

I’m sticking my hands in a can of worms with this.

NO law has been bromulgated or approved against the use of “drones” in any area in this world unless stated NFZ in a specific area for specific reasons. Reasons can or may be military areas, air traffic control zones ie airports/airfields or air traffic approach areas.

Fortunately I have a legal license on land, marine, and aviation CPL.

In the event of flying an airplane over built up areas, the minimums above built up areas are 1500 ft AGL. In specified danger or restricted areas the minimums and maximums applies for flying MANNED airplanes, no provisions or notices or exemptions made for ANY and NO drones.

Any and ALL space above you are FREE to rome as and when you wish. This space does NOT belong to anyone.

In the event and WITH SUFFECIENT prove of intentions to commit a criminal act of spying or trying to assess accessibility into specific areas, different laws are applicable but NO LAW can prevent you from flying any drone except up to a specific weight of the drone anywhere.

If the “law” wants to apprehend you, ask them for the promulgated law to either confiscate your equipment or take you into custody.

Luckily I KNOW the marine laws, aviation laws and land laws

 

[Boss_Vyc]

Is easy to unlock the drone for nfz zone. I just try this to see if is possible.
I don't recommend to flying in this area.
For me is normal to confiscate police the drone and pay an byg ticket.

 

[guest1023]

I’m sticking my hands in a can of worms with this.

NO law has been bromulgated or approved against the use of “drones” in any area in this world unless stated NFZ in a specific area for specific reasons. Reasons can or may be military areas, air traffic control zones ie airports/airfields or air traffic approach areas.

Fortunately I have a legal license on land, marine, and aviation CPL.

In the event of flying an airplane over built up areas, the minimums above built up areas are 1500 ft AGL. In specified danger or restricted areas the minimums and maximums applies for flying MANNED airplanes, no provisions or notices or exemptions made for ANY and NO drones.

Any and ALL space above you are FREE to rome as and when you wish. This space does NOT belong to anyone.

In the event and WITH SUFFECIENT prove of intentions to commit a criminal act of spying or trying to assess accessibility into specific areas, different laws are applicable but NO LAW can prevent you from flying any drone except up to a specific weight of the drone anywhere.

If the “law” wants to apprehend you, ask them for the promulgated law to either confiscate your equipment or take you into custody.

Luckily I KNOW the marine laws, aviation laws and land laws

You just don't know how to spell.

 

[DroningOn]

You just don't know how to spell.

Typical. When a person can’t or won’t debate a persons argument, criticize their spelling. Welcome to 2018

 

[gnirtS]

You're confusing an aviation regulators official no-fly zone with a government or private bodies rules and regulations.