Illegal Flight Over Stadium

[tekgirl02]

Personally, the extra hits this individual is s getting to his channel could have possibly been his objective, and I'm sort of sorry I promoted the comments section of youtube, getting him possibly more hits.
From earlier recollection 3 hrs ago it has 6,000 something hits, now a bit over 11,000.
I suppose he may lose those if / when the video is pulled.

I'm thinking he has very few drone videos up on his channel (3 altogether ?), and one's used for some of a rap video, other was a daytime (possibly) test flight over the stadium.
So I think they've just bought a drone to use with their 'biz', not knowing or worried about drone rules, or simply doesn't have once ounce of common sense that should tell him some situations are not wise to fly in

What puzzles me is what the heck is he flying, and how the heck did he get down so low in the stadium without losing signal to his device ?
If it was a DJI or similar platform, and it had of lost signal in there, it could have easily flown up to RTH altitude right into any of those overhead wires.
I wonder if this individual could even SEE those when he was flying.

He said in the comments that it was a Dji mavic air 2

 

[Vic Moss]

Thanks.
I did not phrase the question well, so.....
Suppose bbbp say they did not fly the flight but merely uploaded the video with the video being given to them (bbbp) by someone else. Can bbbp be compelled to name ''someone else' and so on down the chain until the FAA reach the pilot?

Could he, yes. It's a common defense. Both the guy who flew in Vegas and the guy who flew during the Blue Angels flyover said that. But there is plenty of evidence of him posting in places saying he flew it and he knew it was illegal.

Walking back from those confessions would be a difficult task.

 

[heightened_imagery]

As I have commented before, I will not view his channel and possibly contribute to his monetized view count.

His channel isn't monetized, and highly doubt it will ever be. This is the only video he has over 500 views on.
Edit 1: Didn't realize how many of his other views has gotten higher views now.

 

[flyingunicorn]

usually not a fan of people who report others for things but jesus im glad everyone reported him, the stupidity to fly in a place like that is beyond belief and the thought of what may come for us who just enjoy flying our drones and trying to be as respectful as possible

 

[mdallen]

Brick by brick productions. Hmmmm, seems like he may be "Thick as a brick"

 

[bsartist]

I understand why some will think that more regs will result. And they very well may. But this person flagrantly violated many rules already in place. Why not just enforce those rather than tacitly justifying additional rules? String the guy up. Make him an example for existing rules. I get it. But why should the rule abiding pilots be quaking in their boots? Not criticizing them. Just food for thought.

 

[GrayHornet]

Surprisingly the video is still up on YT. He even has a prior vid on his YT list past December showing a fly over of PB Stadium.

 

[bsartist]

Surprisingly the video is still up on YT. He even has a prior vid on his YT list past December showing a fly over of PB Stadium.

You never know. This guy may have a way of preventing being identified. Maybe he uses a VPN to post. May not be enough to evade the long arm of the law but it just may be. There is probably no way of knowing if the other videos are videos of him or even videos he’s taken. I hope he’s caught. But I wouldn’t write his epitaph just yet.

 

[MS Coast]

I understand why some will think that more regs will result. And they very well may. But this person flagrantly violated many rules already in place. Why not just enforce those rather than tacitly justifying additional rules? String the guy up. Make him an example for existing rules. I get it. But why should the rule abiding pilots be quaking in their boots? Not criticizing them. Just food for thought.

The main problem I see is that episodes like this one give the anti-drone proponents who argue for stricter regulations just what they dream of - a concrete, factual, documented, and emotionally charged example of the dangers of drones.

 

[bsartist]

The main problem I see is that episodes like this one give the anti-drone proponents who argue for stricter regulations just what they dream of - a concrete, factual, documented, and emotionally charged example of the dangers of drones.

I get that. But logically it makes no sense. It’s already illegal. Why should this give power to the anti-drone proponents? It should give power to people against illegal use of drones. Period.

Yeah I know these are rhetorical questions and rhetorical points. I get how the real world works. Doesn’t mean that we can’t speak up against what’s wrong.

 

[heightened_imagery]

I feel they need to string him up, just so others don't look at it and say "He didn't get prosecuted, so I can do it also".

 

[flyingunicorn]

I understand why some will think that more regs will result. And they very well may. But this person flagrantly violated many rules already in place. Why not just enforce those rather than tacitly justifying additional rules?

from living in Australia, Which i know this didn't happen in but here even when people break exisiting rules they use it as a excuse to bring more laws in place to screw even more people over

 

[bsartist]

I feel they need to string him up, just so others don't look at it and say "He didn't get prosecuted, so I can do it also".

from living in Australia, Which i know this didn't happen in but here even when people break exisiting rules they use it as a excuse to bring more laws in place to screw even more people over

Yes I get it. I get it. But I’m just pushing back and putting in my $0.02 that it’s a whole bowl of wrong.

 

[hiflyer201]

ignorance is bliss

 

[sar104]

I get that. But logically it makes no sense. It’s already illegal. Why should this give power to the anti-drone proponents? It should give power to people against illegal use of drones. Period.

Yeah I know these are rhetorical questions and rhetorical points. I get how the real world works. Doesn’t mean that we can’t speak up against what’s wrong.

There are a couple of things that are likely to gain further support if people keep doing this kind of thing:

1. The recreational exemption could be canceled to try to ensure that anyone without Part 107 training is flying illegally. That would obviously not eliminate, but it would reduce, the number of untrained pilots and make enforcement against anyone else much simpler.
2. Manufacturers could be required to include more robust geofencing. Again, that won't prevent illegal flights with hacked or homemade sUAS, but it would reduce numbers.

From an aviation safety perspective I would support those, and I think that they are both quite likely to happen.

 

[bsartist]

There are a couple of things that are likely to gain further support if people keep doing this kind of thing:

1. The recreational exemption could be canceled to try to ensure that anyone without Part 107 training is flying illegally. That would obviously not eliminate, but it would reduce, the number of untrained pilots and make enforcement against anyone else much simpler.
2. Manufacturers could be required to include more robust geofencing. Again, that won't prevent illegal flights with hacked or homemade sUAS, but it would reduce numbers.

From an aviation safety perspective I would support those, and I think that they are both quite likely to happen.

I think you make a very valid point with #2. I’m less convinced on #1. Outlaws will be outlaws. And non 107 recreational training that’s now required in the U.S. already makes this conduct clearly illegal if my memory serves me correctly. There isn’t anything magical about a part 107 cert that makes a guy like this be less of an outlaw than the now required recreational test.

But I cede point #2.

 

[sar104]

I think you make a very valid point with #2. I’m less convinced on #1. Outlaws will be outlaws. And non 107 recreational training that’s now required in the U.S. already makes this conduct clearly illegal if my memory serves me correctly. There isn’t anything magical about a part 107 cert that makes a guy like this be less of an outlaw than the now required recreational test.

But I cede point #2.

I guess I agree that #2 is more obvious, but on #1 it's a statistical thing. Right now I would guess that most recreational pilots have not taken the TRUST training - either can't be bothered or just don't know about it. They simply think that, by default, recreational flight is basically unregulated and no one cares what they do. If recreational flight without holding Part 107 or similar were clearly illegal that would greatly reduce participation in the hobby, which is one way (even if not ideal) to reduce these kinds of problems.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

With regard to Sar104's 2) look at the situation with one or all of the mini's in India, something like a 15m height limit in the firmware. I can't remember if there's a distance limit.
I truly do not think it is inconceivable that manufacturers could be compelled to write a 400ft or lower max height ceiling and a range limit within the average VLOS range into the firmware.

 

[VinceEdward]

This is the

There are a couple of things that are likely to gain further support if people keep doing this kind of thing:

1. The recreational exemption could be canceled to try to ensure that anyone without Part 107 training is flying illegally. That would obviously not eliminate, but it would reduce, the number of untrained pilots and make enforcement against anyone else much simpler.
2. Manufacturers could be required to include more robust geofencing. Again, that won't prevent illegal flights with hacked or homemade sUAS, but it would reduce numbers.

From an aviation safety perspective I would support those, and I think that they are both quite likely to happen.

As someone new to the hobby, this whole thing is upsetting because it reeks of the kind of single incident that leads to tightened regulations. It's got a lot of those hallmarks on it. Very public, very visible, thumbing of the nose at a regulatory agency, could have had the potential for serious harm if things had gone wrong...

Those are the ones where the pendulum often swings back too far in the wrong direction. The whole idea that "outlaws gonna outlaw" doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't see efforts made to curtail certain behavior. So I think you're right that it could come with some kind of blowback. Honestly, one of the biggest surprises I had getting into this world was how easy it actually is to get yourself up and ready to fly WITHOUT getting sufficient warning on the responsibilities of flying these things and what regulations or laws you need to familiarize yourself with before you do.

I took the time because I'm a bit obsessive in that way and heard anecdotally from photographer friends about it. But I was pretty surprised at the ease with which someone can walk into a Best Buy and come out and be up in the air without ever being confronted with the need to have any knowledge whatsoever about safe operation.

I see photographers doing stuff all the time that breaks laws they don't really know exist and don't think they need to know about. But it doesn't involve flying a mess of rapidly spinning blades and heavy plastic over the heads of tens of thousands of people and athletes who are worth millions of dollars to an organization...

 

[66427cobra]

Brick by brick productions. Hmmmm, seems like he may be "Thick as a brick"

good song but I'm more partial to Aqualung...