Lake George incident - reckless or not?

[BigAl07]

Well yes you probably have a point there for sure. It would be interesting if someone would test the waters so to speak and see just what happens.

@Vic Moss is working with a UAS operator who was indeed cited for Reckless Behavior (or something worded close to that). He can speak more about that if he's able to . . . .

 

[julian55]

I have said this before. They can and will have you arrested. You will have to fight them in court. How deep are your pockets? These fights can get very expensive for your the average guy or girl. Best to have your funding in place before hand as they already have lawyers on the payroll and it don't cost them a red cent to fight you in court win or lose.

Arrested by who ? Do US police arrest people on the request of others, surely they will only arrest someone if they are satisfied that an actual law has been broken?

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Arrested by who ? Do US police arrest people on the request of others, surely they will only arrest someone if they are satisfied that an actual law has been broken?

Since many fine LEO's still do not fully understand UAV laws one just might find a law he thinks you broke just like BigA107 said "cited for Reckless Behavior" Not saying it right but it seems it already has happened.

@Vic Moss is working with a UAS operator who was indeed cited for Reckless Behavior (or something worded close to that). He can speak more about that if he's able to . . . .

 

[Vic Moss]

@Vic Moss is working with a UAS operator who was indeed cited for Reckless Behavior (or something worded close to that). He can speak more about that if he's able to . . . .

Paul has a court appearance tomorrow morning (10/12). We'll watch it closely.

He was cited for "Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree" for this flight: https://youtu(.)be/CpM-sl3BO20. In order to watch it, copy and paste that link and remove the parentheses. Paul has it disabled as to not be able to play on other sites.

Apparently the cops didn't like him "buzzing" their boat. I see nothing reckless in the flight. Not one I'd have done, but not really reckless.

We'll see.

There is also a GoFundMe page set up to help him with a lawyer, but we aren't allowed to post those kids of links here. Email me and I'll send you the link if you'd like to help. He's trying to raise $5k. He has enough for a retainer at $3K for now, but he needs more still.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Apparently the cops didn't like him "buzzing" their boat. I see nothing reckless in the flight. Not one I'd have done, but not really reckless.

Police boat at 0:44 2: 03 and 1:06 ?
Looks like they stopped to possibly record 'evidence' and maybe work out where the pilot might be.

That last loop of the boat looked a little purposeful after the first 2 passes, but with FPV gear he might not have even known it was a police boat until later.

Anything FPV like that might look a little reckless to a regular consumer drone pilot I guess, certainly the general public might see it as that . . . but not what I'd call reckless endangerment of 'any degree'.

I think yhis might be a 50/50 thing in a court of law, some of the flight was close to / over canoe - kayak paddlers, and some of the outer distances could be construed as BVLOS, at least he had a spotter . . . it might come down to how the judge views drones and their use (though it shouldn't of course), as much as he / she considering 'what if' the drone had failed at this point, or that point etc.

Be interesting to here of the outcome (I hope he gets off, even if it is with a mild 'warning').

 

[Vic Moss]

Police boat at 0:44 2: 03 and 1:06 ?
Looks like they stopped to possibly record 'evidence' and maybe work out where the pilot might be.

That last loop of the boat looked a little purposeful after the first 2 passes, but with FPV gear he might not have even known it was a police boat until later.

I talked with Paul this afternoon. He had no idea it was a police boat until he watched the video at home. He mentioned he can see the person standing on the boat pointing at him in the video too.

But he had no idea at the time.

Anything FPV like that might look a little reckless to a regular consumer drone pilot I guess, certainly the general public might see it as that . . . but not what I'd call reckless endangerment of 'any degree'.

I think yhis might be a 50/50 thing in a court of law, some of the flight was close to / over canoe - kayak paddlers, and some of the outer distances could be construed as BVLOS, at least he had a spotter . . . it might come down to how the judge views drones and their use (though it shouldn't of course), as much as he / she considering 'what if' the drone had failed at this point, or that point etc.

I would probably not have flown this close to people, but I just don't see any recklessness either. I even see him changing course to avoid flying over people.

If he loses, it could very well have poor ramifications for all of us.

Be interesting to here of the outcome (I hope he gets off, even if it is with a mild 'warning').

Also, he heard from the court today (that's why I called him), they've postponed tomorrow's court date until November 9th. They are looking into complying with his ADA requirements.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I talked with Paul this afternoon. He had no idea it was a police boat until he watched the video at home. He mentioned he can see the person standing on the boat pointing at him in the video too.

But he had no idea at the time.

I thought as much . . . just like it's almost impossible for us to see such detail on our devices until playback on a larger computer screen.

He'd probably have avoided them as far as possible if he knew.

I would probably not have flown this close to people, but I just don't see any recklessness either. I even see him changing course to avoid flying over people.

Yes, he swerved through other boats etc on those long low sections of flight, will help his case I'm sure.

I wonder if Paul will use his video as a defense ?
Or if he plans to just make the Police use whatever video they must have taken to try and prove their case ?

Sometimes it's best to keep things to yourself, like deciding not to take the stand in your defense.

I guess that the Police have to provide their evidence to the defense attorney and they can decide form there how bad it might look from the waters surface.
Paul's video might look a whole lot more reasonable.

If he loses, it could very well have poor ramifications for all of us.



Also, he heard from the court today (that's why I called him), they've postponed tomorrow's court date until November 9th. They are looking into complying with his ADA requirements.

Well, best of luck to him, maybe a new thread for an update when it's all done and dusted.

 

[Aerophile]

Thanks for sharing this. I'm late to this, just watched the video. Lots of "hmmm" from me.

I can easily see how many would indeed view that flight as "reckless." Repeated very low passes, very close to people/vessels/structures, including buzzing the cops, a few aerobatics over/near roads with passing cars tossed in as the cherry on top. The fact that he didn't know it was cops he was buzzing isn't going to gain him any sympathy. I'll be interested in hearing how this goes.

What is the jurisdiction/what kind of cops is/are charging him?

I'm guessing that the FAA would not want to wade into this. That said, if they did, I would not be shocked if they considered this flight reckless -- IME the FAA generally takes a very dim view of buzzing and other "hot-dogging" and that's what this flight looks like.

BTW what kind of drone? Sure sounds different.

 

[DoomMeister]

BTW what kind of drone? Sure sounds different.

An FPV drone. Small, fast, maneuverable, and takes true piloting skills to fly. No GPS assist, no altitude assist, you are on the sticks for the entire flight.

My son is very accomplished with one. Besides the aerobatic stunts in open air he has navigated through arboreal mazes. I can’t even begin to do this, nor do I want to. My hat is off to those with the dexterity to fly like that.

I did not see this flight as being reckless. He was never over people or moving vehicles with passengers from the footage I saw. I would be shocked if he ever got within 30 feet of anyone.

Best of luck in court. They really have no leg to stand on in my opinion.

P.S. Which Lake George?

 

[R0CKETMAN]

How was Paul ID’d?

 

[BobaFut]

Arrested by who ? Do US police arrest people on the request of others, surely they will only arrest someone if they are satisfied that an actual law has been broken?

LMAO. They’ll cite/arrest you on a whim and let the prosecutors sort it out later.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Copy and past from the Paul
Just familiarize your self with the story is scary if you fly drones that they can criminalize a situation like this. Absurdity! Paul’s Story: On August 13, 2022, I was on vacation with my fiance and two children at Lake George in New York. I am a drone pilot, and I was flying my drone legally over the waters of Lake George. A harbor patrol boat approached me and told me that I was "too close to the water" and that I had to "fly higher." I am well aware of the rules and regulations when flying a drone as I am a student of the Pilot Institute. I explained to the officer that I was following the rules and not violating any laws by flying close to the water. The officer got extremely upset and yelled, "You need to fly higher, or I am going to write you a ticket!" I explained to the officer that I did not believe he could write me a ticket for flying close to the water. The officer parked his boat and approached me. I tried explaining to the officer that my flight was legal and I was not violating any laws, but he did not have any interest in hearing what I had to say. He spent the next half hour on the phone with his supervisor trying to figure out what he would write on the ticket. The officer charged me with a misdemeanor offense of New York penal code 120.20 (reckless endangerment in the 2nd degree). On my first court date, I requested that future court hearings be held virtually or at a closer venue as I am disabled and have severe mobility issues. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and local governments to allow me a reasonable accommodation due to my disability. The New York State Unified Court System has a policy in place stating that I am entitled to such an accommodation due to my disability (https://ww2.nycourts.gov/Accessibilit.... The judge in this case denied both request and did not follow proper procedure in his denial of my rights. I have not committed any crime. I followed all laws required during my flight. My flight was heavily focused on safety but I will require legal advocacy to let the truth be heard in this court. I cannot do that without your help. This court is comparing my aircraft in flight to bullets fired from a gun and rocks thrown a hand. While it may sound absurd, this is the language that is being used against me by the prosecution in this case. They are doing so to avoid the jurisdiction of the FAA, the sole entity that controls all airspace in the United States of America. If I lose this case, I face a 1 year jail sentence. That would be devastating for my family and myself.

 

[BobaFut]

Copy and past from the Paul
Just familiarize your self with the story is scary if you fly drones that they can criminalize a situation like this. Absurdity! Paul’s Story: On August 13, 2022, I was on vacation with my fiance and two children at Lake George in New York. I am a drone pilot, and I was flying my drone legally over the waters of Lake George. A harbor patrol boat approached me and told me that I was "too close to the water" and that I had to "fly higher." I am well aware of the rules and regulations when flying a drone as I am a student of the Pilot Institute. I explained to the officer that I was following the rules and not violating any laws by flying close to the water. The officer got extremely upset and yelled, "You need to fly higher, or I am going to write you a ticket!" I explained to the officer that I did not believe he could write me a ticket for flying close to the water. The officer parked his boat and approached me. I tried explaining to the officer that my flight was legal and I was not violating any laws, but he did not have any interest in hearing what I had to say. He spent the next half hour on the phone with his supervisor trying to figure out what he would write on the ticket. The officer charged me with a misdemeanor offense of New York penal code 120.20 (reckless endangerment in the 2nd degree). On my first court date, I requested that future court hearings be held virtually or at a closer venue as I am disabled and have severe mobility issues. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and local governments to allow me a reasonable accommodation due to my disability. The New York State Unified Court System has a policy in place stating that I am entitled to such an accommodation due to my disability (https://ww2.nycourts.gov/Accessibilit.... The judge in this case denied both request and did not follow proper procedure in his denial of my rights. I have not committed any crime. I followed all laws required during my flight. My flight was heavily focused on safety but I will require legal advocacy to let the truth be heard in this court. I cannot do that without your help. This court is comparing my aircraft in flight to bullets fired from a gun and rocks thrown a hand. While it may sound absurd, this is the language that is being used against me by the prosecution in this case. They are doing so to avoid the jurisdiction of the FAA, the sole entity that controls all airspace in the United States of America. If I lose this case, I face a 1 year jail sentence. That would be devastating for my family and myself.

Obviously it’s important to fight for your rights, but you also have to pick your battles because there is an extreme power imbalance at play here. Even if you just apologize and act like you’re gonna comply, you can just go back to what you’re doing after they leave.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

"You need to fly higher, or I am going to write you a ticket!" I explained to the officer that I did not believe he could write me a ticket for flying close to the water. The officer parked his boat and approached me. I tried explaining to the officer that my flight was legal and I was not violating any laws, but he did not have any interest in hearing what I had to say. He spent the next half hour on the phone with his supervisor trying to figure out what he would write on the ticket. The officer charged me with a misdemeanor offense of New York penal code 120.20 (reckless endangerment in the 2nd degree).

Well, in this case it should get thrown out, if it even gets by the prosecution team (obviously it has with the first hearing).
There is NO rule about how low you fly, in fact if common sense were applied, the higher a flight, the more damage a falling drone could do.
The Police could only perhaps cite him to the FAA, if they thought he flew higher than 400', and got to close to flying over people, or they thought he was flying BVLOS.

This secondary topic is important, and really needs its own thread now.
Perhaps all relevant posts since and including post #33 from Big Al, and excluding Karlblessing post at #37, can be moved to a new thread topic ?
With a link to it here ?

edit typo

 

[Skydreamer]

I dont see anything illegal ,Paul is in trouble because cop got “upset “,thats it,i would smile,show tumb up and say “no problem”,most likely go and find better spot with less cops around

 

[Chip]

State and local police have authority to enforce reckless endangerment laws which can apply to a variety of situations including flying a drone. The law in WA and many states reads like this:

Reckless Endangerment
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

Yes, the reckless endangerment law can apply to drone flying. We know that because a few years ago, a guy was convicted of it by a Seattle jury after flying BVLOS over a parade. The drone lost signal, hit a building, and crashed onto a spectator's head.

But, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a small consumer drone flying over water created a substantial risk of death or serious injury is not so easy. Its not enough to prove it was annoying or a nuisance.

In the Seattle case, the city paid for a nationally known expert to explain to the jury how the flight was very dangerous and against FAA guidelines because it included BVLOS, forseeable loss of signal and flight control, flying over a crowd, and a crash onto someone's head.

 

[JOHNVOSS]

You didn't follow the law of common sense by arguing with the officer. There is an old saying about knowing when to stand up and when to shut up.

 

[B52-D]

If the FAA is / was involved they would write a violation against the operator for careless and reckless.

14 CFR § 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.​

• CFR

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

They may parallel the FAA regulation and charge him accordingly, and IMO, after viewing the video, probably would be appropriate in this case.

 

[Aerophile]

State and local police have authority to enforce reckless endangerment laws which can apply to a variety of situations including flying a drone. The law in WA and many states reads like this:

Reckless Endangerment
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

Yes, the reckless endangerment law can apply to drone flying. We know that because a few years ago, a guy was convicted of it by a Seattle jury after flying BVLOS over a parade. The drone lost signal, hit a building, and crashed onto a spectator's head.

But, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a small consumer drone flying over water created a substantial risk of death or serious injury is not so easy. Its not enough to prove it was annoying or a nuisance.

In the Seattle case, the city paid for a nationally known expert to explain to the jury how the flight was very dangerous and against FAA guidelines because it included BVLOS, forseeable loss of signal and flight control, flying over a crowd, and a crash onto someone's head.

@Chip - Don't want to derail this thread, but could you PM me with any more details you remember (or ideally, a link to a news story) about that incident or the legal proceedings that followed? This is the first I've heard of it and would like to know more. Thanks for any pointers you can share.

 

[Aerophile]

If the FAA is / was involved they would write a violation against the operator for careless and reckless.

14 CFR § 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.​

• CFR

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Yep, that's what the FAA uses to go after anyone caught "buzzing" or engaging in other low-level maneuvers that they consider unnecessary, frivolous and dangerous – when piloting a manned aircraft. They are not shy at all about bringing this. "Careless and reckless" is often used as a "catch-all" for activities that may not be explicitly called out as prohibited, but that they feel are clearly unsafe (and that they feel should not be done simply out of "common sense").

They may parallel the FAA regulation and charge him accordingly, and IMO, after viewing the video, probably would be appropriate in this case.

I'm not sure how interested the FAA really is in policing drone ops like this. IF they do decide to wade in (a big "if" at this point), though, I agree with you, and I would expect them to cite CFR 91.13, and they could easily decide to make an example of this case.

For doing any kind of "buzzing" in a manned aircraft (is that equivalent? I'm not saying it is...) I'd expect them to come down hard. They may (or may not) view drones differently: for sure, a 249 gram drone is not the same as a 1600 pound Cessna, but the same catch-all rule could be applied (or they may get out the calculators and get deep into kinetic energy equations).

Will be an interesting case to watch.