Police showed up my house within 15 minutes of flight today

[DroningOn]

I went through the documentation in this public safety toolkit and it appears that the FAA is advising local law enforcement to document and report incidents to them.... only. IE.. Although the LEO's can certainly track a drone to the operator and approach the operator, what they told this guy about issuing some "citation for wrecklessness" seems to be completely outside of what the LEO's can do. I wonder how many LEO's want to bird dog for the FAA on stuff like this unless their department is specifically telling them to?

Anyway, I think it's good to download the information and familiarize yourself with it. The FAA is certainly not handing their power over to the LEO's, more like asking them to be their eyes and ears and report anything that the FAA needs to follow up with.

Good summary Dronebow.
Every time this subject arises, the “tool kit“ is brought up. As stated above, this is just a general summary and a friendly request to sworn local law enforcement from the FAA to gather information. It in NO WAY assigns actual enforcement powers to local cops.

 

[Chip]

Every time this subject arises, the “tool kit“ is brought up. As stated above, this is just a general summary and a friendly request to sworn local law enforcement from the FAA to gather information. It in NO WAY assigns actual enforcement powers to local cops.

Yes and no. Local law enforcement definitely has right to enforce state reckless endangerment laws which are probably exactly what the guy on video was referring to. The FAA has local people available who will consult with law enforcement and explain to them why flying from inside house is dangerous and may violate federal law (if they do not know already). The FAA does in fact have legal authority to file civil charge and impose fine for "reckless flying" on its own but it has limited resources and can only do so in relatively tiny number of cases. They are happy to encourage local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute drone pilots under reckless endangerment, nuisance, harassment and stalking laws whenever and however possible. Especially hobbyists. FAA greenlight to terminate with extreme prejudice when and wherever found...

 

[Chip]

The first reckless endangerment prosecution of drone flyer in Seattle was in 2015. Note that the SPD initially declined to release its investigative report to the FAA which was considering issuing civil charges.

 

[Chip]

The FAA asserts jurisdiction over anyone in the world who flew an "aircraft" in the USA. FAA can mail a civil assessment or fine for reckless flying in the US to anyone anywhere in the world if they have proof of flight in US. Even to Switzerland!

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/Complaint.pdf

 

[Chip]

The exact definition of reckless endangerment may vary considerably among states. It can be used in all kinds of cases in all kinds of circumstances including drone flying. In the Seattle drone case, the court instructed the jury on meaning of reckless endangerment under WA law as follows:

A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.

A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

In the Seattle drone case, the defendant was flying over a parade crowd beyond VLOS in busy downtown area. He lost signal, drone struck building and then fell hitting person in head.

 

[BigAl07]

In the Seattle drone case, the defendant was flying over a parade crowd beyond VLOS in busy downtown area. He lost signal, drone struck building and then fell hitting person in head.

I had wondered why that case never got the "Traction" it could have but I guess SPD wanted to keep it more under wraps?

Was there any Federal action against the UAS operator or only local?

 

[Dronebow]

So the takeaway is that you guys are really upset about the concept of accountability.

So you would be ok with the police having a device on your car so they can constantly monitor everything you do, as "accountability" you know... ?

 

[sar104]

So you would be ok with the police having a device on your car so they can constantly monitor everything you do, as "accountability" you know... ?

If I were flying my car in the NAS, where tracking replaces the formality of designated roadways, then yes - I'd not only be okay with that - I'd realize that it was essential.

 

[Dronebow]

You're assuming that he did nothing reckless while flying, which given his vague story and reticence to give details is an awfully generous assumption.

Not at all. Assuming he "did" do something totally reckless, the LEO's still really can't do anything but report it. Making any assumption either way about reckless or not has no bearing here but since you brought it up, you are equally being awfully condemning.

 

[Dronebow]

If I were flying my car in the NAS, where tracking replaces the formality of designated roadways, then yes - I'd not only be okay with that - I'd realize that it was essential.

Don't get me wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But the problem becomes overreach. The idea that because we have designated roadways means we are safe from rogue drivers is really not supported by the facts of auto related deaths in this country. Not to say that some accountability isn't warranted. The question is really how much is too much?

But not to worry, you will be getting your wish soon and you will be paying for it too.

 

[sar104]

Don't get me wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But the problem becomes overreach. The idea that because we have designated roadways means we are safe from rogue drivers is really not supported by the facts of auto related deaths in this country. Not to say that some accountability isn't warranted. The question is really how much is too much?

But not to worry, you will be getting your wish soon and you will be paying for it too.

So you really don't think that road casualties would be higher if there were no designated roadways, or traffic controls? Seriously?

And there's the difference - I think it's clearly necessary, and I'm perfectly happy to bear some responsibility for the cost.

 

[Dronebow]

The exact definition of reckless endangerment may vary considerably among states. It can be used in all kinds of cases in all kinds of circumstances including drone flying. In the Seattle drone case, the court instructed the jury on meaning of reckless endangerment under WA law as follows:

A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.

A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

In the Seattle drone case, the defendant was flying over a parade crowd beyond VLOS in busy downtown area. He lost signal, drone struck building and then fell hitting person in head.

Great info Chip! Now I wonder if the case of reckless endangerment dwindles as drones become smaller and less dangerous? Flying an Inspire over a crowd is much more dangerous than a mini. So I wonder how these smaller drones will play in the mix with things like this?

 

[old man mavic]

what we are all experiencing right now is cause and effect
years ago cars were a new invention and the number of problems they could cause were also unknown
there weren't the restrictions around then,that are placed on them now
but as more and more people started owning them then the lawmakers started bringing in more and more restrictions
in the form of speed limits traffic controls ,and traffic free areas
its no different to what the people who fly drones are experiencing right now
when something that has the potential to cause injury or harm to others, becomes evermore popular, then more and more laws are made in the name of safety

 

[Dronebow]

So you really don't think that road casualties would be higher if there were no designated roadways, or traffic controls? Seriously?

And there's the difference - I think it's clearly necessary, and I'm perfectly happy to bear some responsibility for the cost.

All I'm saying is that there can be many facets of this argument. IE.. Because there are roadways there are naturally many more cars traveling in the same area at the same time and to the point that any number of potential causes may be disastrous. In other words, the solution can sometimes also lend to the problem. But we can debate endlessly on this likely poor example, it's frankly not really worth the time.

But to the point, I personally do not like the proposed FAA regulations to monitor every hobby drone in the sky. I've given my reasons to the FAA on their request for feedback as well. I doubt it will make any difference but did my part regardless.

I think there are other ways to regulate, educate, hold accountable, and manage this without putting a tracking device on every single hobby drone. You can be happy about it if you like, it's a free country. Likewise, I can disagree.

 

[dirkclod]

You got a phone Dronebow.
Whoops you being tracked. ?

 

[Dronebow]

You got a phone Dronebow.
Whoops you being tracked. ?

Not actively without a warrant. Except by my family in which I have given full control there.

 

[dirkclod]

Not actively without a warrant. Except by my family in which I have given full control there.

You can think that all you want but surly you don’t know if you are or not now do you. Hmmmmm
You think if your a person of interest they will tell you
they have a warrant.
Just saying. ?

 

[sar104]

All I'm saying is that there can be many facets of this argument. IE.. Because there are roadways there are naturally many more cars traveling in the same area at the same time and to the point that any number of potential causes may be disastrous. In other words, the solution can sometimes also lend to the problem. But we can debate endlessly on this likely poor example, it's frankly not really worth the time.

But to the point, I personally do not like the proposed FAA regulations to monitor every hobby drone in the sky. I've given my reasons to the FAA on their request for feedback as well. I doubt it will make any difference but did my part regardless.

I think there are other ways to regulate, educate, hold accountable, and manage this without putting a tracking device on every single hobby drone. You can be happy about it if you like, it's a free country. Likewise, I can disagree.

Would you like to elaborate on those other ways to manage the NAS?

 

[Chip]

I had wondered why that case never got the "Traction" it could have but I guess SPD wanted to keep it more under wraps?
Was there any Federal action against the UAS operator or only local?

My guess is the SPD only declined to give the FAA its report at that specific time because its investigation was still pending which is one major exception to duty to release documents under public records act here in WA. I do not believe the FAA went after the drone pilot. No need to really because he got very stiff penalty in municipal court following conviction on the endangerment charge. The SPD worked up the case quite diligently and arranged for the co-founder of AIRMAP to testify as a prosecution expert to explain to jury why flight was reckless. For a city to hire someone with such credentials to help prosecute a misdemeanor case was unusual but perhaps indicative of city's desire to make a serious statement.

 

[netsonic]

Local law enforcement definitely has right to enforce state reckless endangerment laws which are probably exactly what the guy on video was referring to. The FAA has local people available who will consult with law enforcement and explain to them why flying from inside house is dangerous and may violate federal law (if they do not know already).

Exactly! What else do you need if they catch you with the drone in the air.

My guess is the SPD only declined to give the FAA its report at that specific time because its investigation was still pending which is one major exception to duty to release documents under public records act here in WA. I do not believe the FAA went after the drone pilot. No need to really because he got very stiff penalty in municipal court following conviction on the endangerment charge.

Fair point. They do not need to make an example and appear ruthless as he was already screwed.