Reckless drone flights posted on Facebook. Report?

[FLYBOYJ]

HR 302 (US)

 

[Nosebump]

When you're driving down the road, do you write down the tag number of every car that passes you (-assuming you're doing the exact speed limit)? -Of course not! Let the police enforce the laws.

Now for an exception using the same analogy. If a car passed you at an outrageous speed, ran over a pedestrian in the process, then continued on in a similar manner.

YES! That person is endangering lives by his actions, and the best thing to do would be to try to eliminate or minimize that danger. Now, using YOUR example, a drone flying close to a forest fire. Is there other aerial activity present? How would this activity imperil someone at that point in time? If it isn't, then no, don't try to be a cop.

Whether you're a 107 pilot or not, the response should be the same. I'm an ATP and I see all kinds of bonehead stunts, yet my job is not to report stupidity unless that stupidity endanger others, which brings up another question.

Should a 107 pilot file a NASA form?

 

[Salla50]

Its a tricky one. As people say, a snitch is not something we want to become, for sure. However there're 2 aspects to "policing" the situation of course, ie the matter of safety to others and also that stupidity and inconsiderate behaviour can only make it worse for general flying in the long term.

Certainly, politely and logically pointing out the problems potentially caused by inconsiderate fliers publicly in their own space in front of their peers will probably be the best bet. Remain calm and rational and they will be the ones who feel the shame, even if they bluster and you appear to get flamed for your rationality.

 

[4Cutekids]

I completely agree, but I was addressing your comment that they are just toys. To add to your definition of "professional", "toy" definitely means something that is used purely for fun. Mavics and Phantoms are not used purely for fun.

Flawed definition. As most things which some use for professional purposes are most certainly used by others purely for fun. Also, being capable of causing injury does not in any way disqualify something from being a toy. In fact I would be willing you bet you that the majority of Mavic owners use their drones as a toy and not as professional tools. Further I would bet that those who do own them as professional tools also use them as toys some of the time.

 

[4Cutekids]

Here is my thought on the root topic of this thread. The FAA, if it doesn't already, really should have people looking over drone videos on youtube themselves. How certain are you that what you report is a violation? You mention video where you think the GPS shows it was taken over a protected park however that is not a violation. Landing and taking off within those grounds is a violation as I understand it but not flying over it. So be sure you are reporting the correct thing. You mention video of a forest fire however you don't mention distance from it and whether they are operating within the established no fly zone for that fire. My point is, if you are going to report then be 100% sure you are reporting something which actually IS a violation and not just something you THINK is a violation. Regulations are different for Hobby and 107 use. Make sure you are holding them to the correct standards. You mention flying 1500 feet high. For Hobby use it is unclear if that is technically breaking the law or just not adhering by a FAA recommendation to some. It hasn't clearly been established yet honestly and further, the subject of LOS has not really been tested in a world with drones which transmit video like these do and the use of large screen and goggles to monitor progress. Sure, some think it is clear, but there really hasn't been much in the way of courts defining it. or laws taking modern tech into account.

 

[ac0j]

I would bet that most of the "unsafe" stuff found on youtube, are by people that are not even registered with the FAA. Had I not joined this forum, I would have not known I needed to register. It was not in the paperwork included with the drone, it was not mentioned by the salesperson.

 

[sar104]

Flawed definition. As most things which some use for professional purposes are most certainly used by others purely for fun. Also, being capable of causing injury does not in any way disqualify something from being a toy. In fact I would be willing you bet you that the majority of Mavic owners use their drones as a toy and not as professional tools. Further I would bet that those who do own them as professional tools also use them as toys some of the time.

Flawed logic. The poster I responded to described them as "just toys", and that was what I was addressing. Your definition is completely pointless since, if you take it literally, almost anything can be used as a toy. And whether or not something is capable of causing injury is neither pertinent to the "toy" question nor part of the discussion.

 

[Tesadorn]

I say MYOB.. Yes there alot of knuckleheads out there BUT, they come in MANY forms.. Not just "drone newbs" looking to murder innocent people...The world continues to sadden me... people seem to want be controlled.....be careful... when you get what you want you will be sad!

That said... Yes I have been over 400ft ONLY in a safe area. It pisses me off when I see someone fly over a crowd.. (nope would not do that ever period). I believe we can police ourselves..... The ones that are gonna do dumb **** are gonna do it anyways,,,,,

 

[Cheech Wizard]

So I recently got my part 107 to offer professional photography services for businesses. Being aware of these regulations I start to see all sorts of drone videos in my feed that include: aerial footage of a forest fire, a video labeled "here's *town name* from 1500 feet, and flights GPS tagged in protected wilderness areas. I barely know these people and believe they represent a threat towards legitimate pilots. Do I report them to the FAA? Has anyone on here ever made an FAA report based off of Facebook videos and photos? Should I just mind my own business? Input much appreciated.

This was typed from mobile, please excuse the brevity grammar.

Thanks!

You have to ask your conscience and then as yourself if you want to go to court possibly.

There's an interesting perspective being pushed on this thread. In manned aviation, pilots have a responsibility to report safety issues and/or violations of aviation law. And yet the majority response here is "don't be a snitch".

It's not looking good for trying to elevate the level of safety and responsibility in the sUAS community.

Only a drone user would know if some one did something stupid (Not saying illegal) with a drone posted on You Tube and other places.. Not many people are looking at drone videos unless they are thinking about getting one or already have one, that being said, Should we police our own? Should we educate our own? **** right we should! Ha..."snitches", youse guys the Drone Mafia? Robb'in banks and sech with your drones? Don't post the video!

 

[Cheech Wizard]

unless I saw some dangerous situation involving another aircraft,no I wouldn't

Well, that's what we are talking about, a dangerous situation.

 

[Tiago_Wolf]

This is almost like you having your new car driver's license and seeing people driving recklessly. Would you report anyone that would post pictures or videos?

 

[AeroJ]

This is almost like you having your new car driver's license and seeing people driving recklessly. Would you report anyone that would post pictures or videos?

It would be like that if there was a decent risk that other peoples' idiocy in cars was going to result in the banning of cars !!

 

[WhiteUAV]

Firstly how dare some of you. It seems OP just wanted to look out for the community and clearly stated he " believes they represent a threat towards legitimate pilots". Honestly, people who break the rules and are never corrected or made aware of the rules are going to break them again and eventually who knows they may end up doing something so stupid that it ends up taking the media by storm and putting the rule-abiding community at risk.

I would personally report them if I felt that they posed a threat to other pilots as you stated that you felt they did. Before I would report them I would make sure that they did indeed break the rules just to make sure that rule-abiding pilots aren't hassled by a report.

(Not legal advice just a random guys perspective on this topic )

For Each Situation You Stated:
Forest Fire:
I would Make sure they were not partnered with the local fire department and had the proper waivers. If they made a hassle for the Fire Department it's likely they may have already reported it.

Town From 1500 Feet:
I believe only 16 Entities have a waiver to fly above 400 Feet ( 107.51b ) ( Lockheed Martin, NASA Langley Research Center, Praxis Aerospace Concepts International, University of Nebraska
University of Florida, OpenRotix Labs, Porche Aerial Imagery LLC, Microsoft Research, Civil & Enviromental Consultants, Inc., Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., CNN, Pennsylvania State University, Marek Management LLC, & the University of Washington.

If I personally didn't believe the person flying was part of any of those 16 entities I would personally report them. What stops them from flying higher the next time if they got away with it the first time? ( I'd also make sure this flight was in the US obviously. )

Flights GPS tagged in protected wilderness areas: If they were breaking an airspace regulation I believe the FAA already has ways to track this. Now if it was them flying over a national park If they take off from within the park they're obviously breaking an ordinance. if they're taking off from outside the park and flying above it see what the NPS Says.

FROM THE NPS
If I am flying my unmanned aircraft in the national airspace and do not take off, land, or operate from NPS lands and waters, is there anything the park could do to stop me?
Unless an unmanned aircraft pilot obtains special permission through the FAA, use of unmanned aircraft must remain line of sight. In addition, although they do not directly address unmanned aircraft, the following existing 36 CFR sections may apply under certain circumstances.

• If the unmanned aircraft pursuits or harasses wildlife or creates an intentional disturbance of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities, the user could be cited for a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.2.
• If the user of the unmanned aircraft knowingly or recklessly creates a risk of public alarm or nuisance by causing noise that was unreasonable under the circumstances or by creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, the user could be cited for disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. § 2.34.
• 36 C.F.R. § 2.12(a)(3) prohibits, in non-developed areas, operating a device powered by a portable motor or engine, except pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

In conclusion, If I saw someone doing something that broke the FAA Regulations I would do my due diligence to make sure they did indeed not have the authority to conduct such activities through waivers then personally I would decide if that behaviour could have put others at risk or could put others at risk in the future and if so then I'd report it. (Example: I believe it is more likely for someone that drove under the influence and got away with it to do it again over someone that got caught or warned the first time. And just because they didn't hurt anyone the first time they drove under the influence doesn't mean they can't hurt someone in the future if they decided to do the same reckless behaviour.) This is why I personally believe it's important to address such situations, hold people accountable and stop situations before they could possibly get worst.

 

[rickw]

hey mods,please shut this thread down,these new posters are getting carried away

 

[sar104]

hey mods,please shut this thread down,these new posters are getting carried away

Carried away how, exactly?

 

[dirkclod]

hey mods,please shut this thread down,these new posters are getting carried away

Whats new all I see at the moment is

Now if it just don't stop going in a circle I will .
Just stay on topic guys and ignore post you see you don't care for.

 

[PortCanaveralFlorida]

hey mods,please shut this thread down,these new posters are getting carried away

Actually this thread has been interesting seeing other opinions, no food has been thrown, no pulling hair, no calling names. I'm sure the original poster has their answer. Now - let's get to the bottom of this 1" censer issue, if I'm getting 3/4, I'm pissed! Just say'n

 

[Tesadorn]

Wow, Does CNN own this site? Sorry had to say it.... what a bummer

 

[dirkclod]

Far from it and as I said earlier lets keep this on topic or I will close it .

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Wow, Does CNN own this site? Sorry had to say it.... what a bummer

Obviously not, and I am not sure what the correlation is you are trying to make here.