Seattle man imprisoned for reckless drone flying!

[BorisTheSpider]

I certainly did get carried away. This is the Internet, afterall. However, I did not say, "looking forward."

My bad, so you didn't.

 

[DodgeP]

Funny how the conversation quickly gets shifted from the issues with people simply not following even the safety guidelines for recreational fliers to; how people are robots for wanting to rid the community of those who don't seem to care about said fliers. I wonder if the drone was registered, I wonder if the registration was on the drone. Most likely dude bought the drone, follow(ed)/(es) none of the rules and then gets sympathy from people who think we don't need guidelines or rules.

There is "almost" no other motorized vehicle that can be purchased without a license and/or be registered and operated amongst the public. sUAV's will reach that point at well, requiring both license and registration at time of purchase, just like a car, boat, motorcycle, etc.

There seems to a larger number of members who seem to care less about guidelines, rules and safety measures, far more here than I see on Inspire Pilots. I wonder why that is? Is it price point, is it because you can get in for less than a thousand so the cost affects the severity of risk? Who knows (rhetorical)..

I hope the local authorities notified the NTSB about this accident and I wish the dude would have been sentenced to 6 months in the county. I don't think 30 days is enough to deter the behavior.

 

[ThisIsCusel]

sUAV's will reach that point at well, requiring both license and registration at time of purchase, just like a car, boat, motorcycle, etc.

These are passenger vehicles. Assume the average car weight at 3,000 lbs traveling 60 MPH. The mavic would need to be traveling mach 156 to have the same momentum.

The point is, even when operated extremely irresponsibly, drones pose almost zero threat to anyone.

Jail time for this guy is absolutely ridiculous. It is called an accident.

Texting and driving gets you a ticket in SOME states. Much more dangerous. Why don't you call your congressman about that one, and leave this crusade alone, Castro.

 

[DodgeP]

These are passenger vehicles. Assume the average car weight at 3,000 lbs traveling 60 MPH. The mavic would need to be traveling mach 156 to have the same momentum.

The point is, even when operated extremely irresponsibly, drones pose almost zero threat to anyone.

Jail time for this guy is absolutely ridiculous. It is called an accident.

Texting and driving gets you a ticket in SOME states. Much more dangerous. Why don't you call your congressman about that one, and leave this crusade alone, Castro.

Lmaoooooooooooooooooo you sound absolutely ridiculous with every single sentence of your response.

Genius; speed and gross weight aren't the only factor in car crashes.
Genius; even when operated extremely responsibly, drones pose a threat to everyone around them.
Genius; at what point will operators get the message? The FAA fines that have been imposed on irresponsible operators hasn't deterred said irresponsibility.
Genius; eating, changing the station / singing to the radio, rowdy kids in the back seat, is much more dangerous than than just driving. That doesn't mean that people don't do it. The difference is; none of these things "need" to be done to actually drive a car. They're all extra curricular activities to the main activity of driving.
Genius; everything that doesn't happen on purpose is called an accident.

If dude wanted to fly over a parade he should have done it correctly and lawfully, you probably don't know how to go about that though right? Those ways actually involve investing more time into the "crusade" than just throwing an sUAV over a crowd of people.

I'm done corresponding with you on this post.

 

[ThisIsCusel]

Lmaoooooooooooooooooo

Glad you got a good chuckle. Laughter is the best medicine. Just don't crack a smile, as public displays of emotion will be dealt with swiftly and harshly in your Utopia....

 

[Sisyphus]

I am curious what the FAA had to say on this and if was ever reported to them. It definitely should have been. It caused bodily injury

The guy owned an aerial photography business. If he was a operating under Part 107, reporting of an accident resulting in injury like that is mandatory.

 

[Sisyphus]

If dude wanted to fly over a parade he should have done it correctly and lawfully...

If he was operating under Part 107, he could not have "lawfully" flown over a parade without a waiver of the restriction from operating over people who are not participating in operation of the drone or within enclosures that would protect them (e.g., a car). Good luck getting such a waiver.

But you know this; it was probably on your 107 test. It was on mine.

I'm not opining on the wisdom of FAA regulations here or defending them, just pointing out what they are...

 

[Lapeer20m]

What this guy did proved to be foolhardy and dangerous. Now he has to pay the price. This is exactly how the system should work.

There are likely millions of flights on a daily basis, and this is one of the few examples of bodily harm caused by a drone. Drones have been proven safe, or at least not proven to be at much risk of causing great bodily harm or death. Sure it can happen, but it's unlikely, and even in the most egregious cases, the penalty has prove. To be not that severe.

Fly safe and make responsible decisions and you should have little to worry about.

 

[DodgeP]

If he was operating under Part 107, he could not have "lawfully" flown over a parade without a waiver of the restriction from operating over people who are not participating in operation of the drone or within enclosures that would protect them (e.g., a car). Good luck getting such a waiver.

But you know this; it was probably on your 107 test. It was on mine.

I'm not opining on the wisdom of FAA regulations here or defending them, just pointing out what they are...

I don't understand the reason behind your statement, You make no sense other than to restate what I said, without pointing out how to do it legally. Did you even read my statement you quoted? Maybe you did read it and you actually understood it but you're so interested in trying to make a statement about my statement that you misunderstood it! Who knows!!

About two weeks ago I spoke privately with someone who was actually granted a waiver to fly over a parade. I know the process, I also know that Mr. Seattle didn't follow the process because if he had, he wouldn't have been arrested and or jailed.

If you don't understand a statement (by anyone), ask for clarification.

 

[Sisyphus]

I don't understand the reason behind your statement, You make no sense other than to restate what I said, without pointing out how to do it legally. Did you even read my statement you quoted? Maybe you did read it and you actually understood it but you're so interested in trying to make a statement about my statement that you misunderstood it! Who knows!!

Lighten up, dude. There's no need for sarcastic or condescending responses to your brother Mavic pilots here. Let's keep it civil and friendly.

I'm agreeing with you that the only way to do it "correctly and legally" would be with a Part 107 waiver. However, a 107 waiver probably wouldn't have protected the Seattle guy from prosecution for injuring the woman hit by his drone. It certainly wouldn't have protected him from civil liability.

I am surprised and skeptical that a waiver to fly over a parade was granted (to the guy you spoke to privately), given FAA's standards for granting waivers. I'll have to look up the waiver in FAA's database.

 

[Qoncussion]

The point is, even when operated extremely irresponsibly, drones pose almost zero threat to anyone.

Drones have been proven safe, or at least not proven to be at much risk of causing great bodily harm or death.

While I generally disagree with the hard edge that @DodgeP and @Grey Wolf bring to their safety discussions here (sorry guys - I think at some level you are convinced that you mean well), the two statements above are insane. The Mavic is a flying brick. If its ability to fly were to fail, mid-flight, then it would simply be a brick. If someone dropped your Mavic on your head from, say, 20 to 30 feet in the air, I'm pretty sure that doctors would be involved in the cleanup. If it slammed into your head from, say, 50 or 100+ feet in the air, with some forward momentum, I'm pretty sure that coroners would be involved. It is one thing to attempt to engage the drone police in an intelligent discussion, but it's something very different to believe that you are not flying a miniature killing machine. My point? Know what you have and give it the respect it deserves. I don't believe that either of the two posters that I quoted above mean any harm. I am just having trouble wrapping my head around their belief in the statements they have made above.

 

[Sisyphus]

About two weeks ago I spoke privately with someone who was actually granted a waiver to fly over a parade.

I am surprised and skeptical that a waiver to fly over a parade was granted (to the guy you spoke to privately), given FAA's standards for granting waivers. I'll have to look up the waiver in FAA's database.

So I did look it up...or tried to. The FAA hasn't updated their online database of waivers granted for several months. As of 1/23/17, only one waiver of 107.39 (operation over human beings) had been granted. The waiver was granted to CNN. CNN apparently filed their application before Part 107 was promulgated, as the waiver was granted on 8/29/16. CNN's waiver is for operation of a PhotoKite, which (although it is classified as a UAV) I suspect is nothing like our quadcopters.

FAA appears to be reviewing and granting waivers in batches, based on the particular regulation for which waivers are requested. As of the last update of the database, nearly all waivers granted were for 107.29 (daylight operation), 107.31 (VLOS), 107.35 (operation of multiple UAVs), 107.33 (requirements for visual observer, when applicable), and 107.25 (operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft). In later November and early December, I filed two applications for waivers of 107.41 (operation in certain airspace). It has been 4 months since then, and I have heard nothing. So things are apparently moving very slowly in the waiver process.

Here are FAA's performance-based standards for getting a waiver of 107.39 (operation over human beings):

1. Applicant must provide a method such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground.
2. Applicant must mitigate risk to non-participants through an operational risk assessment, testing, and data, addressing design features, operational limitations, or a combination thereof specific to the operation.
3. Applicant must address the risk from exposure to rotating parts and sharp edges which could injure a non-participating person.
4. Applicant must show the pilot in command, or person manipulating the controls, have adequate knowledge, experience, and ability to safely operate an unmanned aircraft over non-participating persons including recent flight experience within last 30 days.

It seems like it would be very difficult to meet requirements 1, 2 and 3 for a quadcopter. What method could be used "such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground" in the event of a battery or propeller failure?