Unlawful use of a drone to capture video of killer whales.

[TheGroove]

I often fly in areas where there are a lot of birds, I always make an effort to keep out of their way but it's sometimes impossible to keep them out of my shots incidentally and I've been called out online for it, but it's not for lack of trying and they're never my subject.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The fact that they went ahead with filming without a permit, is probably the reason the fine was excessive.

Not excessive then, IMO.

So maybe if I see a pod of whales off the coast and happen to be flying, send my drone over for a few illegal shots, maybe, just maybe I'm not facing a 5 figure fine after I bail out of jail? Could it be?

This is only unrealistic here in Santa Cruz because I wouldn't do it. Other than that, the opportunity occurs all the time here.

 

[Prop Wash]

Not excessive then, IMO.

So maybe if I see a pod of whales off the coast and happen to be flying, send my drone over for a few illegal shots, maybe, just maybe I'm not facing a 5 figure fine after I bail out of jail? Could it be?

This is only unrealistic here in Santa Cruz because I wouldn't do it. Other than that, the opportunity occurs all the time here.

In Santa Cruz, do you have check to see if the Marine Sanctuary NFZ extends there? My wife and I go to Monterey quite a bit and that whole coastal area is off-limits according to the Aloft app.

 

[Droning on and on...]

In Santa Cruz, do you have check to see if the Marine Sanctuary NFZ extends there? My wife and I go to Monterey quite a bit and that whole coastal area is off-limits according to the Aloft app.

Yeah... that's in error.

Clear to fly all up and down the coast. Here's what Autopylot shows:







BTW, where that pin is west of the Capitola pier is some incredibly dramatic, spectacular eroded cliffs with 75' vertical drop. I would very highly recommend flying there if you're visiting Santa Cruz.

 

[Torque]

...but you get my point, right?

As a recreational flyer, if you get caught flying a drone *attempting* to capture a photo of a protected whale close up anywhere in north america and they catch you in the act, you can expect a five-figure fine after you bond out of jail and lose your drone....count on it. Otherwise, let's publish a fee schedule and stick to it just like all the other "crimes."

Doesn't happen. I've known of several people here in our state who have flown too close to Orcas and they were not jailed. Did not have their Drones confiscated, and were not charged a 5 figure fine. Again, your imagination is running amok.

Drone pilots fined for flying too close to orcas

The men flew drones within metres of a pod of orcas in Haro Strait between Vancouver Island and San Juan Island.

vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca

 

[Torque]

...but you get my point, right?

As a recreational flyer, if you get caught flying a drone *attempting* to capture a photo of a protected whale close up anywhere in north america and they catch you in the act, you can expect a five-figure fine after you bond out of jail and lose your drone....count on it. Otherwise, let's publish a fee schedule and stick to it just like all the other "crimes."

And it appears the fine was lowered to $500 for flying within 200 yards of whales in 2018.

 

[Droning on and on...]

And it appears the fine was lowered to $500 for flying within 200 yards of whales in 2018.

Gosh, that sounds a lot like, "first time offenders usually get a small <$1,000 civil fine, if any, a stern talking to, and a reminder of the rules", doesn't it?

 

[rjwmorrell]

True, but I wasn't including it for two reasons: Not the US, which is the jurisdiction @mavic3usa is regularly complaining hysterically about, and I don't include the $25,000 of the fine that was charged the company, not the pilot.

The pilot was fined $5,000, which is still excessive, but 1/6 of the sensational $30k.

Don't know Canadian law. In the US it would be child's play to get this overturned as a violation of the 8th amendment excessive fines clause.

As a *general* rule, in Canada, administrative fines that are over $25,000 are no longer considered administrative in nature and are now punitive. Whenever crossing this threshold, the underlying offence generally has to meet the stricter burden of proof of including an intention or mental element, and is usually quasi-criminal in nature.

However, I am not a lawyer (paralegal student) and I'm not familiar with this specific legislation.

Most Aeronautics Act fines are no more than $25,000. I have some experience with administrative fines in other federal legislation, and they usually also cap out at $25,000. But, they can be PER offence.

 

[JeffreyS]

This happens all over the world because the rules will have been drawn up in the 1970's before there were drones.
The rules refer to "aircraft" and they are rigidly applied to drones despite drones having almost no impact upon whales.

YES, this is a problem in so many areas we enjoy. Bureaucracy and lawyers. Screw them!

 

[rjwmorrell]

So on a little further legal research, the relevant legislation is the Marine Mammal Regulations (SOR/93-56) which is enacted under the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c. F-14.

Subsection 7(1), "No personal shall disturb a marine mammal except..." and then lists several exemptions. One of the exemptions is carrying out authorized "work" - presumably this would be where the permit application fits in.

Sub 7(2) then explains what constitutes distrub for the purposes of 7(1), and more notably, sub 7(3) clarifies that disturb (in the case of a marine mammal) also includes approaching it with a vehicle and within a distance set out in Schedule IV.

So, you have to then refer to Schedule VI. When you look at Schedule VI, several species of marine mammal are listed, but the applicable entry would be line 8) Killer whales, all types of vehicles, within 200 metres, in Pacific Ocean, from january 1 to December 31.

Now, I read the article, it said that the filming crew drone was at 304 metres away from the killer whales, which if true, would seem to put them outside of the exclusion zone. I'd say they may have a worthwhile defence.

Indeed, they have an entirely separate subsection specific to aircraft overflight, in 7.2(1) and it is unlawful to fly an aircraft at less than 1,000 feet altitude (304.8 m) when within one-half nautical mile of marine mammals -- well, you can fly, but you cannot land, take off or "alter course or altitude" for the purpose of bringing the aircraft closer to the mammal, so this would be the relevant violation in this case, I would guess.

 

[AMann]

Yeah... that's in error.

Clear to fly all up and down the coast. Here's what Autopylot shows:

View attachment 177147

View attachment 177148

View attachment 177149

BTW, where that pin is west of the Capitola pier is some incredibly dramatic, spectacular eroded cliffs with 75' vertical drop. I would very highly recommend flying there if you're visiting Santa Cruz.

Best to go to the source- always check real aeronautical charts, what you posted above about being clear to fly up and down the coast is an error.

It’s not your fault, I’ve noticed that the four alternative B4youfly apps FAA posted when you go to to the now outdated B4UFly app have several egregious errors such as calling airport runways G air space and deleting wilderness areas on them. @Vic Moss - I just discovered this yesterday and am trying to put together a list to send to FAA.

 

[Prop Wash]

Yeah... that's in error.

Clear to fly all up and down the coast. Here's what Autopylot shows:

BTW, where that pin is west of the Capitola pier is some incredibly dramatic, spectacular eroded cliffs with 75' vertical drop. I would very highly recommend flying there if you're visiting Santa Cruz.

Interesting - I do see what you see on AutoPylot. Both Air Aware and Aloft Air Control show the Marine Sanctuary.

 

[AMann]

Interesting - I do see what you see on AutoPylot. Both Air Aware and Aloft Air Control show the Marine Sanctuary.

Yup, Aloft Air Control is much better! But I also check the sectional charts either online or carry a local paper set with me. They make good wall prints and special wrapping paper when they’ve expired also!

 

[MS Coast]

Is there are reason a bazillionaire who plows thru a pod gets only a $1000 fine or a guy gets fined $600 for jumping on top of one but you fly a drone and basically hurt no one but the fine is $30,000?

Is there an actual case where a drone operator was fined $30,000? Or is that the maximum possible fine and in reality there have been no fines near that amount?

 

[Droning on and on...]

Not sure drone flying is prohibited in these areas, and perhaps that's why Autopylot doesn't show them restricted?

I just spent half an hour reading through 15 CFR 922 (cited on the sectional), found all sorts of restrictions on fishing, disturbing sea wildlife from boats, taking stuff from the Sanctuary, etc. No mention of drones, let alone aircraft at all.

I haven't found, yet, where flying below 1000' in these areas is explicitly prohibited; I have no doubt I'll find it if I keep looking. Given the altitude restriction, I suspect this only applies to manned aircraft, but I have no basis (yet) for that assumption. I'll keep looking.

Now, that said, manned fixed and rotary wing aircraft fly right along the shoreline from Capitola well past Davenport, every day. Sightseeing. I see them. Surely controllers at Watsonville and Monterey airports are aware of this, see it on radar, with altitudes squawked from some subset of these small, private aircraft. I'd expect there to be trouble, and these flights would go away. They've been going on as long as I've lived here.

So I suspect the actual law, when everything is considered, is more complicated than "no".

Like over the Monitor Marine Sanctuary. That's "no", clearly.

So, still investigating. However, a lot of indirect evidence points to no restrictions, none other than that sectional points to restriction, and that even may not be right for sUAV's.

I'll keep investigating, and ask the FAA sUAS help center. This one impacts me directly.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yup, Aloft Air Control is much better! But I also check the sectional charts either online or carry a local paper set with me. They make good wall prints and special wrapping paper when they’ve expired also!

Much worse IMO if it's telling you can't fly where in fact you can.

Just opened a case with the Help Center. We'll see what they say.

 

[AMann]

Much worse IMO if it's telling you can't fly where in fact you can.

Just opened a case with the Help Center. We'll see what they say.

As you mentioned “up and down the coast”, that kind of implied for miles. You were right that the area around the pier is not a reserve at all, but it is in the unmanned Heliport zone for the hospital. The southern border of the marine reserve starts less than a mile north of the pier about where the lighthouse is at Seal Rock point.

The Aloft Air Control and AirAware apps show all this.

 

[Droning on and on...]

With some more study of the relevant regs, Part 922 National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations, I found the following:

Subpart M Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

In that is this appendix: Appendix B to Subpart M of Part 922 Zones Within the Sanctuary Where Overflights Below 1000 Feet Are Prohibited.

It reads,



This IS NOT what is shown by those other apps (not Autopylot). Also, not what is shown on the sectional as we seem to be interpreting it. EDIT: The sectional is correct. Looking carefully, the unrestricted sections from Santa Cruz to Watsonville, and the area just north of the restriction south of Pacific Grove (a.k.a. Asilomar) just happen to be where I do most of my flying – just by coincidence!

It does clear up how those 152s, 172s, helicopters, etc. are sightseeing at 200ft flying along the shoreline near Seacliff et al are doing it... it's legal.

 

[Cafguy]

Not sure drone flying is prohibited in these areas, and perhaps that's why Autopylot doesn't show them restricted?

I just spent half an hour reading through 15 CFR 922 (cited on the sectional), found all sorts of restrictions on fishing, disturbing sea wildlife from boats, taking stuff from the Sanctuary, etc. No mention of drones, let alone aircraft at all.

I haven't found, yet, where flying below 1000' in these areas is explicitly prohibited; I have no doubt I'll find it if I keep looking. Given the altitude restriction, I suspect this only applies to manned aircraft, but I have no basis (yet) for that assumption. I'll keep looking.

Now, that said, manned fixed and rotary wing aircraft fly right along the shoreline from Capitola well past Davenport, every day. Sightseeing. I see them. Surely controllers at Watsonville and Monterey airports are aware of this, see it on radar, with altitudes squawked from some subset of these small, private aircraft. I'd expect there to be trouble, and these flights would go away. They've been going on as long as I've lived here.

So I suspect the actual law, when everything is considered, is more complicated than "no".

Like over the Monitor Marine Sanctuary. That's "no", clearly.

So, still investigating. However, a lot of indirect evidence points to no restrictions, none other than that sectional points to restriction, and that even may not be right for sUAV's.

I'll keep investigating, and ask the FAA sUAS help center. This one impacts me directly.

You are looking in the wrong Dept. These are prohibited Fish and game activities and not necessarily FAA or Aviation rules You can look at the California Fish and game Laws there are a few sections in there under aircraft ( Manned or unmanned) and Also in the Aircraft section of Prohibited Tackle.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I know alot of that was TL;DR for many. So I'll say this: If you come visit Santa Cruz and/or Monterey/Carmel, bring your drone!!! You can do some spectacular flying in the Santa Cruz area, and especially Asilomar beach in Carmel. Absolutely stunning cliffs, @Asilomar some fascinating, beautiful rocky shoreline that's thrilling to FPV.