We, as a group, can do better than this . . .

[Chaosrider]

I think there is a middle-ground that the FAA is missing. Fines for infractions should be on the order of a speeding citation. Not the down-payment on a house. Why? Because there's zero evidence to support the "what if" arguments that "people get hurt because of flying drones at night." Or "people get hurt when you fly over them." If rules and fines were based on actual events instead of "what if" scenarios, UAS rules and regs would be scaled back an order of magnitude.

D

As a practical matter, that's mostly what the FAA does. Through the use of their enforcement discretion, the effective law is much more risk-reality based, than the mere text of the law would suggest.

Do you have any evidence that the FAA is giving big fines to people for minor infractions? I don't.

And attitude matters. I someone blatantly and publicly and repeatedly violates the rules, and then brags about it, they should get whacked. Publicly.

On the other hand, if someone is safely flying their drone, and they are within the effective law, they'll have no problem with the FAA, even if they may be a wee bit beyond what the mere text of the law permits.

Unless they make a point to publicly highlight their mild transgressions. Then they'll need to get whacked.

For the most part, the FAA are some of the good guys here. They were given a vague and overly broad and restrictive law, and they've successfully adapted it, through interpretations and enforcement decisions, into a practical set of effective rules, which aren't overly restrictive.

And, no I don't work for the FAA, and I never have. But I've had my private pilot license for 40 years, and I've never once had what I would consider an oppressive interaction with the FAA.

If you think the rules should be different...and I do in a number of ways...there are mechanisms for doing that. Whining isn't one of them.

The droning community has it pretty good in terms of the effective regs these days, and we should all go out and fly safely rather than whining about the FAA.

IMNSHO

MM

 

[Donnie Frank]

Make your point, but stick with the facts.

• "So...yeah...applying the same rules, regulations and paradigms to a hobby that is THOUSANDS of times safer than the faction issuing the rules IS ridiculous."
  
  The operation of drones and the operation of manned aircraft in the US are not subject to the same rules. Drone regulations are a trifle compared to manned aviation rules. You don't have to have a certificated mechanic change the props on your drone.

Okay...I'll bite. How many people have been killed or injured due to a failed drone propeller? Now ask that question of an aviation propellers. The FAA rules are logical for aviation. "People HAVE been killed due to misinstalled propellers, so let's make a rule to mitigate that risk." So in the case of propellers, the rules match the risk.

How about flying over people? How many people have been killed/injured by drones?? Now ask the same question of aviation. But wait?!?! What's this?!?! There exists a rule for drones flying over people, but NOT for full scale aviation?!? WTF??? On what planet does THAT make sense???

• jet-fuel-filled multi-ton behemoths that crash regularly, kill hundreds and do millions in property damage annually almost without fail??
  
  In the past 20 years, an average of 9.47 deaths have occurred with scheduled US air carriers. Going back to 1960 the annual average is 88.95.

Touché. "Scheduled air carriers." See what you did there???

In the past 20 year, an average of ZERO deaths have been attributed to UAS and model aviation. Going back to 1960, STILL zero. Using just raw statistics, that makes drones nearly two orders of magnitude safer than full scale aviation.

• Nobody at the FAA seems to recognize this.
  
  The FAA does recognize that drones are not highly dangerous. They allow recreational use of drones with no license,

Well...with all due respect, that's mighty magnanimous of them. Thank you, FAA, for ALLOWING a completely safe hobby to exist with "minimal restrictions." Again, there is zero data to support the "theory" that UAS are dangerous. 100% of the time rules and regulations follow injury and/or death. Except for drones. No death. Very little injury. Lots of rules.

• with no demonstration of practical skill, and with no regulations other than eight one-sentence rules and a one-sentence introduction.

And an $11,000 fine if you break one of those 8 rules. When was the last time you saw a full-scale aviation pilot get that kind of fine? The fine scale is off the rails.

Opinions differ.

• "let's cross that bridge when we come to it" "Yes, people CAN get hurt."
  
  Some believe that it's better to address a recognized danger without waiting for people to get hurt. And to avoid imposing rules after the private sector has already invested heavily.

Sure. But risk mitigation is normally penned from data. There is zero (or nearly zero) data to support ANY theory that "drones are dangerous." At this point in time, any arguments against drone safety are "what if" arguments.

Look...I totally support risk mitigation and exercise risk mitigation in every facet of my life. I purposely plan my UAS flights to not fly over people or traffic simply because I've been doing it that way for decades. Mostly because of the drone stigmas so people just don't like it (which is ironic when you consider that they think a helicopter flying 1,000' over their house is no problem).

Consider this; Have I ever flown a gasser helicopter of people or traffic? Absolutely not. Why??? Because the kinetic energy behind a model helicopter rotating wing is pretty apparent. The sheer size and weight of those beasts from the 80's and 90's along with the failure rate 100x that of today's UAS kept me and my helicopter exclusively on AMA fields. Conversely, the kinetic energy of these 1-3 lb. drones along with their reliability (100x of those old gasser helicopters) allows me to fly in the city and around people with a lot of confidence. And when I say "around people," I don't mean OVER them. But refer back to WHY I don't fly over them. It annoys them.

You could argue that there are 10,000 times as many drones as there were/are gasser helicopters. But even with these numbers injury and death statistics are miniscule. If anything, the lack of injury juxtaposed against the MILLIONS of drones sold throughout the world is a testimonial to their inherent safety. And, as you cited, a large portion of our community doesn't even know the rules. So we can NOT attribute this safety record to compliance. UAS safety is INHERENT to the hobby/profession. It's baked in.

• "So, yeah, the drone community gets a little fed up." "Drone pilots get (Mod Removed Language)Rightfully so."
  
  Suggested edit -Some in the drone community get a little fed up.

Touché. Some people just love rules, regulations and compliance. The recent almost morbid compliance of all the Covid lockdowns (just celebrated the 2-year anniversary of "2 weeks to flatten the curve") are a real testimonial to that. Some people even sit at left turning arrows (when the non-turning light is green) @ 3:AM. I'll never be that guy. Yet, there they sit...3 o'clock in the morning...waiting through the entire cycle of the traffic light. For safety? No sir. That, my friend, is pure, unadulterated morbid compliance. To the critical thinker, this kind of morbid compliance defies logic. But I digress....

• I'm an FAA-licensed drone pilot. It's legal for me to fly a 55-pound aircraft at 99 mph. There was no check ride or practical test. I see a need here to tighten the regulations for Part 107 operations.

On this point I wholeheartedly agree. I have been saying this for YEARS. Imagine getting a CDL without ever having to sit behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle?

For sure I agree that UAS professionals should be held to a higher standard. As I eluded to earlier, I've held MYSELF to a higher standard long before the FAA jumped in. Without a practical test, any housewife can get a 107. It's all so ironic. Glad we found common ground.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

As a practical matter, that's mostly what the FAA does. Through the use of their enforcement discretion, the effective law is much more risk-reality based, than the mere text of the law would suggest.

Do you have any evidence that the FAA is giving big fines to people for minor infractions? I don't.

Drone pilot fined $182K for 123 infractions

A Philadelphia man wracked up 123 drone flying violations and now the FAA proposes the drone pilot be fined $182,000

dronedj.com

Still think the rules are fair?

D

 

[Pondhopper]

It sounds like you've described me to a "T" so I'll give you my 2 cents....

I highly respect relevant and intelligent comments etc but when they are down-right illegal and dangerous I'll call you out each and every time. I have more "meat in this game" than just a casual hobbyist who may or may not fly now and then. This is how I put food on my table and how I keep a roof over my family's head. I highly resent the attitude of "It's only a drone and as long as I'm not hurting someone it doesn't matter if I follow the rules & regulations." That's EXACTLY why we have so many rules and regulations now that this industry didn't have for several years.

It doesn't matter what your age or experience level is.. if your comment/attitude are illegal or dangerous I'll call you out right THEN and THERE and I'm not going to sugar coat it to keep from hurting your little feelings. It's really that plain and simple.

Speaking as former military and a retired LEO, I feel the same as you.

The amount of times I stopped a speeding motorist and got the "why aren't you out there catching real criminals?" My response was usually "I would be, sir, if I wasn't dealing with people like you."

The reason we have lots of rules and laws is that we can't have nice things because someone will always come along and spoil it for everyone else. I do want less rules and regs and while they won't repeal any of the ones we have now, showing that we, as a community, are responsible in what we do, could help stem the inevitable flow of more regs.

 

[dart106]

I think there is a middle-ground that the FAA is missing. Fines for infractions should be on the order of a speeding citation. Not the down-payment on a house. Why? Because there's zero evidence to support the "what if" arguments that "people get hurt because of flying drones at night." Or "people get hurt when you fly over them." If rules and fines were based on actual events instead of "what if" scenarios, UAS rules and regs would be scaled back an order of magnitude.

D

Agree. The current status is akin to spraying everyone with a shotgun vs a targeted and pinpoint resolution to a specific incident.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Speaking as former military and a retired LEO, I feel the same as you.

The amount of times I stopped a speeding motorist and got the "why aren't you out there catching real criminals?" My response was usually "I would be, sir, if I wasn't dealing with **** like you."

The reason we have lots of rules and laws is that we can't have nice things because someone will always come along and spoil it for everyone else. I do want less rules and regs and while they won't repeal any of the ones we have now, showing that we, as a community, are responsible in what we do, could help stem the inevitable flow of more regs.

Nicely put. And you kind of nailed it. Sometimes I forget that there ARE people out there with a flagrant disregard for safety. But I have to say, these drones, even in the hands of complete morons, are still not that dangerous. People you wouldn't trust to operate your lawnmower are out there buying drones. And while I agree that they are crashing all over the place (check out the Mavic forum sometime), they're still not causing injury and/or property damage.

Let's take this moron as an example:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Here is a worst-case-scenario. Some idiot flies his drone full speed right into the heads of a married couple. Yet, they walked away with minor injuries.

As I stated earlier, safety is "baked in" to this hobby.

D

 

[EricJT]

Don't take this as a cheap shot (although I'm not sure how else to put it without it seeming so), but when I saw the thread a while ago with the poll about the age of the majority on here, it explained a lot.

If this was unintentionally meant as an aegist comment, then so be it.

My initial reaction was to feel insulted but after some reflection, I realized that all of my years on this earth have blessed me with a modicum of intelligence, and the acceptance of rules to benefit the majority rather than jeopardize our hobby, or in many cases, our livelihoods.

You have to go along to get along....something that it took me many, many years of adulthood to learn. Just my two cents.

 

[MS Coast]

Drone pilot fined $182K for 123 infractions

A Philadelphia man wracked up 123 drone flying violations and now the FAA proposes the drone pilot be fined $182,000

dronedj.com

Still think the rules are fair?

D

That article is based on a more detailed article by Jonnathan Rupprecht in Forbes magazine. The full story is revealing. The pilot was warned and warned again, without penalty. and continued to knowingly violate the law. He flew under non-recreational rules without a Part 107 certificate. He documented, published, and promoted his violations. He aggressively flaunted the regulations.

I don't have figures to compare his fines to other cases so I'm unable to say that the fine is not fair. I do think it's highly appropriate that he was prosecuted. I have no sympathy for him. He was warned, he knew the consequences, and he persisted in conducting what he knew to be prohibited operations. He is a black mark on the drone community and contributed strongly to the poor image of drones held by some in the non-flying public.

FAA Slaps Drone Pilot With $182,000 Proposed Fine

Multiple flights and violations that contributed to such a huge fine.

www.forbes.com

 

[MS Coast]

Okay...I'll bite. How many people have been killed or injured due to a failed drone propeller? Now ask that question of an aviation propellers. The FAA rules are logical for aviation. "People HAVE been killed due to misinstalled propellers, so let's make a rule to mitigate that risk." So in the case of propellers, the rules match the risk.

How about flying over people? How many people have been killed/injured by drones?? Now ask the same question of aviation. But wait?!?! What's this?!?! There exists a rule for drones flying over people, but NOT for full scale aviation?!? WTF??? On what planet does THAT make sense???



Touché. "Scheduled air carriers." See what you did there???

In the past 20 year, an average of ZERO deaths have been attributed to UAS and model aviation. Going back to 1960, STILL zero. Using just raw statistics, that makes drones nearly two orders of magnitude safer than full scale aviation.




Well...with all due respect, that's mighty magnanimous of them. Thank you, FAA, for ALLOWING a completely safe hobby to exist with "minimal restrictions." Again, there is zero data to support the "theory" that UAS are dangerous. 100% of the time rules and regulations follow injury and/or death. Except for drones. No death. Very little injury. Lots of rules.

And an $11,000 fine if you break one of those 8 rules. When was the last time you saw a full-scale aviation pilot get that kind of fine? The fine scale is off the rails.

Sure. But risk mitigation is normally penned from data. There is zero (or nearly zero) data to support ANY theory that "drones are dangerous." At this point in time, any arguments against drone safety are "what if" arguments.

Look...I totally support risk mitigation and exercise risk mitigation in every facet of my life. I purposely plan my UAS flights to not fly over people or traffic simply because I've been doing it that way for decades. Mostly because of the drone stigmas so people just don't like it (which is ironic when you consider that they think a helicopter flying 1,000' over their house is no problem).

Consider this; Have I ever flown a gasser helicopter of people or traffic? Absolutely not. Why??? Because the kinetic energy behind a model helicopter rotating wing is pretty apparent. The sheer size and weight of those beasts from the 80's and 90's along with the failure rate 100x that of today's UAS kept me and my helicopter exclusively on AMA fields. Conversely, the kinetic energy of these 1-3 lb. drones along with their reliability (100x of those old gasser helicopters) allows me to fly in the city and around people with a lot of confidence. And when I say "around people," I don't mean OVER them. But refer back to WHY I don't fly over them. It annoys them.

You could argue that there are 10,000 times as many drones as there were/are gasser helicopters. But even with these numbers injury and death statistics are miniscule. If anything, the lack of injury juxtaposed against the MILLIONS of drones sold throughout the world is a testimonial to their inherent safety. And, as you cited, a large portion of our community doesn't even know the rules. So we can NOT attribute this safety record to compliance. UAS safety is INHERENT to the hobby/profession. It's baked in.
Touché. Some people just love rules, regulations and compliance. The recent almost morbid compliance of all the Covid lockdowns (just celebrated the 2-year anniversary of "2 weeks to flatten the curve") are a real testimonial to that. Some people even sit at left turning arrows (when the non-turning light is green) @ 3:AM. I'll never be that guy. Yet, there they sit...3 o'clock in the morning...waiting through the entire cycle of the traffic light. For safety? No sir. That, my friend, is pure, unadulterated morbid compliance. To the critical thinker, this kind of morbid compliance defies logic. But I digress....

On this point I wholeheartedly agree. I have been saying this for YEARS. Imagine getting a CDL without ever having to sit behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle?

For sure I agree that UAS professionals should be held to a higher standard. As I eluded to earlier, I've held MYSELF to a higher standard long before the FAA jumped in. Without a practical test, any housewife can get a 107. It's all so ironic. Glad we found common ground.

D

"But I digress...."

We do agree on that.

I'll stick to facts.

Your claimed hundreds of annual deaths from multi-ton jets. Even including smaller propeller-driven passenger operations, the number is less than 10/yr during the past 20 years.

We also seem to agree that the FAA regulations for recreational drone operations are reasonable. And we seem to agree that a Part 107 should include a practical operations component.

 

[MS Coast]

Okay...I'll bite. How many people have been killed or injured due to a failed drone propeller? Now ask that question of an aviation propellers. The FAA rules are logical for aviation. "People HAVE been killed due to misinstalled propellers, so let's make a rule to mitigate that risk." So in the case of propellers, the rules match the risk.

How about flying over people? How many people have been killed/injured by drones?? Now ask the same question of aviation. But wait?!?! What's this?!?! There exists a rule for drones flying over people, but NOT for full scale aviation?!? WTF??? On what planet does THAT make sense???



Touché. "Scheduled air carriers." See what you did there???

In the past 20 year, an average of ZERO deaths have been attributed to UAS and model aviation. Going back to 1960, STILL zero. Using just raw statistics, that makes drones nearly two orders of magnitude safer than full scale aviation.




Well...with all due respect, that's mighty magnanimous of them. Thank you, FAA, for ALLOWING a completely safe hobby to exist with "minimal restrictions." Again, there is zero data to support the "theory" that UAS are dangerous. 100% of the time rules and regulations follow injury and/or death. Except for drones. No death. Very little injury. Lots of rules.



And an $11,000 fine if you break one of those 8 rules. When was the last time you saw a full-scale aviation pilot get that kind of fine? The fine scale is off the rails.




Sure. But risk mitigation is normally penned from data. There is zero (or nearly zero) data to support ANY theory that "drones are dangerous." At this point in time, any arguments against drone safety are "what if" arguments.

Look...I totally support risk mitigation and exercise risk mitigation in every facet of my life. I purposely plan my UAS flights to not fly over people or traffic simply because I've been doing it that way for decades. Mostly because of the drone stigmas so people just don't like it (which is ironic when you consider that they think a helicopter flying 1,000' over their house is no problem).

Consider this; Have I ever flown a gasser helicopter of people or traffic? Absolutely not. Why??? Because the kinetic energy behind a model helicopter rotating wing is pretty apparent. The sheer size and weight of those beasts from the 80's and 90's along with the failure rate 100x that of today's UAS kept me and my helicopter exclusively on AMA fields. Conversely, the kinetic energy of these 1-3 lb. drones along with their reliability (100x of those old gasser helicopters) allows me to fly in the city and around people with a lot of confidence. And when I say "around people," I don't mean OVER them. But refer back to WHY I don't fly over them. It annoys them.

You could argue that there are 10,000 times as many drones as there were/are gasser helicopters. But even with these numbers injury and death statistics are miniscule. If anything, the lack of injury juxtaposed against the MILLIONS of drones sold throughout the world is a testimonial to their inherent safety. And, as you cited, a large portion of our community doesn't even know the rules. So we can NOT attribute this safety record to compliance. UAS safety is INHERENT to the hobby/profession. It's baked in.




Touché. Some people just love rules, regulations and compliance. The recent almost morbid compliance of all the Covid lockdowns (just celebrated the 2-year anniversary of "2 weeks to flatten the curve") are a real testimonial to that. Some people even sit at left turning arrows (when the non-turning light is green) @ 3:AM. I'll never be that guy. Yet, there they sit...3 o'clock in the morning...waiting through the entire cycle of the traffic light. For safety? No sir. That, my friend, is pure, unadulterated morbid compliance. To the critical thinker, this kind of morbid compliance defies logic. But I digress....




On this point I wholeheartedly agree. I have been saying this for YEARS. Imagine getting a CDL without ever having to sit behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle?

For sure I agree that UAS professionals should be held to a higher standard. As I eluded to earlier, I've held MYSELF to a higher standard long before the FAA jumped in. Without a practical test, any housewife can get a 107. It's all so ironic. Glad we found common ground.

D

"And an $11,000 fine if you break one of those 8 rules."

I'm not aware of any cases where a single violation of the recreational rules brought any fine at all. Can you point me to some references for significant fines for a single violation?

 

[Chaosrider]

But wait?!?! What's this?!?! There exists a rule for drones flying over people, but NOT for full scale aviation?!? WTF??? On what planet does THAT make sense???

Chill, dude.

Laws are written in part to mitigate actual risks, and in part in response to public concerns, which may or may not be rational concerns.

The flying over people rule may be a bit extreme on the edges, but it's basically a reasonable rule. To be fair, I have no serious interest in flying over people. And if I did, I think it would be entirely reasonable to require a bit more from people in order to be able to do it.

Perhaps, they should be required to have their 107, with a simple video flying over people supplement.

Definitely, flying over people should require a known-stable production drone, and not some Rube Goldberg device that someone throws together in their garage.

In the past 20 year, an average of ZERO deaths have been attributed to UAS and model aviation. Going back to 1960, STILL zero. Using just raw statistics, that makes drones nearly two orders of magnitude safer than full scale aviation.

Deaths aren't the only things that matter. Injuries matter too.

Again, there is zero data to support the "theory" that UAS are dangerous.

They can be. If you wanted to do damage with a Mini-2, could you do that? I certainly could.

In the national defense context, capabilities are far more important than intentions. That applies to domestic security issues as well.

And an $11,000 fine if you break one of those 8 rules. When was the last time you saw a full-scale aviation pilot get that kind of fine? The fine scale is off the rails.

Please cite a single case where a fine of even a tenth this much has been levied against someone for a minor infraction.

The effective law is far more relaxed and risk-based than the mere raw text of the law would suggest. The FAA made that good adaptation to the real world, happen.

Sure. But risk mitigation is normally penned from data. There is zero (or nearly zero) data to support ANY theory that "drones are dangerous." At this point in time, any arguments against drone safety are "what if" arguments.

Let me guess...you worked in an engineering field at some point, or at least wanted to.

In the public policy environment, perception matters as much as data. Sometimes more.

The FAA has evolved an effective law that's reasonable without being overly restrictive. Anyone wanting to change the raw text of the law, should plan to do so through the normal channels for such things.

And, as you cited, a large portion of our community doesn't even know the rules.

On this one point, we agree.

I would support an unambiguous requirement that all drones sold in the USA should be required to include a printed statement of the FAA requirement for the TRUST certificate in the package, with a link to the FAA site for getting it.

On this point I wholeheartedly agree. I have been saying this for YEARS. Imagine getting a CDL without ever having to sit behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle?

Re: Part 107. I agree that a flight test should be required for people who has never taken a flight test in their lives. But if someone is a current full-sized aircraft pilot...which means they've taken an in-air flight check within the last two years...that should be sufficient.

MM

 

[Skywatcher2001]

Speaking as former military and a retired LEO, I feel the same as you.

The amount of times I stopped a speeding motorist and got the "why aren't you out there catching real criminals?" My response was usually "I would be, sir, if I wasn't dealing with people like you."

Simply brilliant!

 

[Donnie Frank]

That article is based on a more detailed article by Jonnathan Rupprecht in Forbes magazine. The full story is revealing. The pilot was warned and warned again, without penalty. and continued to knowingly violate the law. He flew under non-recreational rules without a Part 107 certificate. He documented, published, and promoted his violations. He aggressively flaunted the regulations.

So the FAA jumps from zero fine to $182K??? Can you think of a single instance where someone was fined so heavily who caused zero damage and zero injury? If the FAA's warning letter specifically stated that Mr. Rupprecht would be fined $182K, well then he gets what he gets. But I have a strong feeling the letter wasn't that specific.

To me, it would've made sense to slap a $500 fine on him. If Mr. Rupprecht continued, then slap a $1,000 fine on him...and on and on. But all that said, if this is the video that was shot of the college campus, I saw VERY LITTLE "danger" there. Again, "what if" arguments prevail. One can "what if" any subject to death to bolster a false narrative. But I'm not sure who Mr. Rupprecht is and I haven't seen his footage.

How most fines work...

When a driver drives on a suspended license, the police don't extrapolate that he drove 100 times and then assess a fine accordingly. It's a single fine per citation. The police don't compound the fines - even if there's clear evidence the perpetrator has been driving for a year or more on a suspended license. So this "new way" of compounding fines doesn't make sense - especially since nobody was hurt. Remember; "Murder" holds a much higher penalty than "attempted murder." If we follow that same legal logic, fining someone for "potential damage" becomes ridiculous.

I'm sure if the FAA told Rupprecht in their warning letter that he would be fined $182K if he kept breaking their rules, that would've sent a clear message to not shoot like that any more. If they DID send such a warning, well then he gets what he gets.

I don't have figures to compare his fines to other cases so I'm unable to say that the fine is not fair. I do think it's highly appropriate that he was prosecuted. I have no sympathy for him. He was warned, he knew the consequences,

Did he really know the consequences? Are you sure he knew that he would be fined $182K? I'm going to guess not.

and he persisted in conducting what he knew to be prohibited operations. He is a black mark on the drone community and contributed strongly to the poor image of drones held by some in the non-flying public.

I would have to see the footage. Here's a guy flying his drone directly into people. Zero fines.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Did Rupprecht do even this much damage to people and/or property?? I would guess not.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

Chill, dude.

Laws are written in part to mitigate actual risks, and in part in response to public concerns, which may or may not be rational concerns.

Bingo. If your assertion that "rules are rules regardless of their rationality," well then we've hit common ground. As long as we all agree to morbidly obey irrational rules, regulations and laws, then the rest of us will be forced to do the same. The dumbing down of society.... Don't think. Obey.

The flying over people rule may be a bit extreme on the edges, but it's basically a reasonable rule.

I will concede that it seems reasonable and prudent to not fly over people. To fine someone thousands of dollars for doing so does NOT seem reasonable OR prudent.

To be fair, I have no serious interest in flying over people. And if I did, I think it would be entirely reasonable to require a bit more from people in order to be able to do it.

I agree. I can get any shot of any parade or sporting event without having to fly over a single person. It's very easy to do. So why not do it??

Perhaps, they should be required to have their 107, with a simple video flying over people supplement.

Definitely, flying over people should require a known-stable production drone, and not some Rube Goldberg device that someone throws together in their garage.

Nice reference. But honestly, it seems the "moron pilots" are the ones who lack the ability to build drones. I'm just speculating here, but based on the crashes in these pilot forums, these are just pilot errors with off-the-shelf drones.

Deaths aren't the only things that matter. Injuries matter too.

Agreed. But even those number are miniscule. It's so rare that people are injured with drones that when it does happen it makes the national news cycle and stays there for days. Compare this to car accident deaths that are so commonplace that they barely make local news, if at all.

They can be. If you wanted to do damage with a Mini-2, could you do that? I certainly could.

Oh yeah? How much. Here's a guy who tried.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In the national defense context, capabilities are far more important than intentions. That applies to domestic security issues as well.

Yep.

Please cite a single case where a fine of even a tenth this much has been levied against someone for a minor infraction.

Here ya go. A little less than a tenth.

$11,000+ Fine Unlicensed Drone Operators - Pinnacle Real Estate Marketing

FAA Licensed Drone Operators starting at $150. Let our 5 fully FAA licensed drone operators capture your property and land.

www.pinnaclerealestatemarketing.com

The effective law is far more relaxed and risk-based than the mere raw text of the law would suggest. The FAA made that good adaptation to the real world, happen.

Let me guess...you worked in an engineering field at some point, or at least wanted to.

Neither. But I do have an engineering mind....or so I'm told. That kind of work interests me, but only for personal purposes. I regularly build and "engineer" solutions to real-world problems. I'm not a "duct tape and bailing wire" kind of guy. Build it. Build right. Build it to last.

Here's an example. This is for charging drone batteries directly off of a car battery, thus avoid the wasteful DC->AC->DC conversions. I've used this in the field many times. It works like a charm. Phase 2 is to put it all in a case.

In the public policy environment, perception matters as much as data. Sometimes more.

Unfortunately, you are very correct. I will fight to my dying breath that this is wrong, wrong, wrong, but it DOES exist.

The FAA has evolved an effective law that's reasonable without being overly restrictive. Anyone wanting to change the raw text of the law, should plan to do so through the normal channels for such things.

I would argue that the laws are ambiguous via a sea of legal jargon. The FAA hires lawyers to pen these laws that are, IRONICALLY, to be read by any 80 IQ moron with 1500 bucks to buy a drone. IMHO, the AMA did it right. The FAA stole the AMA rules and legalesed™ them to death. (Note the date at the top of the document)

On this one point, we agree.

I would support an unambiguous requirement that all drones sold in the USA should be required to include a printed statement of the FAA requirement for the TRUST certificate in the package, with a link to the FAA site for getting it.

How about the AMA rules cited above? One page. Slip a flyer in every drone package sold.

Re: Part 107. I agree that a flight test should be required for people who has never taken a flight test in their lives. But if someone is a current full-sized aircraft pilot...which means they've taken an in-air flight check within the last two years...that should be sufficient.

I would have to argue that with you. Comparing piloting full-scale aviation to UAS piloting is apples and oranges. I proclaim that one can be an expert at one and a complete novice at the other. Being a pilot certainly does imply that they know all the airspace rules, but it surely does not imply any level of UAS piloting skill.

Do you agree?

D

 

[Chaosrider]

Drone pilot fined $182K for 123 infractions

A Philadelphia man wracked up 123 drone flying violations and now the FAA proposes the drone pilot be fined $182,000

dronedj.com

Still think the rules are fair?

D

Absolutely.

From the article you linked:

"Exactly what do you have to do as a drone pilot to anger the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration so much it proposes a $182,000 fine?

Quite a lot.

According to Forbes, a Philadelphia drone pilot received a penalty letter from the FAA last month detailing his violations and the proposed fine.

It’s not as if the pilot didn’t have lots of warning. The FAA wrote to him last October warning him not to fly in downtown Philadelphia. Then, a month later, it wrote again with “counseling and education regarding requirements for safe operations” of a drone under the Federal Aviation Regulations.”"

The turkey deserved to get whacked!

What external event happened in your life to trigger this rant? Such things are rarely sui generis...

MM

 

[Chaosrider]

Speaking as former military and a retired LEO, I feel the same as you.

The amount of times I stopped a speeding motorist and got the "why aren't you out there catching real criminals?" My response was usually "I would be, sir, if I wasn't dealing with people like you."

The reason we have lots of rules and laws is that we can't have nice things because someone will always come along and spoil it for everyone else. I do want less rules and regs and while they won't repeal any of the ones we have now, showing that we, as a community, are responsible in what we do, could help stem the inevitable flow of more regs.

I think the BVLOS rules for non-big operators will be relaxed, provided the pilot has proper training and experience, and the drone is properly equipped, including RID. Just like the instrument rating for conventional aircraft.

That will be a good thing.

It won't happen this month, or this year, but I think it will be only a small number of years before this happens. RID in 2023, easier BVLOS authorization in 2024.

MM

 

[Donnie Frank]

Absolutely.

From the article you linked:

"Exactly what do you have to do as a drone pilot to anger the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration so much it proposes a $182,000 fine?

Quite a lot.

"Quite a lot" is too ambiguous to address.

According to Forbes, a Philadelphia drone pilot received a penalty letter from the FAA last month detailing his violations and the proposed fine.

It’s not as if the pilot didn’t have lots of warning. The FAA wrote to him last October warning him not to fly in downtown Philadelphia. Then, a month later, it wrote again with “counseling and education regarding requirements for safe operations” of a drone under the Federal Aviation Regulations.”"

Did they warn him that if he continued he would be fined the cost of a small house? I'm going to guess not.

The turkey deserved to get whacked!

We'll have to agree to disagree. A $1,000 fine would've done the trick. $182K is just the FAA flexing their power and showboating - just like every other faction of our U.S. government seems to be doing these days. It's a ridiculous amount of money for ZERO injury. ZERO property damage. The pilot of the Exxon Valdez was fined nothing. Let that sink in.

The Exxon Valdez captain’s conviction is overturned | July 10, 1992 | HISTORY

The Alaska court of appeals overturns the conviction of Joseph Hazelwood, the former captain of the oil tanker Exxon Valdez. Hazelwood, who was found guilty of negligence for his role in the massive oil spill in Prince William Sound in 1989, successfully argued that he was entitled to immunity...

www.history.com

What external event happened in your life to trigger this rant? Such things are rarely sui generis...

No one thing. Society has lost its mind. Common sense has been tossed to the wayside and this FAA iron fist thing is just yet ANOTHER example. Within the context of our conversation I have already cited left turning arrows and the recent Covid lockdowns as two of MANY other examples.

The other day Patti, my girlfriend, walks into CVS for a bottle of wine. The liquor section is blocked off with a sign "Please see manager to purchase liquor." Vexed, Patti walked over to the line and wait for the privilege of gaining access to the wine section. In walks four youths dressed in black with black hoodies and masks. They walk straight back to the liquor section, steal thousands of dollars in liquor, and WALK out. Yes....you read that right. They WALKED out. Not running. Not jogging. STROLLING. THIS is the society we now live in. I see these FAA rules combined with ridiculous fines as just another faction of society allowed to run amuck.

Above (in another conversation) I left a set of VERY common-sense set of AMA rules and regulations for drone pilots. THOSE RULES makes sense. Anybody can understand them. They're all common-sense rules to keep us safe.

In short, I'm fed up with the idiocy of the few controlling the lives of the many. And it's just getting worse. I'm sure you probably agree. Who knew Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" was prophecy???

D

 

[Dougcjohn]

Interesting series... gotta pop a 2nd bag of popcorn!

 

[MS Coast]

So the FAA jumps from zero fine to $182K??? Can you think of a single instance where someone was fined so heavily who caused zero damage and zero injury? If the FAA's warning letter specifically stated that Mr. Rupprecht would be fined $182K, well then he gets what he gets. But I have a strong feeling the letter wasn't that specific.

To me, it would've made sense to slap a $500 fine on him. If Mr. Rupprecht continued, then slap a $1,000 fine on him...and on and on. But all that said, if this is the video that was shot of the college campus, I saw VERY LITTLE "danger" there. Again, "what if" arguments prevail. One can "what if" any subject to death to bolster a false narrative. But I'm not sure who Mr. Rupprecht is and I haven't seen his footage.

How most fines work...

When a driver drives on a suspended license, the police don't extrapolate that he drove 100 times and then assess a fine accordingly. It's a single fine per citation. The police don't compound the fines - even if there's clear evidence the perpetrator has been driving for a year or more on a suspended license. So this "new way" of compounding fines doesn't make sense - especially since nobody was hurt. Remember; "Murder" holds a much higher penalty than "attempted murder." If we follow that same legal logic, fining someone for "potential damage" becomes ridiculous.

I'm sure if the FAA told Rupprecht in their warning letter that he would be fined $182K if he kept breaking their rules, that would've sent a clear message to not shoot like that any more. If they DID send such a warning, well then he gets what he gets.


Did he really know the consequences? Are you sure he knew that he would be fined $182K? I'm going to guess not.




I would have to see the footage. Here's a guy flying his drone directly into people. Zero fines.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Did Rupprecht do even this much damage to people and/or property?? I would guess not.

D

You might want to review the matter in a little more detail. Mr. Rupprecht is the attorney who wrote the article, not the drone pilot who broke regulations repeatedly and was fined.

The drone pilot was warned, without a fine, multiple times. And yet he persisted. As you said, he gets what he gets.

 

[Chaosrider]

If this was unintentionally meant as an aegist comment, then so be it.

My initial reaction was to feel insulted but after some reflection, I realized that all of my years on this earth have blessed me with a modicum of intelligence, and the acceptance of rules to benefit the majority rather than jeopardize our hobby, or in many cases, our livelihoods.

You have to go along to get along....something that it took me many, many years of adulthood to learn. Just my two cents.

Intelligence you're either born with, or you aren't.

Wisdom, however, can only come with age.

So sayeth the Old Fart!



MM