A drone pilot was fined $182K by the FAA(dpreview.com)
dpreview.com
A drone pilot was fined $182K by the FAA
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6343616131/how-one-drone-pilot-got-slapped-with-182-000-in-fines-from-the-faa
105 comments
> Youtube money must've been pretty good to keep going.
The idiot's most viewed video has about 33k views. I'm not sure that's enough to cover $200k in fines.
The idiot's most viewed video has about 33k views. I'm not sure that's enough to cover $200k in fines.
The videos don’t appear to be monetized, which is just as well, since that would be another violation - unlicensed commercial drone flight.
>unlicensed commercial drone flight.
That's incredible. Why does this specifically need a license? How is this going to be any different to just flying as a hobby?
That's incredible. Why does this specifically need a license? How is this going to be any different to just flying as a hobby?
Restrictions on commercial flight are there to protect the public from getting involved with unsafe operators. It’s to ensure that people obtaining flight services are getting a safe product.
Well for start, the money. Which introduces all sorts of legal liability issues, aside from regulations concerning profiteering from use of public spaces.
You can likely monetize Youtube for incidental footage during your flights without a commercial drone license, but not for real estate, pipeline, etc.
This is more of a concern, and likely heavily violated:
"You must fly in Class G airspace. If you need to fly in Class B, C, D or E controlled airspace, you need to apply for airspace authorization."
https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/drone-license/
Most US cities would be Class B/C to the ground near a large airport, and Class D/E would be common for smaller cities.
This is more of a concern, and likely heavily violated:
"You must fly in Class G airspace. If you need to fly in Class B, C, D or E controlled airspace, you need to apply for airspace authorization."
https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/drone-license/
Most US cities would be Class B/C to the ground near a large airport, and Class D/E would be common for smaller cities.
A popular blogging couple were fined for making blogs in national parks. I link to a different website for the short version.
https://drivinvibin.com/2020/10/23/rv-couple-fined/
https://drivinvibin.com/2020/10/23/rv-couple-fined/
> You can likely monetize Youtube for incidental footage during your flights without a commercial drone license
It's a grey area I agree; but if you're filming your flights with the intention of putting the videos on YouTube and monetizing them, that's arguably commercial use.
It's a grey area I agree; but if you're filming your flights with the intention of putting the videos on YouTube and monetizing them, that's arguably commercial use.
It is a grey area, but if the FAA goes after drone pilots for this, then they should also go after the many student and private pilots who monetize their training and flight videos.
Fair warning to anyone thinking of taking advantage of this gray area: the FAA is very, very strict when it comes to interpreting whether something is a commercial op. Pilots, for example, are considered to be getting compensation when they log flight hours, even if no money changes hands. (If this sounds ridiculous, you’ve never had to build 1500 hours. Every tenth is solid gold.)
I’m a Part 107 licensed “remote pilot”, and YouTube monetization was explicitly called out in the training materials. If you make money with your drone or use it in support of any commercial activity, the FAA requires certification.
"There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone."
I wish there were an exception for this. Likely the drone had programmed waypoints and was in an autonomous mode.
I remember hearing about attempts (back in the 80's?) to send a self-piloting model airplane across the Atlantic. I believe they finally succeeded? Fascinating to me. Utterly illegal I suppose.
But weather balloons get pass? I know amateurs launch balloons as well — perhaps there are restrictions however (like not near an airport, etc.).
Just some random thoughts.
EDIT, found a successful crossing in 2003, I thought there was an earlier one — perhaps only earlier failures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Butts%27_Farm
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/model-plane-f...
I wish there were an exception for this. Likely the drone had programmed waypoints and was in an autonomous mode.
I remember hearing about attempts (back in the 80's?) to send a self-piloting model airplane across the Atlantic. I believe they finally succeeded? Fascinating to me. Utterly illegal I suppose.
But weather balloons get pass? I know amateurs launch balloons as well — perhaps there are restrictions however (like not near an airport, etc.).
Just some random thoughts.
EDIT, found a successful crossing in 2003, I thought there was an earlier one — perhaps only earlier failures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Butts%27_Farm
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/model-plane-f...
> But weather balloons get pass?
Those are licensed and regulated. And I am pretty sure that if FAA sends you a notice to stop flying your weather balloon, you stop flying it. It’s not like this “pilot” didn’t know what he was doing - he received written warnings and chose to ignore those.
Those are licensed and regulated. And I am pretty sure that if FAA sends you a notice to stop flying your weather balloon, you stop flying it. It’s not like this “pilot” didn’t know what he was doing - he received written warnings and chose to ignore those.
> Those are licensed and regulated. And I am pretty sure that if FAA sends you a notice to stop flying your weather balloon, you stop flying it.
This is not true, as for certain weights of payloads are regulated, all these 'near-space' hobbyist balloons do not need to notify the FAA about anything. It's common courtesy to let them know you are going to send something up to 120,000' but not required.
This is not true, as for certain weights of payloads are regulated, all these 'near-space' hobbyist balloons do not need to notify the FAA about anything. It's common courtesy to let them know you are going to send something up to 120,000' but not required.
Are you sure? I looked into this extensively a few years ago, and while I don’t remember well enough to say with certainty, I recall there being strict equipment requirements (e.g. redundant payload releases) and a requirement to notify any ATC sectors your balloon will pass through.
It has been a few years since I did the research but Im positive you were allowed to send anything up under a specific weight (I do not remember the weights but I Think it was under 7lbs or 5lbs). Not a lot but quite a bit. Most people were putting a phone, gps, hand warmers, small housing and a canopy for when the balloon eventually burst. I never built one but it was really affordable to do if you wanted. Im sure there were restrictions like launching next to an international airport but beyond that there really weren't rules. It was common courtesy to file a NOTAM, but wasn't required.
I looked it up again. All un-crewed free balloons with payloads meeting certain conditions are required to be radar-reflective, and notice to ATC is mandatory; ATC is entitled to position reports if they want them. 14 CFR Part 101 Subpart D.
Any one of the following payload conditions trigger these restrictions:
- more than 4 lbs and more than 3 oz/in² on any side
- more than 6 lbs
- two or more packages totaling more than 12 lbs
- suspended from a rope or other device that requires more than 50 lbs to separate
So you’re right; small payloads don’t require any notice or special equipment.
Any one of the following payload conditions trigger these restrictions:
- more than 4 lbs and more than 3 oz/in² on any side
- more than 6 lbs
- two or more packages totaling more than 12 lbs
- suspended from a rope or other device that requires more than 50 lbs to separate
So you’re right; small payloads don’t require any notice or special equipment.
They are cool little projects. Fun for adults and perfect for kids too. I still might one day.
Pointing out an exception does not make the previous comment false.
>> Also this gem: "These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone." That goes way beyong "innocent experimentation with your new drone" and into "deliberately endangering people and property", especially if you've been warned about it twice already. Youtube money must've been pretty good to keep going.
> I wish there were an exception for this. Likely the drone had programmed waypoints and was in an autonomous mode.
It's probably not a safe way to fly, at least in an urban area near buildings, like the article said he was. GPS can go batty sometimes with signals blocked or reflected off buildings. I'm also not a drone pilot, but I'm a little skeptical that a drone flying by waypoints can compensate very well for weather conditions (such as gusty wind).
> I wish there were an exception for this. Likely the drone had programmed waypoints and was in an autonomous mode.
It's probably not a safe way to fly, at least in an urban area near buildings, like the article said he was. GPS can go batty sometimes with signals blocked or reflected off buildings. I'm also not a drone pilot, but I'm a little skeptical that a drone flying by waypoints can compensate very well for weather conditions (such as gusty wind).
I have a friend who likes to fly his drone in a valley. I asked him about helicopters, which are in the area since there are a lot of ski resorts, and he just shrugged. There's really a crazy level of incompetency when it comes to these amateur drone pilots and I fear the gap will only be plugged with blood.
You can replace "drone" with "car" and I don't see the "gap being plugged". Of course for the latter we even have demonstrable harm, not only aggressive overregulation.
Cars are different than drones because we built our country around cars, and can't go back now. Drones are neat, and a good photography tool, but not quite as useful as being able to move around the world at 60 miles per hour. That's why we tolerate cars -- the upsides outweigh the downsides.
>and can't go back now.
We're going to have to: Less populated areas can't afford to maintain the infrastructure and more populated areas exceed roads in plains carrying individuals in cars ability to scale.
We're going to have to: Less populated areas can't afford to maintain the infrastructure and more populated areas exceed roads in plains carrying individuals in cars ability to scale.
This is such an disingenuous argument. Automated speed enforcement is impossible "because we built our country around cars"? Increases in power, weight and size that far outstrip any justifiable utility? Shapes that are demonstrably harmful to pedestrian survival but we continue to build them?
Comparing drones and cars is also very disingenuous given that cars and driving are heavily regulated and relatively well understood by people since they are an integral part of day to day life almost all over the world, while drones are still mostly seen as harmless toys and the vast majority of people operate and treat them as such.
How many people take a car for a spin on a working airport runway because all that asphalt means it's a good place to have fun with the toy, especially without a driver's license or any idea of the rules of driving? Because plenty of people do it with drones. A better comparison would have been with laser pointers, another thing many people think is just a harmless toy.
> Of course for the latter [cars] we even have demonstrable harm, not only aggressive overregulation
This goes way beyond disingenuous. Do we have to wait for the harm to happen before considering regulation? There's a lot of truth in the popular wisdom that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so I'm curious what's a solid argument to suddenly demand being reactive rather than proactive especially when it comes to lives. I mean other than the one making my point above, that people want to play with "the toy".
How many people take a car for a spin on a working airport runway because all that asphalt means it's a good place to have fun with the toy, especially without a driver's license or any idea of the rules of driving? Because plenty of people do it with drones. A better comparison would have been with laser pointers, another thing many people think is just a harmless toy.
> Of course for the latter [cars] we even have demonstrable harm, not only aggressive overregulation
This goes way beyond disingenuous. Do we have to wait for the harm to happen before considering regulation? There's a lot of truth in the popular wisdom that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so I'm curious what's a solid argument to suddenly demand being reactive rather than proactive especially when it comes to lives. I mean other than the one making my point above, that people want to play with "the toy".
[deleted]
Assuming that by "our country" you mean the US: For example in Europe, car use is a lot less prevalent, walking and using a bike plays a much bigger role, and because of Covid, people are thinking about re-designing cities to rely even less [1] on cars.
So it's perfectly possible to go back, given that people actually want it.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/a-car-fre...
So it's perfectly possible to go back, given that people actually want it.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/a-car-fre...
You also have a lot more obvious benefits to having cars be commonly available. Pretty much no one I know with a drone is using it for anything more than a novelty. It's not to say there aren't valid uses for a drone, but there seems to be less urgency to make sure everyone can have a drone when the downside seems right there.
Drones are used only for hobby/novelty purposes because the FAA effectively bans everything else. Amazon, UPS, FedEx, and others would love to do drone delivery, but they can’t get regulatory approval. Instead, they have to send trucks through neighborhoods at high speeds. These vehicles inevitably injure and kill some pedestrians. They also create significant amounts of pollution.
Drones are held to a higher standard than any other vehicle I'm aware of. This ends up causing more harm than it prevents.
Drones are held to a higher standard than any other vehicle I'm aware of. This ends up causing more harm than it prevents.
if you think cars are aggressively over regulated, wait til you find out how many people with multiple DUIs still drive!
It's unfortunate sentence construction on my part. I think it's the opposite; somehow toy drones are regulated to have geofenced no-fly-zones but cars can accelerate to 100mph and beyond in cities.
Not your point, but 100mph can be problematic. As far as MN is concerned for example, 99 in a 15 yields a small fine that you can attempt to fight, and 100 in a 95 anywhere (not just in the state's borders) yields an automatic license revocation without possibility of trial.
It doesn't help that the drone community is full of people that do risky (not to themselves) stunts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI
I'm not into drones myself so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I'm a bit puzzled by all of these comments about safety. What exactly do you see as risky in that video?
That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital.
Meanwhile that video shows a bridge full of a hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers. Due to the vehicle weights, there's extreme danger to pedestrians (over a hundred thousand causalities per year in the US, deemed acceptable). Due to the large difference between weight classes of vehicles, there's a significant risk to the passengers of those vehicles. And it's kept in line mostly by voluntary adherence to visual boundaries and an expectation that drivers will hit the breaks if the vehicles they're driving at change course.
That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital.
Meanwhile that video shows a bridge full of a hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers. Due to the vehicle weights, there's extreme danger to pedestrians (over a hundred thousand causalities per year in the US, deemed acceptable). Due to the large difference between weight classes of vehicles, there's a significant risk to the passengers of those vehicles. And it's kept in line mostly by voluntary adherence to visual boundaries and an expectation that drivers will hit the breaks if the vehicles they're driving at change course.
>That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital.
What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed?
>hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers.
what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance while they're trying to cross a bridge that offers no positive outcomes if the vehicle vector is changed?
Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable.
Driving cars isn't safe, but doing something unsafe while compounded with distractions and possible bogeys is even more unsafe.
What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed?
>hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers.
what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance while they're trying to cross a bridge that offers no positive outcomes if the vehicle vector is changed?
Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable.
Driving cars isn't safe, but doing something unsafe while compounded with distractions and possible bogeys is even more unsafe.
> What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed?
My intuition says the drone would bounce off, being made of light material. In the worst case, it would crack the windshield and the driver would stop.
> what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance
Many people look at birds while driving with little notable effect. It feels like the distracting-traffic argument is really just a couching of the real gripe, which is more like "weird new thing bad".
> Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable
Sure, but we can compare relative safety. It's a bit odd to pick on a slightly-unsafe activity due to its proximity to a much unsafer activity. In general anything involving an urban landscape is going to have traffic/buildings/infrastructure adjacent. And so if we go by a standard of possibly affecting those things, there would end up being no permission for anything new.
My intuition says the drone would bounce off, being made of light material. In the worst case, it would crack the windshield and the driver would stop.
> what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance
Many people look at birds while driving with little notable effect. It feels like the distracting-traffic argument is really just a couching of the real gripe, which is more like "weird new thing bad".
> Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable
Sure, but we can compare relative safety. It's a bit odd to pick on a slightly-unsafe activity due to its proximity to a much unsafer activity. In general anything involving an urban landscape is going to have traffic/buildings/infrastructure adjacent. And so if we go by a standard of possibly affecting those things, there would end up being no permission for anything new.
To be fair, those are some of the most skilled drone operators in the world, and you’ll notice that they never once flew over the roadway.
I’m not excusing it, or saying there was no risk - but I will say that it’s not as risky as it seems at first glance.
I’m not excusing it, or saying there was no risk - but I will say that it’s not as risky as it seems at first glance.
As a hobbyist: Good! I like flying my drone, and I do so responsibly. I don't want people like this ruining it for others, and I especially don't want people like this endangering others with their irresponsible behavior.
I have a DJI Mavic Mini. If you're marginally competent, DJI makes it very clear that you are operating an aircraft and have rules to follow. In certain circumstances, you do not need to be Part 107 certified to operate this aircraft, nor do you need to register your aircraft. That said, you still must follow all related FAA regulations, like them or not. From the linked video from @nathancahill below, I see the Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) issue, night time flying (appeared to be started before the 30 minute twilight, and I doubt he had supplemental lighting which would have brought it over the weight limit for registration), and generally reckless operation. Height is to be 400 feet AGL (above ground level) unless near structures, which allows you to operate 400 feet above that (§14CFR107.51(b)).
The FAA warned him. He didn't pay attention. Maybe a $182K fine will get his attention.
I have a DJI Mavic Mini. If you're marginally competent, DJI makes it very clear that you are operating an aircraft and have rules to follow. In certain circumstances, you do not need to be Part 107 certified to operate this aircraft, nor do you need to register your aircraft. That said, you still must follow all related FAA regulations, like them or not. From the linked video from @nathancahill below, I see the Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) issue, night time flying (appeared to be started before the 30 minute twilight, and I doubt he had supplemental lighting which would have brought it over the weight limit for registration), and generally reckless operation. Height is to be 400 feet AGL (above ground level) unless near structures, which allows you to operate 400 feet above that (§14CFR107.51(b)).
The FAA warned him. He didn't pay attention. Maybe a $182K fine will get his attention.
BVLOS is tricky in the age of FPV. Flying behind a large tree is illegal as it is BVLOS. Same with night time flying even on a huge field with no property or people in sight. Basically you are at the mercy of regulators because most of the stuff is illegal or available with some kind of permits.
On BVLOS, FAA Advisory Circular 107-2 §5.7 actually covers the allowance for brief moments when a drone is out of VLOS. It's one thing for a drone to be behind a tree for a few seconds, and another when a drone is so far away one cannot possibly see it.
As regards FPV and even the very good remote viewing in the Mavic Mini, regular general aviation regulations essentially nullify either of those capabilities as being inadequate. §14CFR91.113(b) states, "vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." That means in addition to looking forward, you need to regularly look above, below, left, right, and to the extent practicable behind.
On night time flight over a huge empty field, yup, I get it. The regulations make no sense for this.
I could begin a long discussion over the regulatory process in the US, but I won't. I will say however that it behooves drone operators to be aware of and to become involved in the regulatory process. Whether you like the process and the products of that process or not, it isn't going away. The regulations exist, the FAA appears at some level to actually be interested in educating rather than punishing, but they have the power to do what they think is necessary to maintain order and safety.
As regards FPV and even the very good remote viewing in the Mavic Mini, regular general aviation regulations essentially nullify either of those capabilities as being inadequate. §14CFR91.113(b) states, "vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." That means in addition to looking forward, you need to regularly look above, below, left, right, and to the extent practicable behind.
On night time flight over a huge empty field, yup, I get it. The regulations make no sense for this.
I could begin a long discussion over the regulatory process in the US, but I won't. I will say however that it behooves drone operators to be aware of and to become involved in the regulatory process. Whether you like the process and the products of that process or not, it isn't going away. The regulations exist, the FAA appears at some level to actually be interested in educating rather than punishing, but they have the power to do what they think is necessary to maintain order and safety.
Ok, so FAA has exceptions, i am not from US so wasn't sure about that because when FPV got popular my local ancient regulation basically said that pilot must maintain visual contact (VLOS only) and even now the latest unified EU drone regulation is kinda shit because you must have a spotter. Realistically speaking - what kind of other random aircraft are going to be up to 120m/400ft or around trees/obstacles when flying a racing drone? I bet it is zero. I am not disputing the fact that there are situations when all the precaution is needed but the fact that you are breaking the law when you are flying your FPV racing drone alone between/above trees alone in a private forest is a bit unsettling (at least based on the latest unified EU drone regulation).
Here's a great FPV video from Portugal. Just saw it a month ago on YouTube. (If it doesn't play for you, search for "NAZARÉ x FPV DRONE CINEMATIC" on the channel "RED- FPV".) I was actually more hopeful that Europe was doing better than us! I'm not even sure how the FAA would deal with something like this, other than to require some elaborate waiver that would take all of the creative energy out of a project like this.
https://youtu.be/Vsn7jyJ4xhQ
https://youtu.be/Vsn7jyJ4xhQ
Imo under the new regulation (from 2021) this could actually be completely legal without any waivers depending on where was the pilot, if there was a spotter (very likely) and if the surfers can be considered involved persons (notified and consented etc.). Under my current local rules (not Portugal) this would require to be a certified pilot (theory + practical exam, although if you do this commercially it is a must anyway) and a risk assessment submitted to Civil Aviation Agency.
P.S. I believe the first shot of the video wouldn't fall under any regulation as it is not using airspace.
P.S. I believe the first shot of the video wouldn't fall under any regulation as it is not using airspace.
Ironically, the Mavic Mini seems to have been designed to not be subject to rules, especially in other countries.
Here in Canada, none of the drone rules and regulations apply to it, as it's too small to be considered a drone.
I have a drone ... addiction. I generally use my Mavic 2 for most of my flights, but when I want to fly somewhere I'm not allowed to fly, I switch to the Mavic Mini.
So yeah, all those rules the FAA has in the USA, we have similar rules in Canada and other countries. But they don't apply to the Mavic Mini.
Here in Canada, none of the drone rules and regulations apply to it, as it's too small to be considered a drone.
I have a drone ... addiction. I generally use my Mavic 2 for most of my flights, but when I want to fly somewhere I'm not allowed to fly, I switch to the Mavic Mini.
So yeah, all those rules the FAA has in the USA, we have similar rules in Canada and other countries. But they don't apply to the Mavic Mini.
This is largely true in the US as well, the Mavic Mini is 249 grams intentionally because most of the FAA rules explicitly only apply to aircraft >= 250g. They know exactly what they're doing, it's literally the first question in their FAQ page - https://www.dji.com/mavic-mini/faq
I'm generally very pro-drone but this definitely makes it hard to defend the hobby against anti-drone arguments. Most of the things people complain about we can say "Well that's already illegal, and with RemoteID it will be much easier to report them and have consequences"... But these 249g drones with 30 mins battery life and 4k cameras don't have to follow a many of these laws, even though they cause a large proportion of the problems.
I'm generally very pro-drone but this definitely makes it hard to defend the hobby against anti-drone arguments. Most of the things people complain about we can say "Well that's already illegal, and with RemoteID it will be much easier to report them and have consequences"... But these 249g drones with 30 mins battery life and 4k cameras don't have to follow a many of these laws, even though they cause a large proportion of the problems.
Here's the pilot's YT channel¹, and one of the videos that triggered the fines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQx6xhSSKco
¹https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrLRWeZSXoTrDlZ5zfkWjQA
¹https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrLRWeZSXoTrDlZ5zfkWjQA
there's also his response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_GgqTMvx-I
@4:21 he claims to not know about any drone flight regulation rules until "a day ago" (video from November 27, 2020). That doesn't exactly square with receiving multiple FAA warnings, as early as October or November 2019.
[deleted]
The Philly accent is truly something to behold.
Thanks for sharing. That video to me indicates that he has a child-like blind love for his drones. I imagine he couldn't give up that love even as he got the letters from the FAA.
On one hand, cases like this is why responsible pilots may become (and in some countries already are) unable to fly a drone without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. On the other hand, the About section of his channel is a poignant read.
In my eyes, DJI application’s UI is as much (if not more) to blame here. It puts way, way too little emphasis on FAA regulation violations; a small corner alert when entering a controlled airspace is IMO inexcusable (“Fly with caution” and then it disappears). Generally speaking, the app knows everything necessary—location, country, time of day, lighting conditions—to show a big “Only proceed if you are indoors, outdoor flight is subject to $xxxxx fine” warning before flight takes place.
In my eyes, DJI application’s UI is as much (if not more) to blame here. It puts way, way too little emphasis on FAA regulation violations; a small corner alert when entering a controlled airspace is IMO inexcusable (“Fly with caution” and then it disappears). Generally speaking, the app knows everything necessary—location, country, time of day, lighting conditions—to show a big “Only proceed if you are indoors, outdoor flight is subject to $xxxxx fine” warning before flight takes place.
The DJI software doesn’t allow take-off at all when inside a no fly zone.
All models in the past five years come with a 120m max altitude set, and an absolute 500m limit.
There is a huge buffer area around airports [1]. If you’re seeing the “fly with caution” warning, you are not in a controlled zone. This is purely a matter of regulations.
[1] https://www.dji.com/nl/mobile/flysafe/introduction
All models in the past five years come with a 120m max altitude set, and an absolute 500m limit.
There is a huge buffer area around airports [1]. If you’re seeing the “fly with caution” warning, you are not in a controlled zone. This is purely a matter of regulations.
[1] https://www.dji.com/nl/mobile/flysafe/introduction
Great pointer, I stand corrected about my use of “controlled airspace”.
I still think DJI UI is designed to enable fineable violations. The app at least knows it’s night and middle of a city; perhaps it can’t infer missing line of sight (questionable), but nighttime flight alone outdoors in a city is already illegal without a permit.
A company like DJI could easily afford to scrape and aggregate UAV regulations from different regions (there are numerous websites doing just that already) and integrate relevant checks in the app.
I still think DJI UI is designed to enable fineable violations. The app at least knows it’s night and middle of a city; perhaps it can’t infer missing line of sight (questionable), but nighttime flight alone outdoors in a city is already illegal without a permit.
A company like DJI could easily afford to scrape and aggregate UAV regulations from different regions (there are numerous websites doing just that already) and integrate relevant checks in the app.
DJI’s “no fly zones” aren’t the same as the FAA’s airspace classification. I can take off through the DJI app even though I’m in controlled airspace for which there is no automated approval, but can’t take off without a specific exemption from DJI if I’m in the approach path of an airport even though it’s not operational at that time and the FAA considers it uncontrolled.
This is the original link, the dpreview link is editorialized: https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-pilot-received-182000-propos...
I wouldn’t say editorialised so much as summarised, and without the casual tone. I didn’t get any more information from reading the original than the one posted, despite the length of the former.
My neighbors had a wedding in their front yard a few weeks ago. The photography of it included a dramatic drone scene where the drone took off from the couple and flew away at tree top level (about 60-80 ft).
We live within 5 miles (as the crow flies) of a major international airport. Did they have an airspace authorization? I have absolutely no idea. Did they know they needed one? Probably not. Was there risk of any in-flight aircraft incidents? Not really, unless somebody was flying in the canopy of our local trees over a bunch of houses.
To be honest the rules are confusing. For example, some cities have an absolute no-fly zone in and around the city. The rules then say you are free to fly (with certain restrictions) outside of that zone. But in major metros, the restricted zone is usually so large that it merges with other no-drone-fly zones (like the ones near other airports, air force bases and the like) making the entire metro practically a no-fly zone. We're talking about areas that are maybe more than a 1000 sq mi. In the pockets you can fly in, you usually need pre-authorization and have restrictions.
At some point drones need to know where they can fly/can't fly (and simply report an error), automate the flight authorization and authorization envelope and just simply license pilots as well.
Considering somebody with no training at all can buy a drone out of the local Best Buy, and probably can't read a pilot's navigation chart to understand what an airspace is, and probably doesn't know the regulations at all (or that there are any really), it's probably time.
We live within 5 miles (as the crow flies) of a major international airport. Did they have an airspace authorization? I have absolutely no idea. Did they know they needed one? Probably not. Was there risk of any in-flight aircraft incidents? Not really, unless somebody was flying in the canopy of our local trees over a bunch of houses.
To be honest the rules are confusing. For example, some cities have an absolute no-fly zone in and around the city. The rules then say you are free to fly (with certain restrictions) outside of that zone. But in major metros, the restricted zone is usually so large that it merges with other no-drone-fly zones (like the ones near other airports, air force bases and the like) making the entire metro practically a no-fly zone. We're talking about areas that are maybe more than a 1000 sq mi. In the pockets you can fly in, you usually need pre-authorization and have restrictions.
At some point drones need to know where they can fly/can't fly (and simply report an error), automate the flight authorization and authorization envelope and just simply license pilots as well.
Considering somebody with no training at all can buy a drone out of the local Best Buy, and probably can't read a pilot's navigation chart to understand what an airspace is, and probably doesn't know the regulations at all (or that there are any really), it's probably time.
DJI drones (the post popular consumer drones) have software that clearly displays flight restrictions and won’t let you take off if you’re too close to an airport. You can put in your code from the FAA to unlock an area if you get your approval.
The problem with flying low near an airport isn’t that you might collide with a plane flying at 50 feet AGL, it’s that you’ll have an uncontrolled flyaway incident.
The problem with flying low near an airport isn’t that you might collide with a plane flying at 50 feet AGL, it’s that you’ll have an uncontrolled flyaway incident.
As a pilot: good. This kind of behavior needs to be stamped out before it gets someone killed.
Also a pilot (and also annoyed by some drone operators). To me, this one didn't seem that egregious/bothersome. Virtually all of his operations in the video I watched were under 500' MSL (so below where even helos would be typically be operating and well below any fixed-wing operations).
When the FAA warns you and you decide to YOLO it, I don't cry for you when you get what they promised you, but a few hundred feet over cities is nothing compared to flying beyond visual contact at altitudes where airplanes are commonly traveling.
When the FAA warns you and you decide to YOLO it, I don't cry for you when you get what they promised you, but a few hundred feet over cities is nothing compared to flying beyond visual contact at altitudes where airplanes are commonly traveling.
[deleted]
How about the guy flying with the jetpack on his back?
Doesn't the fine seem excessive? I mean I would think $500 would get the point across. Seems like they are ruining this guy financially to make an example. You know he's gonna end up in jail due to inability to pay (debtor's prison?). That seems totalitarian to me.
I mean I would think $500 would get the point across.
You would think two letters from the FAA would get the point across. But you think it’s totalitarian not to give them just one more chance.
You would think two letters from the FAA would get the point across. But you think it’s totalitarian not to give them just one more chance.
Honestly, after ignoring these two letters he was _begging_ the FAA to make an example of him. Fine him $500 after two stern warnings? That's a good way to make sure that absolutely no one will heed any of your warnings in the future. I don't see anything totalitarian about it. I wonder, is GP by any chance a libertarian? The man is getting his just deserts, and that's all there is to it.
Going from a warning to a sum most people would never be able to pay off seems pretty steep. Go in powers of 10, or something. 1k, 10k, 100k.
It is my understanding that he received two warnings.
Receiving two warnings before getting a fine is extremely lenient.
Receiving two warnings before getting a fine is extremely lenient.
180000 dollars doesn't seem lenient to me.
But really, I don't care if it's extremely lenient by some standard. I care what policy will best dissuade antisocial behaviour with the minimal necessary fines imposed.
Clearly, in your view, a written warning from the FCC is obviously serious business, and if you got one you'd interpret it as such and immediately desist from whatever incited it. As this guy and the people disagreeing with you show, this attitude isn't universal.
Two warnings and then immediate financial execution just seems insane. If the the first and second letters had come with 1000 and 10000 dollar fines attached, almost everyone would have stopped by the first, let alone the second. There, no need to turn people into lifelong indentured servants.
(Of course, I imagine there's an incentive to maximize the amount of fines you collect, so that explains why it wouldn't happen that way.)
But really, I don't care if it's extremely lenient by some standard. I care what policy will best dissuade antisocial behaviour with the minimal necessary fines imposed.
Clearly, in your view, a written warning from the FCC is obviously serious business, and if you got one you'd interpret it as such and immediately desist from whatever incited it. As this guy and the people disagreeing with you show, this attitude isn't universal.
Two warnings and then immediate financial execution just seems insane. If the the first and second letters had come with 1000 and 10000 dollar fines attached, almost everyone would have stopped by the first, let alone the second. There, no need to turn people into lifelong indentured servants.
(Of course, I imagine there's an incentive to maximize the amount of fines you collect, so that explains why it wouldn't happen that way.)
> 180,000 dollars doesn't seem lenient to me.
It is, though. He repeatedly operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives. Every penny of this fine is well-deserved.
It is, though. He repeatedly operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives. Every penny of this fine is well-deserved.
At what point would the fine be too much for you? A million? Ten million? Should we just kill him and get it over with?
Or does it just matter that an authority said that's the fine that's warranted? If the FCC says it's 180k, 180k was just. If the FCC says 10k, 10k was just. If the FCC says a million, a million was just.
Or does it just matter that an authority said that's the fine that's warranted? If the FCC says it's 180k, 180k was just. If the FCC says 10k, 10k was just. If the FCC says a million, a million was just.
I think the 180k fine is reasonable. As others have pointed out, the maximum fine (250k) is publicly available to look up, and was most likely also in the letters he received from the FCC. This didn't come out of nowhere.
Think of it another way, imagine if the cops kept pulling you over for speeding. The first time you just got a warning, but they told you next time it'd be a $500 fine. Then you get caught again and they said "Ok we'll give you ONE more warning, but if you keep doing this, it's a $500 fine". Then the third time you get caught, when they give you a $350 fine you can't be all surprised pikachu at them. This guy knew the stakes (and was repeatedly reminded of them, by the enforcing body, who told him they would enforce the law if he didn't stop) and he kept on breaking the law anyway. They need to send a clear message that this is NOT acceptable behavior. This is closer to driving on the runway at an active airport than it is to an everyday traffic violation.
In terms of the magnitude of the fine - he was putting people's lives in danger, which I think justifies the amount. You also have to keep in mind that drones are an expensive hobby, it's not uncommon for people to spend over $3k on drone equipment. Many popular drone pilots on instagram etc are incredibly wealthy and drive crazy sports cars and the like. They regularly fly $1000+ drones inches from water / through forests etc, and they can afford to lose a few of them.
Put another way - if the normal response to breaking these laws was 2 warnings and a $10k fine over 2 years of publicly posting widely watched videos of yourself breaking the law, it wouldn't be enough to stop a lot of these people.
Think of it another way, imagine if the cops kept pulling you over for speeding. The first time you just got a warning, but they told you next time it'd be a $500 fine. Then you get caught again and they said "Ok we'll give you ONE more warning, but if you keep doing this, it's a $500 fine". Then the third time you get caught, when they give you a $350 fine you can't be all surprised pikachu at them. This guy knew the stakes (and was repeatedly reminded of them, by the enforcing body, who told him they would enforce the law if he didn't stop) and he kept on breaking the law anyway. They need to send a clear message that this is NOT acceptable behavior. This is closer to driving on the runway at an active airport than it is to an everyday traffic violation.
In terms of the magnitude of the fine - he was putting people's lives in danger, which I think justifies the amount. You also have to keep in mind that drones are an expensive hobby, it's not uncommon for people to spend over $3k on drone equipment. Many popular drone pilots on instagram etc are incredibly wealthy and drive crazy sports cars and the like. They regularly fly $1000+ drones inches from water / through forests etc, and they can afford to lose a few of them.
Put another way - if the normal response to breaking these laws was 2 warnings and a $10k fine over 2 years of publicly posting widely watched videos of yourself breaking the law, it wouldn't be enough to stop a lot of these people.
I think it's a reasonable fine, considering that he has endangered a great number of human lives.
It is clear that he failed to understand the gravity of his recklessness prior to this fine, I am sure he understands now.
All things considered, his punishment was more or less a slap on the wrist:
> Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
(Source: fbi.gov)
It is clear that he failed to understand the gravity of his recklessness prior to this fine, I am sure he understands now.
All things considered, his punishment was more or less a slap on the wrist:
> Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
(Source: fbi.gov)
Would you say the same for someone getting two warnings and then getting a speeding ticket fine that was for $180k?
For most people, that’s not payable in a lifetime.
For most people, that’s not payable in a lifetime.
If the speeding took place in a similar context (i.e. a busy city) and he repeatedly endangered a great number of human lives? Yes, I would say the same.
Who's life would you say is worth less than $182,000?
I wasn't aware the FCC was going to use that money to buy malaria nets. Each life is worth a star, but the price of a life is far lower.
I wasn't aware the purpose of government fines was bronze-age eye-for-an-eye-ism. But if it is, then I'd point out he didn't kill anyone.
I wasn't aware the purpose of government fines was bronze-age eye-for-an-eye-ism. But if it is, then I'd point out he didn't kill anyone.
He didn't kill anyone this time. There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in.
In such a situation, it could easily cause a car accident, or crash through the window of a tall building, or worst-case scenario - which these laws are very much trying to prevent - it could end up in the engine of a plane coming in to land and endangering the hundreds of people on board.
If this drone was urgently delivering an organ for a transplant across the city, and flown by a professional operator with clearance from local airspace authorities, as well as multiple redundant systems to prevent catastrophic failure - then it's definitely worth the risk. But obviously that's not the case here, this was an amateur playing with a toy in order to make a youtube video. As such, it should only be allowed in the lowest risk environments - like big empty fields far away from people and airports.
In such a situation, it could easily cause a car accident, or crash through the window of a tall building, or worst-case scenario - which these laws are very much trying to prevent - it could end up in the engine of a plane coming in to land and endangering the hundreds of people on board.
If this drone was urgently delivering an organ for a transplant across the city, and flown by a professional operator with clearance from local airspace authorities, as well as multiple redundant systems to prevent catastrophic failure - then it's definitely worth the risk. But obviously that's not the case here, this was an amateur playing with a toy in order to make a youtube video. As such, it should only be allowed in the lowest risk environments - like big empty fields far away from people and airports.
> There's a non-zero chance of transmitter failure, or a "flyaway", where the drone basically enters full-power to the rotors and just goes whatever direction it happens to be pointed in.
And he has _intentionally_ lost contact with his drone:
> These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone.
And he has _intentionally_ lost contact with his drone:
> These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone.
How about a million dollar fine then? Is that excessive?
Here's the text of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Here's the text of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
It is not excessive, if one operates a drone recklessly with no regards for air traffic over a busy city… well, that behavior is endangering many.
As far as I am concerned, he is no better than someone who tries to blind pilots with a laser pointer (and there's precedent for that):
> Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
(Source: fbi.gov)
Kudos to the FAA for nipping that in the bud.
As far as I am concerned, he is no better than someone who tries to blind pilots with a laser pointer (and there's precedent for that):
> Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
(Source: fbi.gov)
Kudos to the FAA for nipping that in the bud.
How about speeding tickets then? Speeders certainly endanger many. Would you argue that a $182,000 speeding ticket isn't excessive either? If not, what's the differentiator in your opinion?
If you're able to endanger a comparable number of lives while driving, you're probably a bus driver who will receive more serious punishment for speeding than someone in their Honda Civic
Honestly? If someone drives as recklessly as the fined has piloted his drone and in a similiar setting i.e. a busy city… yes, please. By all means, fine a multiple offender $182,000 for repeatedly endangering a great number of human lives.
You can be arrested for reckless driving, spend time in jail, pay a fine, and lose your license.
> Honestly, after ignoring these two letters he was _begging_ the FAA to be made an example of.
No. No. NO. A western government should not behave like Russia or China or other despotic states, EVER. It has to be fair to everyone, and "making an example out of someone" is definitely not fair.
No. No. NO. A western government should not behave like Russia or China or other despotic states, EVER. It has to be fair to everyone, and "making an example out of someone" is definitely not fair.
> Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
(Source: fbi.gov)
What he did is comparable, imho.
(Source: fbi.gov)
What he did is comparable, imho.
What aircraft did he interfere with? It will surely be visible on that aircraft's path. Let's see?
In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident. There wasn't any other aircraft. Even supersonic aircraft can be seen early enough to land the drone.
In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident. There wasn't any other aircraft. Even supersonic aircraft can be seen early enough to land the drone.
> What aircraft did he interfere with? It will surely be visible on that aircraft's path. Let's see? In actual reality he didn't even attempt to interfere, not by choice nor by accident.
He operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives:
> "These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone."
Every penny of his fine is well-deserved.
He operated his drone recklessly to such a degree that shows nothing but blatant disregard for air traffic and human lives:
> "These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone."
Every penny of his fine is well-deserved.
What air traffic are you talking about? There was none. The thing about buildings is the only thing we could agree on. Who cares (except the bureaucrats) about losing control and signal when nothing could've happened?
Forbes states that his fines are, among other things, because he operated his drone in "Philadelphia’s Class B airspace (KPHL)" without authorization on several occasions.
The FAA website is quite clear about what Philadelphia’s Class B airspace is about: "The primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high density airtraffic operations."
The FAA website is quite clear about what Philadelphia’s Class B airspace is about: "The primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high density airtraffic operations."
[deleted]
You're arguing the wrong point. I wasn't arguing that he shouldn't get fined, I'm arguing that $182,000 was excessive.
That’s $7000 per infraction. High, but not unreasonable, especially after two warnings from the FAA. That’s not the sort of agency you should be playing games with, and you shouldn’t get a bulk discount for breaking the law.
Maybe the FAA shouldn't have sent two warnings then and instead sent a small fine? Because that went from being warned to life-ruining.
IDK, a government agency being overly generous with the warnings probably isn't such a bad thing...like the local cop that'll give you a couple warnings for speeding before dropping the hammer when they realize you just don't care and are on the fast track to causing an accident.
Not excessive considering this happened before, see - He Flew a Drone to Take Photos for a Friend. Now He’s Facing $55K in Government Fines. - https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/06/12/he-flew-a-drone-to-ta...
Also this gem: "These clips also revealed flight in hazardous conditions including heavy rain, fog, snow, and close proximity to buildings in downtown Philadelphia. There was also posted proof of the pilot intentionally losing radio signal, and control, of his drone." That goes way beyong "innocent experimentation with your new drone" and into "deliberately endangering people and property", especially if you've been warned about it twice already. Youtube money must've been pretty good to keep going.