Why was this drone operator arrested and fined?

[dirkclod]

If the FAA thinks the operator was flying careless and reckless, then the FAA can charge him with violating 91.13. That would be the appropriate enforcement. If the city doesn't like his flying then the FAA asks them to collect evidence and refer the issue to the FAA enforcement division. It is not up to the city to decide, you're stupid so we will arrest you.

You DO NOT want thousands of towns and cities to have their own, often different rules regulating flight. If it's airborne, it's in the FAA's jurisdiction. No one else.

Na we don't Steve . Ya think this kid cares about the FAA though ? Toddler's eyeball sliced in half by drone propeller - BBC News
Flying over or around people is stupid In My World .

 

[maxwell smart]

Give up Steve. You know the old saying. You don't know what you got until its gone. Well I think that's how some on here get educated.

 

[dirkclod]

Give up Steve. You know the old saying. You don't know what you got until its gone. Well I think that's how some on here get educated.

What ya mean by that Maxwell ?

 

[N017RW]

If the FAA thinks the operator was flying careless and reckless, then the FAA can charge him with violating 91.13. That would be the appropriate enforcement. If the city doesn't like his flying then the FAA asks them to collect evidence and refer the issue to the FAA enforcement division. It is not up to the city to decide, you're stupid so we will arrest you.

You DO NOT want thousands of towns and cities to have their own, often different rules regulating flight. If it's airborne, it's in the FAA's jurisdiction. No one else.

Anytime you operate an item in a way or place not intended you can bet cities, counties, etc. have laws, ordinances, statutes, etc. on the books which can easily be applied.

If you were to take your 10 hp riding lawn mower and attempt to manuever around and through the crowds you'd get the same response from L.E.

You cannot jeopardize publc safety just because it's a toy flying camera. This has nothing to do with the FAA.

 

[hog guts]

Snerd, and Dirkclod, we have laws for a reason. If you allow cities to be able to make up rules as they go, then eventually we will look like any other tin-pot third-world country.
Flying over a crowd is not illegal, much to your frustration.
Flying stupid is not against the law, though it would be in your world.
But encouraging illegal arrests because it suits YOUR vision of what the law should be will do irreparable damage to the hobby in the long term.

I am all for making people fly responsibly within the law. But it is reckless to encourage any city to make up the rules however they want. The city should follow the law as well.

What he said.....

Kids are not evil when they fly kites over crowds. Hand gliders are not evil when they fly over towns and people. Wing suits are not evil when they but by folks at 100+ mph. And all the idiots on the road drive right next to loads of folks every day reading their phone and other nonsense. I just don't see how thing video of a parade at a low altitude it's such a giant issue for some of you. If humans never participated in risky events then might as well stay home. Sheet can happen everywhere no matter where you are life is tough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dirkclod]

 

[Goldni]

All I know is, the guys was arrested. He should not have been flying over the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. People like this will be the death of our hobby.

And yes, depending on which no fly site you look at, one has all of Manhattan in a big no fly zone. The other has most of it.

 

[hog guts]

If he broke a law it is what it is. If not then he should not have been obviously. Just depends on the law there and the facts. It's not like law enforcement doesn't make mistakes hopefully this wasn't an example of one. And to some here where do you draw the line for "crowds"? I get that parade was extreme in that sense, but generally what's too many people? A wedding? A boat race? A ski slope? An athletic event? A public road? See my point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hog guts]

Furthermore, when does the liability come back to bite you? If your airbag deploys while driving down the road and you hit something or someone that's not criminal and it's the liability of the car manufacturer. If a drone malfunctions and crashes into something why would it be so different now and just the ops fault? This will be a long journey and since its in the USA it's amazing you can do anything without a boatload of lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hjones62]

Lets go easy Guys, the Guy probably didn't have a tv at home to watch the parade, so he came to watch it from the Phantom...lol

 

[Lightfoot]

Snerd, and Dirkclod, we have laws for a reason. If you allow cities to be able to make up rules as they go, then eventually we will look like any other tin-pot third-world country.
Flying over a crowd is not illegal, much to your frustration.
Flying stupid is not against the law, though it would be in your world.
But encouraging illegal arrests because it suits YOUR vision of what the law should be will do irreparable damage to the hobby in the long term.

I am all for making people fly responsibly within the law. But it is reckless to encourage any city to make up the rules however they want. The city should follow the law as well.

Steve, read the online edition of the "Daily Mail" a UK newspaper, it's running a story about a child who lost an eye to an FPV Quad, there really should be laws to govern stupid people and those who defend them.

 

[SteveMann]

Na we don't Steve . Ya think this kid cares about the FAA though ? Toddler's eyeball sliced in half by drone propeller - BBC News
Flying over or around people is stupid In My World .

Yes, this is a tragic accident that meets the serious level according to the NTSB. Is the operator liable? Absolutely. But you don't go around re-creating laws that already exist to prevent stupidity.

If the toddler were hit with an errant baseball pitch and lost an eye in the accident, don't you think the person who threw the ball would be liable? There are already sufficient laws against causing harm to anyone, anyhow. What possible good does it do to add more laws just because the instrument happens to be a drone and not a baseball?

 

[dirkclod]

Yes, this is a tragic accident that meets the serious level according to the NTSB. Is the operator liable? Absolutely. But you don't go around re-creating laws that already exist to prevent stupidity.

If the toddler were hit with an errant baseball pitch and lost an eye in the accident, don't you think the person who threw the ball would be liable? There are already sufficient laws against causing harm to anyone, anyhow. What possible good does it do to add more laws just because the instrument happens to be a drone and not a baseball?

Stupid is stupid Steve . I didn't say we needed more laws just common sense . You don't do what that guy did at that parade .
I know accidents happen like that but you don't fly over crowds no matter if it's legal or not .
As hog said

Sheet can happen

 

[GoodnNuff]

Yes, this is a tragic accident that meets the serious level according to the NTSB. Is the operator liable? Absolutely. But you don't go around re-creating laws that already exist to prevent stupidity.

If the toddler were hit with an errant baseball pitch and lost an eye in the accident, don't you think the person who threw the ball would be liable? There are already sufficient laws against causing harm to anyone, anyhow. What possible good does it do to add more laws just because the instrument happens to be a drone and not a baseball?

Because Steve, we try to manage risk when we recognize it. We don't just shrug our collective shoulders and say "well stuff is gonna happen regardless, so we will deal with it when it does."
We don't outlaw cars because they crash and kill people, but we manage how cars are operated to try and lessen the risk.
We don't outlaw swimming because thousands drown each year, but we try to lessen the risk by teaching safety and having lifeguards at public pools.
We don't make it illegal to keep dogs, despite the fact they maul children or kill about 50 people a year, instead require dog owners to keep them leashed and under control while in public.
We need to ask the same of drone pilots, and that will require laws to try to enforce such compliance, but more realistically, to punish those who don't.
And those laws are going to have to specifically target drones. I see at least one forum member each month make a post about being in a public park/condo/resort where it is clearly posted that "RC planes, cars and boats" are not allowed, but they argued with the police/security about their "right" to fly their drone because it is not an "RC plane." That is the mentality the law has to deal with.
That, and those people who will argue that a drone to the head is akin to being hit with a nerf ball....

 

[NEair]

I think part of the problem revolves around jurisdiction. When people see a drone flying around they don't think "I'll call the FAA and report this" they call the police. In turn the police can only enforce laws with in their jurisdiction and authority. Local police can't enforce FAA rules, only observe and provide evidence to the FAA for later enforcement. So police departments and city government are scrambling to find ways for them to regulate drone use. This can lead to knee jerk laws that would crush this hobby, like the one proposed that thankfully didn't pass that allowed people to shoot drones down. In my opinion you can't force responsibility by adding more laws. You can punish people but there will always be people out there that won't care what's safe or what's legal for them to do. On a personal level the best we can do is fly responsible and show the general public that the mass majority of drone operators are good people that fly safe.

 

[snerd]

There really doesn't need to be new laws for this, I guarantee you that every city has some form of reckless endangerment or endangering the public laws on the books. To say that cities cannot enforce their laws is simply ridiculous. They get to stop it immediately, then the FAA can have second crack at him if they so desire. And to do nothing, and just "hope" it all works out okay in the end, is also just as ridiculous. I'm not sure why some of you are having such a hard time realizing the threat of injury our aircraft pose when flying over people. Yeah, I wanted to do it too, in the beginning. I wanted to do it really bad! But then I realized just one mistake, and it could really injure someone. People out and about doing their business shouldn't have to worry that they might get hit by a falling drone. And like it or not, that is what will win out in the end. The public will demand it.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

The toddler keeps getting brought up. While it is horrifyingly tragic it was an operator, the mother and the baby, not a crowd so by some logic here you can never fly around any humans or animals period. Cut Steve a little slack as he is not for death & mayhem, he is stating facts. Like or not stuff happens to the best of us. Should you try to rule out all possibilities of danger (like not flying over crowds)? Of course you should, but throwing more laws around does not fix stupid.

 

[GoodnNuff]

The toddler keeps getting brought up. While it is horrifyingly tragic it was an operator, the mother and the baby, not a crowd so by some logic here you can never fly around any humans or animals period. Cut Steve a little slack as he is not for death & mayhem, he is stating facts. Like or not stuff happens to the best of us. Should you try to rule out all possibilities of danger (like not flying over crowds)? Of course you should, but throwing more laws around does not fix stupid.

And I take the opposite stance I guess. If members of this forum are going to argue that since the bylaws of their HOA doesn't specifically mention Drones, then they have the right to fly them in their gated community or off their condo's balcony. Or since their city's park ordinance doesn't specifically mention drones (but do ban RC planes), they are exempt from the rules and have every right to film their child's soccer game, then I believe we are going to need drone specific laws.
UAS are a whole new niche with capabilities that RC planes never had. Unfortunately we are going to need new laws to deal with this new technology, and though new laws won't fix stupid, they give us more ways to deal with stupid and hopefully will prevent sorta stupid from going full blown stupid.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I understand your good intentions but look at what you wrote. If your HOA doesn't prevent it why shouldn't they fly. Im scratching my head on that one. Maybe their condo balcony overlooks a bay and they fly from it to film boats or something? The second example answers itself, you said RC's are not allowed in said park then RC's (including RC drones) are not allowed. Simple.
And show me a law that stopped stupid people from doing something.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I understand your good intentions but look at what you wrote. If your HOA doesn't prevent it why shouldn't they fly. Im scratching my head on that one. Maybe their condo balcony overlooks a bay and they fly from it to film boats or something? The second example answers itself, you said RC's are not allowed in said park then RC's (including RC drones) are not allowed. Simple.
And show me a law that stopped stupid people from doing something.

Sorry, I sometimes assume that people will read between the lines. My bad.
If your HOA bans RC planes/boats/autos from being used in the common areas, then don't argue your drone is allowed because you HOA bylaws do not specifically mention drones, just ALL other RC craft...
Yes, TJ, it should be simple - if the park says no RC planes allowed, common sense would tell me that would include RC drones and helicopters despite the fact that drones nor helicopters are specifically mentioned by the sign posted at the park.
Have you not seen these very topics posted and debated on this forum? Just a few weeks ago a member here was ready to sue his condo's HOA for telling him he couldn't fly a drone from his balcony because only RC planes were banned, not drones. He had a lot of backing and support from other forum members who were exercising their "common sense" and telling him to just fly since drones are not mentioned.
There is a member on this list who has a strong dislike for me because our first interaction was his post here proudly telling how he'd stood for his rights and argued with Seattle City Park employees and subsequently the Seattle City Police over his "right" to fly and film a soccer game in a city park where a sign was posted banning RC planes, boats, etc. I told him his "common sense" should have precluded him from trying to fly there, let arguing with police over his perceived right. He had a lot of support as well.
So just because someone pretends to be familiar with common sense, can use the term in a sentence, it does not mean they possess any.