Why was this drone operator arrested and fined?

Yeah, arguing this topic is futile, to say the least. I'll try to keep a record of all of the new drone-specific, local laws to be made after the first of the year. Because like it or not, they're coming. :cool:

Don't get me wrong.................... I'm dead set against any new laws. But what I want has no bearing on the public outcry and the politicians who will have to do something. I'm a realist. Laws are coming. Like I've argued above, there are already laws that can be used, instead of creating new ones. But as also seen above, it seems those are not good enough to be applied. So new ones it is!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
I guess some people would rather remain ignorant.
Yes Sparky I'm sure some would. Not sure how that relates to this discussion though.

Now you are a bit upset with me because I answered a post where someone asked if there have been any incidents where people in a crowd have been hit by a drone?
Was it me or the articles that I posted that upset you?

You respond to my post by writing:
"Shall I post a half-dozen links to auto accidents, then demand people no longer drive their cars?"

Which is just **** silly! I've certainly never made a "demand" that people no longer fly their drones! How stupid. Nor have I seen a single person on this forum make such a "demand."

Talk about knee-jerk reactions...
 
I know, right?!! :D
Yeah, I speed. I drive really fast - I mean really fast when I can.
But the fact that I break some laws doesn't mean I can fly recklessly or put others at risk with my flying.
I've just never understood such analogies.
 
I set the cruise control to 3mph over, so technically I'm speeding. But that's my limit. That way I don't have to worry about it. Too much stress!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Bla Bla Bla :rolleyes:
While none of what I am about to say takes away from the risk of harm he created by flying over a large parade with lot's of stuff in the air,
there should be clear laws regarding drone flying. If there are and he violated then, then he got what he deserved.
But if there are not for that venue and area, then the police, even if acting out of concern for safety, over-stepped their bounds.
They should have instead simply ordered him to cease flying for public safety and threatened arrest if he did not comply: all within their legal power.
I am sure most of us would have no problem with that (though he was stupid to even risk it in the first place).

This is getting a bit off topic, but Mr Mann has a point about the police not being able to make up laws and it is called the rule of law: laws are created by the legislature (the people theoretically) and enforced by the judiciary. The police are law enforcers, not law creators. The Founders wanted it that way for a reason. If the government and their law enforcement can make laws up without the people and ignore the constitution, it's called tyranny and that is why a group of fellows got together in 1776 and signed a declaration refuting the right of the king to do just that. You know the rest of the story but perhaps have forgotten just how important those distinctions were and still are.
 
I find it odd that no one has mentioned that the guy flying his quad over the Macy's Parade was not from the US. The man who investigators caught is Roman Bespalenko, 41, of Moscow, so it looks like it may have a been a commie plot to ruin it for all of us...just saying. Seriously, though, the quad looked like a Phantom of some kind and NYPD Aviation aerial surveillance flying overhead that took pictures of the quad and directed officers to the pilot's location where he was arrested. However, I guess they weren't concerned about the crowd's safety from the police helicopter flying overhead...lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary E
Yeah, I speed. I drive really fast - I mean really fast when I can.
But the fact that I break some laws doesn't mean I can fly recklessly or put others at risk with my flying.
I've just never understood such analogies.
As long as it is illegal to do so, correct. If not illegal, it is unwise but not a crime (the civil suit that bankrupts him after he cause harm will come later) or the police could order him to stop.
I am sure the Paris attacks have police and DHS particularly nervous about drones at large gatherings.

But if the police can decide what is illegal, drone flying will soon become banned in nearly every community in the nation because no LEO chief or city council will refuse to jump on the public safety bandwagon to pander on community fear for votes and will ban the activity within city, township. borough, or other limits.
 
Last edited:
While none of what I am about to say takes away from the risk of harm he created by flying over a large parade with lot's of stuff in the air,
there should be clear laws regarding drone flying. If there are and he violated then, then he got what he deserved.
But if there are not for that venue and area, then the police, even if acting out of concern for safety, over-stepped their bounds.
They should have instead simply ordered him to cease flying for public safety and threatened arrest if he did not comply: all within their legal power.
I am sure most of us would have no problem with that (though he was stupid to even risk it in the first place).

This is getting a bit off topic, but Mr Mann has a point about the police not being able to make up laws and it is called the rule of law: laws are created by the legislature (the people theoretically) and enforced by the judiciary. The police are law enforcers, not law creators. The Founders wanted it that way for a reason. If the government and their law enforcement can make laws up without the people and ignore the constitution, it's called tyranny and that is why a group of fellows got together in 1776 and signed a declaration refuting the right of the king to do just that. You know the rest of the story but perhaps have forgotten just how important those distinctions were and still are.
And I say again to you where you just quoted me ...Bla Bla Bla :)
Welcome to the forum
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
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.
+1
 
You guys have it easy. Since August in New Zealand it has been illegal to fly over ANY PROPERTY OR PERSON without the property owner's and persons' express permission. So if I want to fly over a parade I need an okay from all below as well as the city. Makes popping a drone up to take a shot of the scenery kinda hard - if I want to fly over the surf I have to get the swimmers' permission and then figure out where the high tide point is and find the owner of the land above it as well as getting permission from the government for the sea below high tide.
Thankfully the police know it's an impossible law to abide by and will only act if you do something dumb. They have other things to do.
NZ used to be a free-spirited place. Now we just want to be one of the big boys, paranoid and over-regulated.
 
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 seems to me you would argue up was down, just to get in on the act, you don't appear to understand what reckless disregard means, perhaps one day a drone flown by a nerd will hit you on the head as you are out for a stroll in the park, then from your hospital bed you would be able to argue for the nerds right to fly where he wants.
Waylander
 
"........... So far, 26 states have enacted laws addressing UAS issues and an additional six states have adopted resolutions. Common issues addressed in the legislation include defining what a UAS, UAV or drone is, how they can be used by law enforcement or other state agencies, how they can be used by the general public and regulations for their use in hunting game.

In 2015, 45 states have considered 168 bills related to drones. Twenty states–Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia–have passed 26 pieces of legislation. Four other states–Alaska, Georgia, New Mexico and Rhode Island–adopted resolutions related to drones. Georgia’s resolution established a House study committee on the use of drones and New Mexico adopted memorials in the house and senate requiring a study on protecting wildlife from drones. Rhode Island's resolution created a legislative commission to study and review regulation of UAS. Additionally, Virginia's governor signed an executive order establishing a commission on unmanned systems. Florida and Kentucky have prefiled bills for the 2016 legislative session.

Arkansas HB 1349 prohibits the use of UAS to commit voyeurism. HB 1770 prohibits the use of UAS to collect information about or photographically or electronically record information about critical infrastructure without consent.

California AB 856 prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity without permission. This legislation is a response to the use of UAS by the paparazzi.

Florida SB 766 prohibits the use of a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant of such property without consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Hawaii SB 661 creates a chief operating officer position for the Hawaii unmanned aerial systems test site. It also establishes an unmanned aerial systems test site advisory board to plan and oversee test site development and appropriates funds to establish the test site.

Illinois SB 44 creates a UAS Oversight Task Force which is tasked with considering commercial and private use of UAS, landowner and privacy rights and general rules and regulations for the safe operation of UAS. The task force will prepare recommendations for the use of UAS in the state.

Louisiana SB 183 regulates the use of UAS in agricultural commercial operations.

Maine LD 25 requires law enforcement agencies receive approval before acquiring UAS. The bill also specifies that the use of UAS by law enforcement comply with all FAA requirements and guidelines. Requires a warrant to use UAS for criminal investigations except in certain circumstances and sets out standards for the operation of UAS by law enforcement.

Maryland SB 370 specifies that only the state can enact laws to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the testing or operation of unmanned aircraft systems. This preempts county and municipal authority. The bill also requires a study on specified benefits.

Michigan SB 54 prohibits using UAS to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting. SB 55 prohibits using UAS to take game.

Mississippi SB 2022 specifies that using a drone to commit "peeping tom" activities is a felony.

Nevada AB 239 includes UAS in the definition of aircraft and regulates the operators of UAS. It also prohibits the weaponization of UAS and prohibits the use of UAS within a certain distance of critical facilities and airports without permission. The bill specifies certain restrictions on the use of UAS by law enforcement and public agencies and requires the creation of a registry of all UAS operated by public agencies in the state.

New Hampshire SB 222 prohibits the use of UAS for hunting, fishing, or trapping.

North Carolina SB 446 expands the authority of the state's Chief Information Officer to approve the purchase and operation of UAS by the state and modifies the state regulation of UAS to conform to FAA guidelines.

North Dakota HB 1328 provides limitations for the use of UAS for surveillance.

Oregon HB 2534 requires the development of rules prohibiting the use of UAS for angling, hunting, trapping, or interfering with a person who is lawfully angling, trapping, or hunting. HB 2354 changes the term "drone" to "unmanned aircraft system" in statute.

Tennessee HB 153 prohibits using a drone to capture an image over certain open-air events and fireworks displays. It also prohibits the use of UAS over the grounds of a correctional facility.

Texas HB 3628 permits the creation of rules governing the use of UAS in the Capitol Complex and provides that a violation of those rules is a Class B misdemeanor. HB 2167 permits individuals in certain professions to capture images used in those professions using UAS as long as no individual is identifiable in the image. HB 1481 makes it a Class B misdemeanor to operate UAS over a critical infrastructure facility if the UAS is not more than 400 feet off the ground.

Utah HB 296 allows a law enforcement agency to use an unmanned aircraft system to collect data at a testing site and to locate a lost or missing person in an area in which a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It also institutes testing requirements for a law enforcement agency's use of an unmanned aircraft system.

Virginia HB 2125 and SB 1301 require that a law enforcement agency obtain a warrant before using a drone for any purpose, except in limited circumstances. Virginia's governor also issued an executive order establishing a commission on unmanned systems.

West Virginia HB 2515 prohibits hunting with UAS..............."

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/current-unmanned-aircraft-state-law-landscape.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just sayin'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianwood
Mississippi SB 2022 specifies that using a drone to commit "peeping tom" activities is a felony.
running jack.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveMann
OK Steve . I see what you are saying to a point but this
My world .What's my world ? We don't live in the same one or what ? Being stupid in mine not the same as your's ?
Yes you are arrogant. And usually right but this time I'm sorry but stupid is stupid and this guy with all the troubles we have now anyway
needs his ( I ) chapped !
I'm not calling you on your knowledge of the laws just common sense .You don't fly over parades like that .
Maybe he was flying with that unlawful 32oz. Big Gulp in his possession
 
If flying a drone over people is 'reckless endangerment', then so is driving a car on a public road.

So everyone who is playing the reckless endangerment card needs to give up driving on public roads.

You know, it is a relevant argument and been said before

and actually quite correct to say out loud within the context this thread has often put forward.
"'reckless endangerment'" may be incorrect as it's more in lines of ignorance of endangerment with quads
 
No one said that what he did was OK - it was not violating any FAA regulation and any attempt to regulate flight by the city is preempted by federal law.

What bothers me is those who want to "throw the book" at the operator for violating their level of safety bordering on paranoia using rules or laws that don't exist. This is fear mongering and as a group we should know better. All it does is add fuel to the perception that these things are flying death that even the operators fear.
Very similar to how firearms are treated now. Fear of the thing itself instead of the person using it. The public mood and media frenzy over this tells me drones will soon be as restricted as firearms to appease the ignorant fear of the public at large. Politcians love this easy kind of pandering to fear and ignorance. A lot of you seem to not realize that bans are in motion and legal restrictions will be severe unless actions are taken to proactively ensure laws are uniform and the FAA is in charge. What is negligent in a city is not necessarily in the country. If no advocacy is done, drones will end up like firearms, prohibited for use in most locales and only allowed on special ranges or areas for general civilians. A special class of citizen will be allowed more license after certifications and testing but such pribvileges will be very hard to get in most locales. Laugh if you want, but I live in California and I know how this goes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Damocleez

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers