Why was this drone operator arrested and fined?

[JKDSensei]

"........... 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'.

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.

This seems awful biased and discriminatory....if not unconstitutional.
So it's ok for Google to do it, news choppers can do it, lighter than air craft can do it but "drones" can't?
That needs to be challenged.
Politicians always give themselves an "out" with words such as "IF a "reasonable" expectation...
depends on who's on the bench.

 

[snerd]

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.

This seems awful biased and discriminatory....if not unconstitutional.
So it's ok for Google to do it, news choppers can do it, lighter than air craft can do it but "drones" can't?
That needs to be challenged.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm against all the new drone laws too! My arguments here have only been to inform that it's too late................. they are ALREADY on the books and making more as we speak! Like I said, I'm a realist lol!!

 

[JKDSensei]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm against all the new drone laws too! My arguments here have only been to inform that it's too late................. they are ALREADY on the books and making more as we speak! Like I said, I'm a realist lol!!

Oh no no Snerd...that wasn't directed AT you....just lamenting the runaway legislation in this crazy nation

 

[turbulence]

I recommend that anyone planning to use their drone in NYC not take their chances with the NYPD.

Login | LiveATC.net

 

[Bert OConnor]

The "Reckless" charge covers a lot of ground................... including flying over crowds. It's really hard to understand why our fellow-flyers cannot get that through their heads. They should fine him $1K and make sure it hits the papers and TV for a week. They'll soon start getting the message.

Another blanket charge is "obstruction of justice"... cure-all for allowing for legal arrest.

 

[MrMcfly]

NYC Administrative Code states: "Take offs and landings. It shall be unlawful for any person
avigating an aircraft to take off or land, except in an emergency, at
any place within the limits of the city other than places of landing
designated by the department of transportation or the port of New York
authority." Avigation is piloting any aircraft, including remotely.

An administrative regulation is state defined, passed, enforced and prosecuted.
The FAA is federally regulated, so they probably wouldn't even get a phone call.
This is the way our system is supposed to work, however, liberally controlled cities
(such as NY) have a strong citizen backing for state gov't regulation, so these
Administrative regulations are constantly being drawn up, because it's what the majority wants.

So.....being in a Nanny state, the Nanny City HAS its own rules. So the FAA would not be
contacted, probably a bench ticket, pay on the way out. You can't do ANYTHING in New York,
except eat, drink, go to shows, tourism and work. You can not fly R/C aircraft in Manhattan.
Considering the events on 9/11, I can see why they've made the whole city a no fly zone.

What is pisser....

 

[witold]

The "Reckless" charge covers a lot of ground................... including flying over crowds. It's really hard to understand why our fellow-flyers cannot get that through their heads. They should fine him $1K and make sure it hits the papers and TV for a week. They'll soon start getting the message.

To me, a reckless act is an act that has a demonstrated record of hurting people. How many people have been killed or seriously injured by drones falling out of the sky, again? There's millions of quads out there in the wild, but hardly any incidents, most very minor. This is a fact.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to fly over people. I wouldn't do it, nor do I recommend it. But at the same time, we need to stop blowing things out of proportion and treating people like some sort of big criminals. More bystanders get hurt when hit by cyclists and stray baseballs than by Phantoms.

Not every **** Phantom is a terrorist threat. Not every **** Phantom is about to take down a plane. Not every **** Phantom is going to drop on people's heads out of the blue. This paranoia needs to be stopped.

And BTW...

If you look at DJI's very own advertisements and promotional materials, they are doing exactly this: flying over public crowds. It's hard to blame users for doing what DJI shows them to do.

 

[snerd]

.................. How many people have been killed or seriously injured by drones falling out of the sky, again?

GoodNnuff posted some stats earlier................... it's up to about 5 pretty serious injuries so far. Watch for that to only go up after Christmas.

 

[dirkclod]

.

Not every **** Phantom is a terrorist threat. Not every **** Phantom is about to take down a plane. Not every **** Phantom is going to drop on people's heads out of the blue. This paranoia needs to be stopped.

.

Well ****

 

[SteveMann]

it's up to about 5 pretty serious injuries so far.

A Band Aid is not a serious injury.

Of those five injuries listed, only one qualifies as serious as defined by the NTSB. And that was an indoor flight in a home in the UK.

49 CFR §830.2 contains the definition of "Serious Injury" that the FAA and NTSB use in their aircraft and vehicular accident statistics. It is important to hold small UAS accidents to the same metric, otherwise comparisons are meaningless and only add to the unreasonable and baseless hysteria around personal drones.

There have been at least a million hours of flight of small drones, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the NTSB to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have.

 

[johnp44]

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.

So how would you avoid it in the future? These knee jerk reactions to attempt to ban all r/c aircraft isn't going to stop accidents from happening. Today I drove past a group of joggers who were partly in the roadway. Should my driving privileges be revoked because I drove (legally) past a crowd?

There are 7.3 billion people on earth. One accident involving a child has a pretty low risk of happening again. I am so sorry for that child but you can't make enough laws to stop all accidents from happening. Personally, I would rather have someone flying an r/c craft above me than to try to jog down a moderately busy street. What is the solution, make it illegal to jog near busy streets and make up laws for anything and everything that could be cause for an accident. It won't work, there will always be a risk of an accident, even while you are asleep in your bed.

I have been involved in all aspects of modeling for decades, including control line, free flight, r/c aircraft, heli's, boats, cars and now quads. I have participated in AMA and non AMA sanctioned National events with huge crowds in attendance. Not once, can I recall anyone being injured other than an occasional prop bite by a participant (for those not familiar, a prop bite is when the engine kicks back when flip starting an engine and the prop whacks your finger) It hurts like the dickens but I never saw anyone lose a finger or even require stitches.

I hate to see what is happening. I can tell you this, during all that time no one seemed to notice or care that we were flying our models. It has only recently become a hysteria perpetuated by the media along with those that think more laws are needed. I disagree, there are already plenty of laws that should tether those who operate "anything" recklessly. Why criminalize those who are responsible and only want to enjoy their hobby?

I still attend model flying events with large crowds and I would venture to say that my odds of being injured there are about the same as sitting in the front row of a NASCAR or Indy car event. Danger is everywhere, you can't legislate it out of existence.

There, that's my two cents.

P.S. I forgot to include model rocketry and that ironically, many model flying events are held at airports and at city/county parks. Imagine that...

 

[SteveMann]

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.

Who is defending the drone operator in the toddler eye injury?
There are laws. They are called "General Liability". You hurt someone and you are responsible. Why do the fear mongers think we need more laws just because the instrument of injury was a drone??

 

[MrMcfly]

Restrictive law does nothing but counteract the law of natural selection. Eliminate restrictive law, and stupid will slowly disappear.

 

[John Decker]

Just to nail my colours to the mast, I'm firmly against the nanny state, but.. if one person is allowed to fly over your parade why not two or ten or fifty? At some point everyone is going to agree enough is enough and what was acceptable risk is now unnecessary danger.
I wouldn't like it if someone was hovering a drone over my head; I'd feel nervous. For that reason I don't do it to others (plus here in the nanny state of New Zealand it's against the law).

 

[MrMcfly]

These regulations are knee jerk reactions to isolated instances.
Most are put in place to restrict many for something few have done. Is it fair, NO. It is an unfortunate consequence of today's society. I live 4 miles away from an Air Force Base. I fly my toy drone in my driveway. I'll drive the mile away to fly the P3A. I know I could get away with it, but the P3A is louder and more 'intimidating' to neighbors so I go to a huge field outside the 5 mile radius of the airbase to play. Doesn't bother me as I have to do this with my other R/C aircraft.

Living in God's waiting room (Fla), I know my neighbors won't easily adapt to the P3A hovering about, so why tempt fate ?

 

[Lightfoot]

So how would you avoid it in the future? These knee jerk reactions to attempt to ban all r/c aircraft isn't going to stop accidents from happening. Today I drove past a group of joggers who were partly in the roadway. Should my driving privileges be revoked because I drove (legally) past a crowd?

There are 7.3 billion people on earth. One accident involving a child has a pretty low risk of happening again. I am so sorry for that child but you can't make enough laws to stop all accidents from happening. Personally, I would rather have someone flying an r/c craft above me than to try to jog down a moderately busy street. What is the solution, make it illegal to jog near busy streets and make up laws for anything and everything that could be cause for an accident. It won't work, there will always be a risk of an accident, even while you are asleep in your bed.

I have been involved in all aspects of modeling for decades, including control line, free flight, r/c aircraft, heli's, boats, cars and now quads. I have participated in AMA and non AMA sanctioned National events with huge crowds in attendance. Not once, can I recall anyone being injured other than an occasional prop bite by a participant (for those not familiar, a prop bite is when the engine kicks back when flip starting an engine and the prop whacks your finger) It hurts like the dickens but I never saw anyone lose a finger or even require stitches.

I hate to see what is happening. I can tell you this, during all that time no one seemed to notice or care that we were flying our models. It has only recently become a hysteria perpetuated by the media along with those that think more laws are needed. I disagree, there are already plenty of laws that should tether those who operate "anything" recklessly. Why criminalize those who are responsible and only want to enjoy their hobby?

I still attend model flying events with large crowds and I would venture to say that my odds of being injured there are about the same as sitting in the front row of a NASCAR or Indy car event. Danger is everywhere, you can't legislate it out of existence.

There, that's my two cents.

P.S. I forgot to include model rocketry and that ironically, many model flying events are held at airports and at city/county parks. Imagine that...

I really dislike using car analogies as they are not at all representative of what we are discussing here. The number of people on the planet has no bearing either. And as I work in construction in the UK I have been taught that there is no such thing as an accident, rather there is a chain of events that eventually lead to an injury or a fatality.
Somewhere within that chain of event will be a persons or persons who have not thought things through or have not followed the correct guidance (not law just guidance) or best practice.

Using any kind of vehicle whether large or small, on the land, the water or in the air must in the first instance and in all cases require it's operator to exercise good judgement and good old fashioned common sense. The degree of skill required to control that vehicle should be proportionate to the risk involved.

I will probably get slated for this but as I have lived in the UK all of my life (but am reasonably well travelled) I can only conclude that there must exist a different mind set in the USA, you are right, danger does indeed exist everywhere, unfortunately so does stupidity and the pair of them often go hand in hand.

As to how to avoid it in the future? you can't, it's as simple as that, bad stuff will happen, not intentionally but simply by lack of thought and forward planning and I assume that all of those model events and Nascar races that you attend have been well planned and a lot if not all of the risks have been at the very least minimised if not totally eradicated.

I for one do not want to see new legislation that curtails the enjoyment I get from my hobbies (model flying is just one of them) but while stupid people do stupid things or even ordinary folks like you and me don't give enough thought to what we do and where we do it then new laws will come along and make it harder for all of us.

 

[Lightfoot]

Who is defending the drone operator in the toddler eye injury?
There are laws. They are called "General Liability". You hurt someone and you are responsible. Why do the fear mongers think we need more laws just because the instrument of injury was a drone??

Steve, the law only comes into play after the event, after it has been broken. Some laws are designed to be preventative but either do not work or do not work as they were intended to.

My fear is that those who legislate may be persuaded that our models (think of the extended range that can be achieved and the accuracy of FPV) could conceivably be used to deliver an explosive device, if that ever happened then we are all screwed.

The more stupid/thoughtless people who do stupid/thoughtless with our machines the more likely it is that new legislation will follow. they should not be defended, their right to be stupid/thoughtless should not be defended.

 

[Njguy]

My honest reply to this no wanting to start a argument, I own a p3s and I think that flying on that parade is the closet to stupidity I had seem. Le's be real...based on the things being happening al around the world... Ask yourself .. Was that a good idea flying the drone over thousand of peoples in NY?

 

[CCTPREZ]

It don't matter about no map. You don't fly stupid .Like snerd said they ought to burn his ( I )
Flying over people at the Macy's day parade...good god .

They're asking what LAW was broken that justified arrest. You can't be charged with "stupid"! We get that it was wrong and stupid and dangerous, etc. But what are the charges/ laws that were written than broken. Reckless endandernment does not pertain to flying a drone over people (yet), and at what number is considered a "crowd", IF such a law were to exist? I don't think OP was asking so he could do it, just what would the operator have knowingly done to break a law? People fly over groups/crowds all the time, sometimes unknowingly depending on range and altitude, so what defines this arrest?

 

[dirkclod]

They're asking what LAW was broken that justified arrest. You can't be charged with "stupid"! We get that it was wrong and stupid and dangerous, etc. But what are the charges/ laws that were written than broken. Reckless endandernment does not pertain to flying a drone over people (yet), and at what number is considered a "crowd", IF such a law were to exist? I don't think OP was asking so he could do it, just what would the operator have knowingly done to break a law? People fly over groups/crowds all the time, sometimes unknowingly depending on range and altitude, so what defines this arrest?

I stand by what I said and that's all I am going to say about this ..