Why was this drone operator arrested and fined?

[MrMcfly]

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?

He was arrested on a violation of Administrative Code.

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." Avigating is defined as piloting any aircraft, including remotely.

An administrative regulation is state defined, passed, enforced and prosecuted.

That's one of 'em right there. All of Manhattan is a "no fly" zone considering its proximity
to 3 major air ports, and dense population. That includes UAVs. There's a half dozen more
that could be interpreted as being violated, but, safe to say this one is good enough.

Reckless Endangerment CAN be a considered offense, because he is operating aircraft
in a no fly zone, in close proximity to a crowd. Whether it sticks or not is a different story.

 

[maxwell smart]

I see that a lot of pilots on here are brain washed by the media. Yet the same pilots are bashing the media.
The thing is that flying your drone over a crowed is not dangeras. Drones are not falling out of the sky every time some one walks under one. I think we should avoid flying over people as much as possibull , But in fact it is not dangeras. I see hundreds of videos on YouTube, with out anyone getting heart.
Calling a pilot stupid for flying over a crowed, well that would be most of the pilots on YouTube.
What we need is to Change the mind set of thinking that it is danger as when in fact it is not. No one can prove that this is dang-eras.
Some of you will post a few accidents, and I can post a hundred non accidents. The odds are with me.
Flame on.

 

[snerd]

I see that a lot of pilots on here are brain washed by the media. Yet the same pilots are bashing the media.
The thing is that flying your drone over a crowed is not dangeras. Drones are not falling out of the sky every time some one walks under one. I think we should avoid flying over people as much as possibull , But in fact it is not dangeras. I see hundreds of videos on YouTube, with out anyone getting heart.
Calling a pilot stupid for flying over a crowed, well that would be most of the pilots on YouTube.
What we need is to Change the mind set of thinking that it is danger as when in fact it is not. No one can prove that this is dang-eras.
Some of you will post a few accidents, and I can post a hundred non accidents. The odds are with me.
Flame on.

No flames here. Fly over all the people you want to. It would be prudent to get some liability insurance, however.

 

[Steve vaughan]

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?

Can't prosacute a what if

 

[MrMcfly]

I see that a lot of pilots on here are brain washed by the media. Yet the same pilots are bashing the media.
The thing is that flying your drone over a crowed is not dangeras. Drones are not falling out of the sky every time some one walks under one. I think we should avoid flying over people as much as possibull , But in fact it is not dangeras. I see hundreds of videos on YouTube, with out anyone getting heart.
Calling a pilot stupid for flying over a crowed, well that would be most of the pilots on YouTube.
What we need is to Change the mind set of thinking that it is danger as when in fact it is not. No one can prove that this is dang-eras.
Some of you will post a few accidents, and I can post a hundred non accidents. The odds are with me.
Flame on.

I wouldn't call someone stupid for flying over crowds, I would call them stupid for flying INTO crowds.
Whether or not this particular pilot was using good judgement is questionable. Even if you're the
most accomplished at piloting a drone, you're not one more bit above the law for it, so not knowing
local statutes and restrictions and flying anyway can be considered negligent.

I moved out of New York because of the stranglingly tight restrictive laws. They're only getting worse.

Gov't regulation IS necessary in some areas, but most Gov't regulation is merely there to give a
warm fuzzy feeling to the masses, as they have no ability to comprehensively uphold most of them.
The FAA can't 'regulate drone usage'... they're maxed out with their current work load. The worst
I see is pilot/aircraft registration... Even then we see how well that works with motor vehicle registration,
as there's about 8-10% of all vehicles unregistered in the U.S.. Not an impressive track record.
Imagine those statistics with something that is perceived as a toy by some....

 

[JerEl]

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

I also am, "Living in God's waiting room (Fla)", on a rural, private, deed restricted, subdivision with an HOA. But the smallest lot is 3 acres and only 65 homes on 750 acres including a small lake. But I did have a resident from across the lake complain about me flying over his house. A review of the video and I was at 350' and never directly over his 3+ acres. When I showed him the video he stuttered and stammered and admitted his concern was over privacy as he was gone for many nights and his wife and kids were there alone and he was concerned someone was "casing" his property. He followed the P2 back to my house or asked someone who it belonged.

After showing him videos of people at 50' to 100' altitude (GoPro Hero3+ Black) he realized one couldn't identify who it was. So in this case it was a knee-jerk reaction based on what he had heard. Probably of satellite images from the CIA that can show what brand of cigarettes one smokes and newspaper accounts of drones being 'peeping toms'. Other people living here have stopped and watch in amazement and I even rigged up an 18" monitor so watchers could watch the live video. Of course, they are full of questions and I snap on the removable prop guards, send the P3P up above the trees, and let them fly.

We need to educate the public while at the same time fight against local laws restricting our hobby. I learned to fly RC planes over 40 years ago after I had learned to fly real planes and aviation has been part of my life since I was born as my father worked for an airline. I can't even remember the first time I flew on a plane. IMO the FAA should not only make reasonable rules like adopting the AMA guidelines (after congressional approval) and then strictly enforce them by advising local governments how to go about investigating violations and referring them to the FAA. I am specifically referring to hobby aircraft not commercial use(r)s.

However we will never stop the stupid people from doing stupid things and making laws as a deterrent is just a waste of resources. It's been said over and over but the fact remains that registering guns has never stopped a murderer. What the FAA is trying to do is to go around federal law that restricts the FAA from promulgating any laws or rules regulating hobby aircraft by using the DOT as their agent instead. The AMA is not going to sit idly and let this happen and it will be ruled illegal in the future unless congress changes existing law.

 

[GoodnNuff]

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.

But still extremely rare considering the amount of drones in the sky. As many have posted, you are far more likely to be injured by other things like lightening strikes, errant baseballs, etc. But that doesn't mean we ignore the reality that accidents are going to happen, so we should all "fly safe."
The fact we all can't agree on what is "safe" and what isn't is the problem.

 

[John Decker]

Can't prosacute a what if

Yes you can. Your car needs to meet certain safety standards. What if your bald tire bursts?

 

[GoodnNuff]

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.

No, it was an outdoor flight in the UK. The drone hit a tree and bounced into the child, if I recall correctly. Regardless....
What the NTSB defines as "serious" injury is pretty much a traumatic injury that puts you in an Intensive Care Unit either fighting for your life, or recovering from the loss of a body part, or extensive burns. The type of injury you would expect as the victim of a plane crash, not a drone crash. The rest of us might consider being knocked unconscious with a resulting concussion as serious, especially if it was our child or grandchild. A personal injury lawyer would view it as an expensive injury, regardless. Same with lacerations requiring stitches.
I always scratch my head and wonder why you downplay these injuries as though they mean nothing until they meet this odd NTSB definition. Politicians, Local lawmakers, and lawyers don't have the same definition as the NTSB, and they are the ones we need to be concerned with.
The pilot that flew into the parade attendee here in Seattle, knocking her out - that wasn't an NTSB serious injury, was it? Yet it is costing that pilot up to $5000 in fines. C'mon Steve, lets talk about the real world and what is happening to real pilots having real accidents - despite not meeting this NTSB definition...
that is the type of circumstance any of us would likely find ourselves involved in - not some major catastrophe that will kill or maim the victim. The majority of accidents are going to be minor lacerations or concussions, but may still cost the pilot big money in the end.

 

[snerd]

........... The fact we all can't agree on what is "safe" and what isn't is the problem.

Yep, and that's why it will be decided for us. There's not enough common sense in the lot of us that would allow for self-rule or policing lol!!

As I said in another thread, if you're going to fly near or over people, you better have some liability insurance. We're a very litigious society................... it would be a hard lesson to lose your house and bank account in a civil suit the victim brings against you.

 

[kirk2579]

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.

I have been flying for bit now. Been on the forums far less time than you!
You always seem to be looking for that example of bad flyer/ less smart / less safe flyer , than you.
Many of your post are excellent and helpful and make me wonder why you persist in being everyone's policeman in the drone arena.

what makes you the arbiter of safe/good flying, seriously who appointed you boss of drones

dude just have fun flying... what you do or I do wont matter one bit to the powers that be......

I get and I believe we ALL get safety and such and don't want baby hurt!!!!!
but take a chill pill and let what happens happen in the faa world.
it will you know?

 

[snerd]

I don't think he's trying to be drone police. We're all kind of just discussing the topic and airing our own viewpoints. A lot of the problem arises from those who think we're for more laws, but really we're not. But we know that they're coming anyway. And they will effect all of us in one way or another. So it's good to stay abreast of things, keep informed of what's happening in the process. It's all good, I think. The discussion, that is.

 

[Bryce]

gotta love these drone police that supposedly only fly them in their backyard at 3 feet elevation within a 5 foot radius or their arms.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I have been flying for bit now. Been on the forums far less time than you!
You always seem to be looking for that example of bad flyer/ less smart / less safe flyer , than you.
Many of your post are excellent and helpful and make me wonder why you persist in being everyone's policeman in the drone arena.

what makes you the arbiter of safe/good flying, seriously who appointed you boss of drones

dude just have fun flying... what you do or I do wont matter one bit to the powers that be......

I get and I believe we ALL get safety and such and don't want baby hurt!!!!!
but take a chill pill and let what happens happen in the faa world.
it will you know?

Sorry that is how you perceive my posts. I doubt I'll change my posts simply because they offend or confuse some on here.

 

[GoodnNuff]

gotta love these drone police that supposedly only fly them in their backyard at 3 feet elevation within a 5 foot radius or their arms.

Certainly you aren't making that assumption about me? LOL, you couldn't be further from the actual facts.
To be safe, I hold the Phantom in my outstretched arms and run around my cul du sac making UFO noises (combining a whistle and a bass hum - love that sound). Not only do I ever put anyone in danger, it really saves on batteries!

 

[N017RW]

I love the constant meme of 'we gotta inform the public or educate the public' about drones.

It's not the public or the press causing problems but ignorant owners/pilots.

Many here pose the more restrictive view-point to educate the pilots and are seen as 'police'.

That may be what it takes. Many here have used the example of amateur radio with regards to regulation (i.e register the operator not the 'rig').
Amateurs [Hams] do a great job of self-policing, not unlike what is seen here.

 

[750r]

I think most are using the mindset the way RC flying use to be I for one fly about 80% fields but if I made this into a business that would change . My local media was using there UAV to film a parade in town where they stupid for doing it ?
I see it like this times are changing with RC flying if your into this for business it will be impossible to not fly like some are calling reckless or dangerous .
Like anything if you hit someone with a car you are at fault if you shoot someone you are at fault if you hit someone with your UAV you are at fault .

 

[bluntnose]

I don't think he's trying to be drone police. We're all kind of just discussing the topic and airing our own viewpoints. A lot of the problem arises from those who think we're for more laws, but really we're not. But we know that they're coming anyway. And they will effect all of us in one way or another. So it's good to stay abreast of things, keep informed of what's happening in the process. It's all good, I think. The discussion, that is.

Agreed, they are coming, needed or not, like it or not. We are a fairly vulnerable sport--none of the people who will clamor for more regulation and laws restricting drone flying will have a clue who we are, but they will tend to think that they are free to whip up the public further in the name of protecting little babies from these crazy and wanton lunatics flying these guided missiles into or over crowds of the innocent. I wonder if they might not go down the road of regulation so often mentioned in these posts on this thread, which might logically result in the registration of the drones, licensing of drone operators, and compulsory insurance for the lot. Then let the good times roll--if you're a lawyer (which lots of state and local government legislators are). Then they'll make a distinction between the toys, which don't require registration etc., and the serious drones. And you know which group our Phantoms will be in.

Arguments that they can't do that because the feds have preempted the field are at best untested. In the meantime any state that feels like it (see the exhaustive list in the post above), as well as many municipalities are fair targets for a bunch of scared people and their manipulative surrogates, the politicians. Frankly that ship has sailed, train's left the station, coming to a community near you. Too late to educate either the flyers or the cowering public, as there's too many goofy flyers and too many in the public who have trembled or will do so when the press hits.

I suggest we need to start thinking of the only thing I know of that might forestall some of the wildest regulations, and effectively take on selective laws which are vulnerable in the courts--we're gonna need an effective national association, for both PR and the courts. And that's going to take some money. I wish all those P3s being opened this Christmas had a membership card in the box and a way to make the recipients want to send in their dues to join.

One of the things the association might do is contact the people who post videos of their Phantoms breaking the rules of common sense/laws/regulations on Youtube. Those will be Exhibit A for the self-appointed saviours of mankind who will be lobbying for more drone laws.

If we don't have a decently funded organization for our side, it's just a matter of time. You know the joke about the 2 cons talking in prison, one asks the other "What're you in for?" Says the other with a sardonic smile: "Flew a P3 drone over 50,000 people watching the Macy's parade--got a year in the slammer for it." We either get the drift of where things are headed and take action ourselves, or we suffer the consequences of our inaction.

 

[N017RW]

bluntnose wrote:
"One of the things the association might do is contact the people who post videos of their Phantoms breaking the rules of common sense/laws/regulations on Youtube. Those will be Exhibit A for the self-appointed saviours of mankind who will be lobbying for more drone laws."

It's kinda what we do here when someone posts/boasts a video or description of a flight some find careless/reckless.
They are then often labeled 'drone police'.

 

[SteveMann]

their right to be stupid/thoughtless should not be defended.

Unless you want to create a Thought Police and arrest people for what they might do, everyone has the right to do stupid.