I hit the Max Height limit! 1654.2 FT!!!
- Thread starter Detroit
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 49
It looks like it had nothing to do with height, location, videos etc. It was totally based on "commercial" drone use AND the site is still up and running and his business is still going. It IS an example of the FAA doing something, but I don't think it's quite apples to apples.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
This memo may have been distributed in relation to this case. (See the OP for memo link):
http://www.phantompilots.com/threads/latest-faa-enforcement-guidance-videos-etc.38348/
There's been one. Just one. (Wall Street Journal article)
The FAA targeted Raphael Pirker for flying a drone for commercial purposes and violating 91.13 Careless and Reckless - all instigated from a YouTube video posted by Pirker. (A note about 91.13 - the FAA absolutely, always adds 91.13 to their charges. It's their ace up the sleeve because the NTSB almost never disagrees with the FAA on 91.13 charges. 91.13 is that vague.)
The FAA lost on this one with the charges being thrown out by the first NTSB judge: Patrick Geraghty, an administrative law judge for the National Transportation Safety Board, emphatically agreed.
""There was no enforceable FAA rule" concerning Mr. Pirker's aircraft, he wrote, and the government's insistence amounted to a "risible argument" that the FAA has authority over anything that moves through the air, including even "a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider." The judge threw out the fine and, with it, the federal ban on commercial drones.
The FAA appealed to the full NTSB board (double jeopardy doesn't apply because this is not a criminal proceeding) and the full board upheld the 91.13 charge. (Article) The FAA and Pirker agreed to a small fine.
"Raphael Pirker agreed on Thursday [January 19] to pay the FAA $1,100 to settle the agency’s $10,000 fine for allegedly flying a drone recklessly to film the University of Virginia in 2011. Under the settlement terms, Mr. Pirker doesn’t admit to guilt and the FAA agreed to drop some of its accusations against Mr. Pirker.
The FAA has not prosecuted any other person for flying a drone for commercial purposes as they would likely see the same response from the NTSB.
The FAA had been sending unenforceable "cease and desist" letters to operators who advertised their aerial photography by drone, but not since the public embarrassment over a threat to prosecute an operator simply because of a YouTube video (article).
"This week, [April 10] officials in Washington D.C. have finally weighed in on the legality of these tactics and in a published policy document have made clear that the intimidation tactics and take down orders must cease.
The FAA no longer uses YouTube to find violators thanks to their bungling efforts to stop a flood of commercial use of small personal drones. If an operator does violate a rule and cause an accident or serious injury, they will likely introduce YouTube videos as evidence. The NTSB determination that there are "no enforceable rules" stands (except for 91.13).
Ianwood is in Southern California. I have flown my Cessna over LAX dozens of times and I can attest that this is the busiest area in the country for aviation activities. At night the line of airliners in sequence for landing looks like a crowded freeway. You can see the string of landing lights all the way to the horizon. Southern California also has the highest per-capita volume of General Aviation aircraft in the US. (Cite). It's easy to see why Ianwood would think the threat is as great as he imagines. And in the LA basin he would be right. But he fails to recognize that in most areas of the country the observation of a manned aircraft below 10,000 ft is incredibly rare. I am about six miles from Hanscom AFB (joint use airport) and I may see one or two aircraft below 10,000 ft one or two times a week. And I can hear them long before they get overhead. I really don't see how I am endangering anyone for my occasional short venture above 400 ft.
Last edited:
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
There are examples on this site of people being the subject of FAA inquiry. Maybe it's no more than a sternly worded letter. No idea.
Bottom line: At that altitude, no one here has the ability to sense and avoid a plane closing at 150kts. I fly a C172 from time to time. Often at or below 1,500ft. I mostly fly to NorCal but sometimes I fly to open rural areas. A 3.5lb lump of plastic and metal is no match for 1/8" acrylic at ~175mph. It would be lethal. Not a pleasant thought.
But maybe I'm just being a cry baby.
Bottom line: At that altitude, no one here has the ability to sense and avoid a plane closing at 150kts. I fly a C172 from time to time. Often at or below 1,500ft. I mostly fly to NorCal but sometimes I fly to open rural areas. A 3.5lb lump of plastic and metal is no match for 1/8" acrylic at ~175mph. It would be lethal. Not a pleasant thought.
But maybe I'm just being a cry baby.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 49
Great information and helpful! I also work in Law Enforcement as a Chaplain for 3 different agencies, and we regularly discuss safety regarding CCW licenses. It always comes down to the individual's personal responsibility for safety. Know your surroundings, environment, flight patterns etc. I fly, at times, about 4 mi from a Life Flight station and am ALWAYS aware that a Helo could could be approaching. I am cautious about any "altitude" flights, as I think anyone should.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,220
- Reaction score
- 196
Statistically speaking, maybe? There should obviously be some centralized flight planning hub where operators could go and post what they are going to be doing at any given location if needing to go above the 400 ft advisory. Share the skys!
Bird strikes happen They are rare, but with approximately 10 Billion birds flying, a bird strike is going to happen.
Birds, however, aren't frangible. They are really difficult to rip apart, whereas your drone would likely break into pieces on impact.
Birds, however, aren't frangible. They are really difficult to rip apart, whereas your drone would likely break into pieces on impact.
In my comment to the Part 107 NPRM I recommended that the FAA could use the Flight Plan process to permit flight in controlled airspace and above 500 ft. A Flight Plan makes sense. It is an established and easy to use method to contact ATC about your plans. It is how amateur rocket launches and free balloon operators advise ATC of their intended flights. Adding personal drones would be easy to handle.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,220
- Reaction score
- 196
Amazing how many people seem to fail to realize that RC aircraft in the USA have been flying higher than 400 feet altitude and out of visual range for many, many years.
Is there even one report of any RC craft ever in the history of RC, taking down any form of plane/aircraft? Ever?
There are also laws here in the USA about driving faster than 55mph on certain roads...guess how often those laws are broken.
Is there even one report of any RC craft ever in the history of RC, taking down any form of plane/aircraft? Ever?
There are also laws here in the USA about driving faster than 55mph on certain roads...guess how often those laws are broken.
Where was this footage taken? Love the panorama, but the straight down shots almost got me dizzy from the height. SUPER!! Looking good.
- Status
Similar threads
