MN drone flier gets $55K fine by FAA.

[GMack]

Went to a seminar by a FAA lawyer. A lawsuit is now in the courts by a man who flew his drone to take a free photo for some artist and violated 5 rules adding up to $55,000.

From what the lawyer mentioned, be very careful what photos or videos you post on the web that may become self-incriminating evidence where you violated some rule, local or federal.

Interesting story is here: Minnesota Man Faces $55K in Fines After Flying Drone Sounds like he tried to dot all the i's along the way in communicating with the FAA, but it went askew someplace.

Also, the FAA is coming up with a new map set for sUAV pilots whereas the B4UFly was aimed at hobbyists. Supposedly to go (more) live on April 27th.

New map will be here: Home | Federal Aviation Administration - Unmanned Aircraft System

 

[AWD]

As that article is about a year old, has there been any movement on the "enforcement action" from the FAA on this or has it gone away?

AD

 

[GMack]

As that article is about a year old, has there been any movement on the "enforcement action" from the FAA on this or has it gone away?

AD

The lawyer last night said it was now in the courts system after 8 months. Likely the fine may be reduced and negotiated down, but still will be a costly lesson to find out the outcome.

Also, it sounds like the FAA is sitting back on a lot of these rules awaiting to see what the courts have to say about them. Speculation may be some drone zone where minimum altitudes over cities may be 200 feet up to 400 feet AGL per the Nevada ruling where the Tesla Plant there felt their privacy was being invaded by a drone under 200 feet AGL. Have to wait and see how the courts decide "As the technology is still pretty new to the FAA."

East coast FAA seems more stringent than the West coast FAA too in the rules and fines from what the FAA lawyer said. Be careful what you say to them or post as you don't want them to say "You should have known better, especially if a 107 holder."

 

[tcope]

Sounds like he tried to dot all the i's along the way in communicating with the FAA, but it went askew someplace.

No, not really. He ignored one big thing... the prior warning from the FAA that they would have an issue with the flight and he chose to do it anyway.

 

[maxheadspace]

Yeah, the incident was almost two years ago, and the article about a year ago. I can't wait to hear the case law that comes out of it, because quite often what initially sounds like total BS turns out to be fairly logical once you read the details. Technically, if your YouTube account is set up to make money from paid ad placement and you are showing your own drone videos, you may be in violation of the commercial ban for hobby fliers. Unless of course you have your sUAS certificate. If Caterina had his Part 107 certificate, maybe none of this would be an issue. But this was before Part 107 took effect.

What I'm very happy to hear is that the FAA is coming out with an sUAS version of the B4UFly app.

 

[ianwood]

If an ASI contacts you and says "don't do it", don't do it.

 

[Meta4]

if your YouTube account is set up to make money from paid ad placement and you are showing your own drone videos, you may be in violation of the commercial ban for hobby fliers.

Although often said in forums, this isn't true.
The FAA are concerned with maintaining aviation safety, not being photo sales or youtube police.
This particular myth that putting aerial videos on Youtube is commercial use just won't die.
The story comes from March 2015 when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here: FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos

It's interesting that the FAA is going so hard after Mical Caterina for a case that appears so weak when they have not made any effort to prosecute any of probably thousands that were engaging in real commercial use without a 333.

 

[maxheadspace]

Also, it sounds like the FAA is sitting back on a lot of these rules awaiting to see what the courts have to say about them. Speculation may be some drone zone where minimum altitudes over cities may be 200 feet up to 400 feet AGL per the Nevada ruling where the Tesla Plant there felt their privacy was being invaded by a drone under 200 feet AGL.

I can't find any reference to a court ruling regarding the Tesla plant. Can you provide a link?

This is a real conundrum for the FAA. If the FAA allows the State courts to rule on use of certain airspace they are in effect ceding their control over that airspace. But if the FAA excludes State action on airspace, then who will have authority over a case where a pervert hovers a drone outside a window to video tape a woman taking a shower?

 

[maxheadspace]

Although often said in forums, this isn't true.
The FAA are concerned with maintaining aviation safety, not being photo sales or youtube police.
This particular myth that putting aerial videos on Youtube is commercial use just won't die.
The story comes from March 2015 when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here: FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos

It's interesting that the FAA is going so hard after Mical Caterina for a case that appears so weak when they have not made any effort to prosecute any of probably thousands that were engaging in real commercial use without a 333.

Spot on about FAA pursuit of Caterina. This sounds more like a vendetta because they didn't heed the ASI warning. With the limited information available, there seems to be no commercial violation or breaking of rules.

As for commercial use, what the FAA is saying is that they are not internet police, and for ASIs to be trolling YouTube for violations and intimidating users is not proper. Using the drone videos to sell advertising spots IS commercial use. FAA is not saying it isn't, just that they're not pursuing it. In related cases, there are people who have successfully been fined based on the drone videos they posted, namely those flying in National parks. I say related because they weren't commercial in nature.

 

[GMack]

I can't find any reference to a court ruling regarding the Tesla plant. Can you provide a link?

This is a real conundrum for the FAA. If the FAA allows the State courts to rule on use of certain airspace they are in effect ceding their control over that airspace. But if the FAA excludes State action on airspace, then who will have authority over a case where a pervert hovers a drone outside a window to video tape a woman taking a shower?

Some of it was in this thread. http://www.phantompilots.com/threads/law-enforcement-contacted-me-regarding-my-drone.104728/ The lawyer at the event I went to mentioned it as some 200 foot Nevada matter. Could have been 250 feet too.

Specifically, "Trespass by drone -- NRS 493.103
NRS 493.103 makes it a civil offense to fly an unmanned aerial vehicle over someone elses property at a height of less than 250 feet." So Nevada seems to think 250-400 feet is drone airspace: Lower is trespassing/privacy per Nevada, and 400+ is FAA violations.

There's a lot more here regarding Nevada's thoughts on Sovereignty of Airspace: NRS: CHAPTER 493 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

There is some more of it here: http://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_Sept2015_Unmanned.pdf Scroll to midway about the 250 foot thing. Tesla is under the Critical Facility and Transportation thing which is the 250 foot clearance or it's trespassing. Google is also moving into that same industrial park east of Reno so it might even get restricted further.

The lawyer mentioned this site as a lot of the FAA cases are within it: The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined There is a link on it to the letters the FAA sends out to many of those unfortunate souls who get a Federal Express registered mail letter with a return receipt from them with the violations they find in some images. Does seem they tossed the Youtube commercial argument stuff, but are aiming at the reckless and safety matters along with any CBO rules or their own 107 rules.

The lawyer mentioned they are letting the courts sift through a lot of the airspace matters in the courts even though they claim "Blade of grass upwards" as theirs. Some do not accept that (National Parks, City ordinances against drones, Nevada state.) so courts will decide and the FAA will have to respect those differences.

 

[maxheadspace]

Specifically, "Trespass by drone -- NRS 493.103
NRS 493.103 makes it a civil offense to fly an unmanned aerial vehicle over someone elses property at a height of less than 250 feet." So Nevada seems to think 250-400 feet is drone airspace: Lower is trespassing/privacy per Nevada, and 400+ is FAA violations.

Wow, great stuff, thanks. Wonder why none of this came up in my Google searches. As to the commercial stuff on YouTube, if you read the referenced policy, above, it does not say that they won't go after commercial violations, it says that YouTube videos by themselves are insufficient evidence of wrongdoing in most cases. It also standardizes the wording of notices so that they don't sound intimidating. And it seems the National Parks only restrict the launch and recovery location, so if you launch from outside the park and fly in for photographs and then fly out of the park without landing, supposedly you are OK. I think that's law that is still evolving. But some National Parks have strict FAA restrictions, like the Grand Canyon. Sectionals tell the story. Thanks for the links!

 

[GMack]

... I think that's law that is still evolving...

That's what the lawyer said too and why they aren't pursuing a lot of this unless they can spot a safety or reckless issue made by a drone pilot. The FAA seems to have a "Let the (local?) courts decide" attitude on civil matters. Still the lawyer's advisement was "To be careful what you post online that could become incriminatory."

An aside, I was on some motorcycle rally in Nevada and got stopped for no plates on the bike due to being newly purchased in California that didn't require them, but Nevada did. I had a GoPro camera setup and cop mentioned they had some chase of a guy who ran from them and when he stopped, they confiscated his camera and found 6 violations he made using it in review and it was enough to impound his bike. I was told by him "To be careful what I recorded using one as it could come back to bite me."

 

[Ronald Reedy]

I refrain from fly over private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[Phill2]

Although often said in forums, this isn't true.
The FAA are concerned with maintaining aviation safety, not being photo sales or youtube police.
This particular myth that putting aerial videos on Youtube is commercial use just won't die.
The story comes from March 2015 when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here: FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos

It's interesting that the FAA is going so hard after Mical Caterina for a case that appears so weak when they have not made any effort to prosecute any of probably thousands that were engaging in real commercial use without a 333.

Down here in Aus CASA define you tube as commercial use.

 

[Meta4]

Down here in Aus CASA define you tube as commercial use.

Can you provide any info to support this?
And since Australian fliers are able to use their Phantom's commercially without any special licence, does it matter?

 

[Phill2]

Can you provide any info to support this?
And since Australian fliers are able to use their Phantom's commercially without any special licence, does it matter?

I suggest you check the rules.
You can't fly anything commercially without an ARN issued by CASA.
Regarding You Tube
What does this translate to? Real Estate photographers will usually NOT be able to conform with ALL these conditions and will therefore require a UAV Operator Certificate (UOC) which is the CASA certificate to operate legally.

If you are not making any commercial gain from your flying, then you may fly your UAV without requiring certification (please note however that “commercial gain” can include flights for advertising purposes or even uploading videos to YouTube – there does not have to be a direct payment involved). The following restrictions apply for uncertified flying:

• Below 400 ft (120 m)
• In uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
• More than 3 nm (5.5 km) from an aerodrome or helipad listed on the VTC
• More than 30 m away from other people
• Not in a Populous Area
• Within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) – this means no FPV unless you have a spotter who can take control at any time

Commercial Use

Commercial Flight
Any flights for commercial gain require certification of both the pilot (or UAV Controller) flying the actual drone, and the business which is conducting the operation. The pilot must have a UAV Controller’s Certificate (formerly called Remote Pilot Certificate) and the business must have a UAV Operator’s Certificate (or UOC).

From 25th September 2016 the term UAV will generally be replaced with RPA in official documents and the UAV Controller’s Certificate will be replaced by the Remote Pilot Licence. For full details of the changes see Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation 2016.

Reference Page : Drone Laws in Australia - We explain CASA CASR 101 laws for RPAS in Australia

 

[Meta4]

I suggest you check the rules.
You can't fly anything commercially without an ARN issued by CASA.

If you ask CASA for an ARN, you get it within a couple of days.
This is not a licence.
Since commercial flying is allowed with a Phantom and no licence, does it matter even if CASA wanted to define commercial flying to include uploading to Youtube?

 

[42FrankZ]

If you ask CASA for an ARN, you get it within a couple of days.
This is not a licence.
Since commercial flying is allowed with a Phantom and no licence, does it matter even if CASA wanted to define commercial flying to include uploading to Youtube?

Yes because they can change the rules on commercial flights and people could be left in a lurch.

 

[Meta4]

Yes because they can change the rules on commercial flights and people could be left in a lurch.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain that?

 

[42FrankZ]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain that?

Since the government defines what is a commercial flight, and the rules for which someone can fly commercially they can change these at any time. Therefore if if YouTube content is commercial and the they decide to change the rules for what is commercial you could end with people suddenly being on the wrong side of the law doing what they always have.

If YouTube content wasn't commercial then a change in commercial requirements would carry less risk for citizens.