Seattle Drone Pilot gets 30 days in jail + fine

[ricphoto]

Drone Pilot sentenced to 30 days, $500.00 fine and restitution for Pride Day Parade crash that injures woman...

Pilot of drone that struck woman at Pride Parade gets 30 days in jail

 

[ryantrax]

Yikes, I think he was definitely singled out and made an example of. That's pretty harsh, especially since at the time many of the drone restrictions were not in place yet.

 

[kirk2579]

Yikes, I think he was definitely singled out and made an example of. That's pretty harsh, especially since at the time many of the drone restrictions were not in place yet.

probably not about drone restrictions as much as bodily injury and negligence,
Both already on the books in most locations in general..

good luck and have fun flying!

 

[dronesky]

With a Aerial Photography company he is probably Part 107 so maybe had stiffer penalties for that?

 

[ianwood]

Flying over a parade? 30 days is not enough.

 

[ryantrax]

According to the article this happened back in 2015 before Part 107 and a lot of the regulations set forth by the FAA. He may have not been flying over the parade though, the article made no mention of that, the malfunction on the drone caused it to hit a building then fall on someone.

 

[AyeYo]

Just came here to post this article. Does anyone know more about the circumstances? If this was a malfunction fly away, this sentence is INSANE. Anything short of him buzzing the crowd at full speed and this sentence is insane. You can kill a cyclist with your car and get away with nothing but a speeding ticket. This drone paranoia needs to end and end quickly.

 

[Seawolf]

Here's what I don't understand. In the case of an auto accident where one driver is clearly at fault and the other party is injured, the driver at fault rarely would go to jail. In this case the drone malfunctioned, he operated over people, etc. It violated regulations, was operated with negligence, and someone was hurt. However how is that different than a young kid who drives reckless and crashes into someone else? Or someone driving under the influence - I bet those first offenses don't get 30 days. Seems like the same level of risk and injury but the drone case gets 30 days in jail. That seems disproportionate. Can someone please explain why jail time was sought?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Bendix]

Good.

 

[Nickster]

This is a good example too of why liability insurance is needed for commercial work.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[BigAl07]

Here's what I don't understand. In the case of an auto accident where one driver is clearly at fault and the other party is injured, the driver at fault rarely would go to jail. In this case the drone malfunctioned, he operated over people, etc. It violated regulations, was operated with negligence, and someone was hurt. However how is that different than a young kid who drives reckless and crashes into someone else? Or someone driving under the influence - I bet those first offenses don't get 30 days. Seems like the same level of risk and injury but the drone case gets 30 days in jail. That seems disproportionate. Can someone please explain why jail time was sought?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

A) They are making an example out of him
B) John Q. Public wants to see tighter "Drone" regulations and stiffer penalties

At the end of the day even though there are a LOT of toy drones out there the vast majority (by far) of our population thinks drones are EVIL and want nothing to do with them. Law Makers are going to side for the majority and Judges will do the same thing and unfortunately set a very bad precedence for us.

You've got to realize there have been a LOT of drone accidents with no repercussions now for a couple of years so in the big picture we're still pretty lucky. I don't think that luck will be with us as much going forward.

 

[Helihover]

30 days and 500 bucks? Someone needs to pull their head out of their ***...

 

[jwmcgrath]

"Drone" has become a bad word. It's too bad they are commonly referred to as drones, because drones kill insurgents with hellfire missiles. There is not now and never has been anything fun and rosy associated with drones. These are not drones, they are quad copters.


Jeff

 

[bkushner]

This is a good example too of why liability insurance is needed for commercial work.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

I don't do commercial and carry liability, You can injure someone or cause damage flying for fun too.

 

[bluntnose]

Of note: it was for reckless endangerment, something more than simple negligence, it was a gross misdemeanor, not a misdemeanor, and he got a jury trial. Twelve people said hey, this is something more than simple negligence, enough that it's criminal. Now if there was a national drone user association, maybe some people would be dispatched to take a long hard look at what made that jury hang him. The judge thought he was being fair, since the grandstanding prosecutor (undoubtedly and elected official) was going for 90 days. Talking to jury members, who no longer are under any rule against talking about the case, and the defense attorney, might unearth some critical facts that would allow us some preparation and talking points for the next time this happens--and it will happen again. It may be that a 107 pilot with a legitimate aerial job he's doing would make out better than your average fly-for-fun-whee dronie.

Anyone feel like helping pay for his appeal attorney?

By the by, I suggest it's impossible for us to tell what the critical facts were just by reading the story.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[bluntnose]

In 2015 I didn't know not to fly over a group of people without their express permission (in writing I suggest), now we all do. He's hosed in 2017 for conduct which 2 years earlier was not recognized as reckless endangerment. Ex post facto always sucks.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[SPP]

I love drones but I would not fly in cities or above a parade.

I pity the pilot and the lady, but flying in cities with lots of wifi transmitters/routers, not to mention cellphone towers, is asking for trouble.

This is that 2015 parade, based on YouTube.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Parade map & Route
http://seattlepipeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Pride-Parade-Map_2015.jpg

Since the parade is on a road, what are there around roads in a city ?
Lots of buildings = lots of wifi transmitters and cellphone towers.

Google Earth this : westlake park, Seattle, WA

If this is a movie set where all involved and under the drone flight path will know the risk...its a totally different story.

I used to fly around my home area, only 50 meters here and there not above my house airspace using P1 .
Buildings are all over my place and I do not have FPV back then. I stop at P2. But the last 1.5 years as I am again into flying and I joined multi-rotor forums, I began to accumulate understanding of regulations in various countries, and read many near accidents, seen and read many equipment failures and understanding 2.4 GHZ is way over crowded, and other potential radio interference.... I begin to see potential harm to people and I only now fly in remote areas where the only people is me and my friends.

Interference on our wifi for smartphone or cell service data, at the most caused us delay or broken link or cut off calls. Delay of controlling a multi-rotor due to data link broken, even a mere 5 seconds can mean an accident.

I know its a pain in the azz and super limited playground, but we have to respect other people safety and understand how super popular whore a 2.4 GHZ is.

If we put our pleasure ahead of people's safety, the drone rules will change big time in negative ways for us.

Loosing money/hardware is OK, but if my drone props blinded a person..how would I forgive myself ?
Lets reverse the role, someone playing a quad on top of my or your head....I will freak out too....would you ?

Use Android wifi scanner ( sorry iOS guys, such App not allowed by Apple ) on a street as crowded as that Seattle 4th Street. You will be amazed at the traffic of 2.4 Ghz and probably 5.8 Ghz too , if today. I live in a 3rd world country and yet if a CBD area like 4th street, my wifi scanner will show so much wifi transmissions.
Wifi Analyzer - Android Apps on Google Play

The logic is simple, the 4-6 props of our small <3kg UAV may not kill people but will easily blind people.
It is a flying lethal eye-blinder, even with prop guards. Come on 7,000 RPM on such a thin blade is VERY dangerous.

Just because the multi-rotor is easy to fly due to the smart engineers giving us good propulsion control on multiple props, does it mean it is less dangerous ?

I recalled before multi-rotor days in the late 90s, my RC friends who owned tons of flying toys, they will only fly their RC plane and including the freakin difficult heli-s on special air fields or remote areas. They don't take off even near their housing complex, they are discipline bunch. Having no FPV is kinda good those days, you tend to fly much closer radius and hence less risk to others.

I think the advancement of the multi-rotor auto controls as in hoover and its GPS assist gave pilots false superiority or safety. The FPV gave pilot sense of false awareness , as he would forgot he needed LOS for the transmitter..but it maybe too late as pilot was so immersed in his video goggle.

I do agree that 30 days jail is too harsh, a communal work would be more humane to punish the said pilot and increase the fine to say US$5K awarded to the Lady. US$5K is cheap for US type law-suit

If the lady goes for something like this, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia
then it will be national news sensation.

 

[Ga-XSP-Pilot]

Not sure what the exact circumstances were by the statement "lost control of the drone". Was it pilot error or a flyaway?

If he was intentionally flying over the parade to begin with, that's one thing. If he was minding his own business (like a real estate shoot) somewhere away from the parade and had a flyaway issue, that's something different entirely, which does not begin to justify 30 days in jail. But we're talking Seattle here, where they routinely twist concepts such as "public endangerment" and "public nuisance" to mean whatever they want.

 

[AyeYo]

At the end of the day even though there are a LOT of toy drones out there the vast majority (by far) of our population thinks drones are EVIL and want nothing to do with them. Law Makers are going to side for the majority and Judges will do the same thing and unfortunately set a very bad precedence for us.

Pretty much this. Drones are the devil.

 

[Seawolf]

There was a time when two winged aircraft were evil. Then in 1926 came the Air Commerce Act which subsequently evolved over the years into the FAA. I'm not aware of pilots going to jail, but maybe they did in the early years. The FAA to their credit brought standardized regulations and certifications. The problem today is we are generating a complicated web of fluid municipal and fed regs, yet allowing the general public to buy consumer level devices, many of which are marketed towards unrestrained urban flight. Technology can play a better role to enhance public safety - I.e perhaps geofencing. Accident or negligence, if we're going to start locking up drone pilots, that will surely kill the industry regardless of licensing, regs, or technology. Had that of happened in 1926, we'd have no federal air transport system today.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots