For the First Time Ever, the FAA Is Trying To Fine a Drone Hobbyist

Jason Koebler writes: "For the first time ever, the Federal Aviation Administration is trying to fine a hobby drone operator, a development that threatens to throw the whole hobby into disarray if the agency successfully levies the fine. While the FAA has explicitly said it doesn't want anyone flying drones commercially, it has never issued similar suggestions about hobby flight, which is why it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado, but illegal, in the FAA's eyes, for a journalist to do the same. That has changed, according to the agency. A spokesperson for the FAA told me that the agency 'has proposed a civil penalty against an individual in New York City. The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person (video).'"

Comments

Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

There is quite a lot of difference between fining someone for behaving in a way that puts other people in danger and fining someone for operating a drone.

The only problem I have with this is that FAA is involved.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. If he violated any restricted airspace, bring in the FAA. A few dented buildings, a frightened bystander, and a broken drone? Call the cops and haul him away for reckless endangerment and destruction of property. Make him pay for being an idiot that way.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[jandrese]

Who else would be involved? This is the FAA's jurisdiction. I agree that this is a non-story as well. If you're recklessly operating an aircraft and might be putting people in danger, then yes, that should be against the law and a fine is quite appropriate.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This. The FAA should be concerned with intrusion into air lanes and restricted airspace, not some ass crashing it onto a bicyclist. The BATF generally does not concern itself with people misusing guns in general as that is a local police issue.

In any case, are the Regulation-4-Everything Yes!!! types starting to see an issue with agencies adopting new memes to self-authorize control in new areas, outside normal political channels, which is to say, channels directly responsive to the voter?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[tlhIngan]

I agree. If he violated any restricted airspace, bring in the FAA. A few dented buildings, a frightened bystander, and a broken drone? Call the cops and haul him away for reckless endangerment and destruction of property. Make him pay for being an idiot that way.

Technically, the airspace IS restricted - by FAA rules. Typically you're not allowed to fly anything below 1000' AGL in a populated area. And a city is definitely a populated area.

There's a reason the light RC aircraft you see sold in stores are marketed as "Park Flyers" - you may not need to fly them at an RC park, but you should be flying them in a less populated park.

Granted, the FAA is unlikely to prosecute hobbyists that don't endanger lives or property (they could, mind you, but probably won't), but be an idiot and they can come down.

In fact, hobbyists often have unofficial governing bodies for that reason - while every one participating doesn't have to be "licensed" by the body, the body exists to help keep the sport in good reputation by creating processes, procedures and regulations to ensure they can coexist with others who may not share the same love of the sport. And yes, they may also try to restrict people's ability to fly "complex" RC vehicles until they've shown the skill to do so (again, it's all voluntary).

RC hobbyists aren't dumb, they know it only takes a couple of idiots to screw them over, which is why they subject themselves to voluntary regulation. It's also a lot easier to do advocacy when you can prove you're on the up and up, and disavow anyone who flouts the rules.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[dywolf]

We've had this exact conversation already two months ago.
The FAA regulates ALL US airspace, and ALL flying machines.
It really is that simple.

Reposting my post from http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:

-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.

-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.

-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas

-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)

-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.

http://www.faa.gov/news/update...

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[dywolf]

We already covered ALL this ground 2 months ago in http://news.slashdot.org/story...

It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[koan]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration’s only fine against a commercial drone user on the grounds that the small drone was no different than a model aircraft, a decision that appears to undermine the agency’s power to keep a burgeoning civilian drone industry out of the skies.

Patrick Geraghty, a National Transportation Safety Board administrative law judge, said in his order dismissing the $10,000 fine that the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Em Adespoton]

OK: so that means they're the ones who control http://www.poweruptoys.com/ paper airplanes, as well as gliders, parachutes, kites and flying squirrels.

But then, the FAA is responsible for tall buildings as well (buildings that penetrate US Airspace unduly) and other tall structures -- they mandate blinking lights and radio beacons so that pilots can avoid the obstacles.

Basically, they're in charge of ensuring that objects don't run into each other in an unsafe manner. This looks like a case of someone flying into something in an unsafe manner. Flying within a certain distance (height or horizon) of a heavily populated area is also their ballpark. Anything flying indoors is not.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Anonymous Coward]

So are they going to start restricting the path of bullets?

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Obfuscant]

I don't really see how the FAA has the authority to do anything if he does not operate across state lines.

Because the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) make no distinction between flights that cross state lines and ones that don't.

Wouldn't that be a wonderful situation to have: to be flying an aircraft that can cross city/county/state boundaries faster than you can count them (and not always obvious that you have crossed such a boundary), subject to a different set of city/county/state regulations for each place you're in? Conflicting/contradictory regulations based on knee-jerk nutcase reactions (like the Deer Park Colorado "hunting license" for drones) and fear-mongering, exacerbated by small-town politics and petty fiefdoms.

Sure. Kill the entire aviation industry by replacing federal regulation with local. Have at least fifty different sets of requirements for a pilot's license. If you want to cross a state line, you better have a pilot's license from that state, too.

Keep in mind, those flights that don't cross state lines have to use the same airspace as those that do. Do you really want a situation where a long-distance airline pilot has to keep track of which rules apply to those other aircraft based on which state he happens to be in, and whether the other flights are also crossing state lines or not? What a wonderful thought process it would require. "Gee, I'm in Colorado right now, and their rules say that pilots can fly in the clouds without an IFR clearance or communicating with ATC, they're requiring Mode C transponders by 2023, so I can't expect any useful separation services from ATC here." (Oh, and the ATC center controllers -- they have to issue different instructions to different pilots because some of their flights are in certain states or over certain counties ... what a mess that would make. And managing the training they'd have to take to qualify to cover different states with different rules...)

No, sir, there are good and well established reasons for federal preemption of airspace regulations, and that means that drones are part of that system.

Re:Pretty big differencfe

[Jane Q. Public]

It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.

Sounds like more "settled science" BS.

From the earliest days of Common Law, up to and including the present, landowners control the airspace above their property.

The FAA has lawful authority only over interstate and international flights. It might claim authority over more than that, but that doesn't mean that authority actually, legally and Constitutionally, exists.

This judge understands that. Apparently you do not.

wow

[Charliemopps]

So we're surprised when a government agency uses common sense when enforcing a law now? This sounds exactly like what the FAA should be regulating...

Re:wow

[interkin3tic]

I agree, which is why I'm glad this doesn't appear to be arbitrary at the moment. The guy did something that should be prohibited.

Also, laws aren't made instantly and perfectly. The drone flying hobby is pretty new, there's going to be a period of finding a balance between too restrictive and too lax. It's likely going to be more restrictive than hobbyists would prefer, and it's going to be more lax than the regulators would prefer. Additionally, hobbyists need to realize that if someone dies, and someone else can blame it on not enough laws, there are going to suddenly be a lot more restrictions in place.

Re:wow

[dreamchaser]

The question shouldn't be if there should be punishment. There should. The asshat could have injured people. The question should be whether or not the FAA should be involved in a matter that local law enforcement can deal with.

Re:wow

[Wycliffe]

Arbitrary enforcement of a law is NOT a good thing.

it is. IFF the enforcement only punishes the extreme cases, but not the harmless ones.

Then it's not really arbitrary is it? If you always pull someone over for 20 miles over the speed limit but
never pull someone over for 5 miles over the speed limit then the law probably needs to be changed to
reflect reality but the enforcement is not arbitrary.

Semi trucks actually have this codified. The weight limit is 40k. If you are over less than 5K then
you get a warning but no ticket. If you are over more than 5K then the fine you $1 per pound
STARTING at 40k not at 45k.

(note: numbers are somewhat arbitrary, not exactly sure what current limits and fines are but it gives the general idea)

Re:wow

[BitZtream]

There is no question.

Airspace, ALL OF IT, is under FAA jurisdiction, no one else has any say, certainly not local police.

OK... so the devil is in the details

[PeterL.Berghold]

Drones are not the only way to get in trouble with the FAA. If you are into LDRS (Large Dangerous Rocket Ships) there is a maximum altitude your rocket can go and if you expect it to exceed that altitude you need to clear it with air traffic control before launch. It only makes sense given the obvious potential for havoc. The person cited in this article did commit some questionable acts. Crashing into buildings and crash landing the drone were people were milling about and going about their day is not cool. It only takes one "oops" where property damage or personal bodily injury occurs and the hobby will end up being heavily regulated.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[Andy Dodd]

I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.

They just say, "Keep within these limits and we won't care what you do." So the question is whether this guy's recklessnes exceeded those limits.

Kind of similar to how the FCC has jurisdiction over the ISM bands - they just say "stay below this power level and and a few other limits and you can do anything you want in that band"

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[bigpat]

I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.

I think that we need Congress to step in and limit the FAAs jurisdiction to above 500 feet and above a certain size. Giving the FAA jurisdiction over frisbees, bows and arrows or toys with propellers is an absurd use of Federal government regulations and a complete waste of resources for them to be trolling You Tube for videos for accidents with toys that didn't actually cause any serious harm.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[fnj]

So you would let them fly above a busy runway as long as they are at 499 feet or below? I didn't think so. Would you have a weight limit? What if it's only 4 feet long but weighs 50 kg? I thought so. How about flying above a military base or a nuclear power plant to gather intelligence?

I have an idea. Let's leave the FAA alone. They are doing exactly what they were created to do, and they are doing a good job.

Re:OK... so the devil is in the details

[BitZtream]

There is no such thing as uncontrolled airspace as far as the FAA is concerned in the manner you are speaking.

Uncontrolled airspace to a pilot means the area where you are not required to be in contact with air traffic controllers, not that its a free for all.

In the USA:
ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FAA as far as physical objects are concerned, that includes BUILDING, which the FAA has regulations that apply to them, such as how they must be marked and lit at night.

ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FCC as far as electromagnetic regulation is concerned, and again, that includes BUILDINGS.

NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[LWATCDR]

"why it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado, but illegal, in the FAA's eyes, for a journalist to do the same. "

It is illegal for anyone without special permission to fly a drone over(sic) a tornado without a lot of special clearance. The "top" of a tornado will be well above the altitude limits on RC aircraft. It would also be in the realm of dangerous.
Flying over a disaster area is a different matter to take pictures is a different issue.

" A spokesperson for the FAA told me that the agency 'has proposed a civil penalty against an individual in New York City. The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person (video).'""
  And this is a good thing IMHO.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Responsive to voters I mean. Drone use responsive to voyers is still in its infancy.

Re:NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

[kimvette]

I've had some of these nihilists tell me I'm not a libertarian because I think banking tightly regulated (remember in the fractional banking systems, banks actually create money) and also companies' impact on the environment and public utilities should also be tightly regulated because everyone depends on them, and anything they do affects everyone in that society. The reason they should is so that the rights of the people at large are preserved. Society needs rules, even (or perhaps especially) in a libertarian "utopia." People read too much Ayn Rand and don't think critically, and worship her as some sort of god and take her work as gospel when really she was a writer of fiction.

Obvious

[TWX]

The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person.

If I engaged in reckless behavior that posed serious threat to others or to their property then I too would expect to be fined if caught.

The FAA probably figured that the press and the paparazzi would be all over the use of drones if they were allowed to, and the ban was to prevent a bunch of people that had no interest in the technology itself from attempting to poorly use it. Hobbyists, on the other hand, are by definition interested in the technology, and are more likely to learn how to master its use. This particular hobbyist obviously wasn't in control, hence the fine, but he was also dumb and used the device where he shouldn't have been, ie, a congested urban environment with bystanders.

Play with this stuff where there's room and a lack of people to hurt and one should be ok.

Flying Objects and Buildings...

[JJJJust]

We're supposed to be okay with crashing flying objects to buildings? Did Al-Qaeda have it right all along? Should we give them medals instead of killing them? Is Bin Laden due a wrongful death payment?

These are legitimate concerns when you start complaining about a fine for a moron who caused his drone to fly into a stationary object.

No!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a God-given, constitutional right to fly drones into permanent structures and crash them into crowds of people, and any attempts to restrict my ability to do this represent a tyrannical attack on my freedom.

Don't tread on me!

Let me get this straight

[rebelwarlock]

Guy recklessly operates remote control machinery in populated area, causes property damage and comes close to causing injury or death in innocent bystanders, and this dipshit reporter pretends the FCC is the devil for coming down on him?

This is NOT a fine for "Flying a Drone"

[EmagGeek]

This is a fine for willfully putting someone in danger and destroying property. The pilot should be thanking his lucky stars that the FAA gets to process this in administrative law court rather than the State process it through criminal court.

Classes and Permits

[Oysterville]

Drones in the private sector are getting to the point where the only way to really resolve some of this dangerous behavior is to require operators of the drones that go over a set height take classes and get some sort of certification. I don't know aviation enough to know what height that would be.

It can be a fun hobby, but if they aren't flown responsibly and safely, eventually a mid-air collision with a helicopter is going to cause a fatality. At least with proper training it would lessen the chances of that.

Practice safe flying people...

[freak0fnature]

I've heard pilots complain (@ LiveATC.net feeds) on approach at JFK of drones entering their visual range while landing on at least 2 occasions. That stuff rarely makes the news, and I don't listen to that stuff often, mainly for work purposes.

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[fnj]

Anyone flying an RC aircraft has to follow precisely the same regulations. You can't violate airspace rules or operate recklessly. It's just that typically RC aircraft hobbyists have much more care and intelligence than random flaming assholes.

499

[Anonymous Coward]

"as long as they are at 499 feet"

below 500' is (or at least should be) considered private property, in this case you'd be trespassing on airport property which usually results in a quick response from armed, uniformed & angry individuals in cars with flashing lights. Also airports usually get easements over adjoining property effectively buying the airspace above those properties, so flying anywhere near an airport would be trespassing on the airport. A few people arrested, charged with trespassing and their drone/RC craft confiscated by regular everyday police would get the message through far more clearly than the FAA fining someone. Giving the FAA cart blanch authority over anything that flies is idiotic. Next they'll be wanting to regulate those little $20 electric helicopters that you fly in your house, if they manage that next will be paper airplanes.

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[JStyle]

Definition:
a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.
b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.

I'm an RC hobbyist myself. I don't do anything with multirotors, but I know many that do. Most of them have a control board that includes a "return to home" feature, so if they lose sight of the model (wind, equipment failure, etc), or even just lose visual orientation of the model, they can flip a switch and the multirotor will automatically rise to a pre-defined altitude, and return to the launch site, with no intervention. These systems are available for ~$100 and can fit on any size model. It can also be used for planes. I consider the use of these tools to be a safety feature and am very glad people use them. Also very helpful for FPV (first person view) flying, which can go well beyond line of sight.

Regardless, it's pedantic to distinguish between the RC aircraft and drones. What is important is regulating the capability and who gets to use them. Obviously weaponizing is a big no-no, and being used by the government for spy or surveillance operations must have some additional oversight (say, a court issued warrant).

Re:"Drones" vs "RC aircraft"

[bobbied]

Anyone flying an RC aircraft has to follow precisely the same regulations. You can't violate airspace rules or operate recklessly. It's just that typically RC aircraft hobbyists have much more care and intelligence than random flaming assholes.

Us RC hobbyists also don't fly above 500', over populated areas, in restricted airspace, or near airports... At least the RESPONSIBLE ones don't. This nutcase deserves to be accosted by the FAA, as well as the local police for being a public danger, not to mention the owners of the property he damaged. Have fun with your toys, but do it responsibly.

Re:Politics is a bigger problem

[BitZtream]

No, the sheriff isn't your problem, you're ignorance is.

Its not his call, its the FAA's jurisdiction and the fact that you don't know that shows that you aren't qualified to be flying aircraft in the first place.

You don't get to pretend you're qualified to have an argument about safety issues when you don't even know the rules, which are simple to find, with a quick Google search ... or the many times its been posted here (with citations) on slashdot.

As a formerly licensed pilot, and an R/C pilot of 20 years, you are EXACTLY the type of person that I don't want in the air.

If you had a clue, you'd get a waiver and you'd know the sheriff's opinion is irrelevant. Again, its not his call.

Re:Oh sure. Let's make drones illegal...

[BitZtream]

No.

There are NO rules that define anything called a 'drone'. Just people using words they heard on CNN.

The FAA has rules for hobby aircraft, which this man violated multiple times, and those rules have barely changed since the 60s! They will spank your ass for flying your 1960s vintage r/c airplane into a building as well as that is a violation of the rules that have existed since then, you can't fly within a close proximity to buildings OR people, and you can't fly in an unsafe manner ... EVER.

All of the things you mention ARE regulated by the FAA. Anything that flies, even a rock is regulated by the FAA. The regulations of them are different depending on which thing you are referring to.

But hey, why don't you go ahead and stay completely ignorant and act like the big bad government is personally making your life a living hell rather than growing the fuck up and getting a clue before spewing random shit out of your pie hole, eh?

Re:Already fixed in appeal

[Space Grrrl]

It has been appealed but the has been no ruling on the appeal. That appeal remains to be heard. So hardly "fixed". Many folks think the appeal is likely to fail. So the authority of the FAA over model aircraft is still up in the air. At the moment most serious R/C modelers voluntarily stay within the guidelines establish working in an advisory capacity with the AMA. and the FAA.