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

[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

[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.

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...

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

[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.

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.

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.

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!

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: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?