Slashdot Mirror


FAA Proposes $1.9 Million Fine For Unauthorized Drone Use

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has been under pressure to regulate the nascent drone industry. It's obvious they lack a clear idea of how to proceed — but they're trying. Today they announced a proposal to fine SkyPan International a whopping $1.9 million for allegedly conducting 65 unauthorized commercial drone flights over Chicago and New York City. The flights occurred over a period of almost three years, for the purpose of aerial photography. 43 of the flights impinged upon highly restricted airspace, and the FAA says none of them were "without risk." They bluntly allege that SkyPan "operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property." SkyPan now has 30 days to respond.

6 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. That's not the answer! by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clear policies need to be established, particularly for those who think they can fly their drones over private property at their whim.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:That's not the answer! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you expect to be able to keep people from murdering other people, you are going to be extremely disappointed.

      Even if the rule was "no murders within 300m over private property", the cost of weapons that can kill you while you sunbathe is falling rapidly. Even if you somehow stop that, there is always the danger that a deorbiting satellite will crash into your house from space on a nice clear sunny day.

      There seems to be little point in trying to hold this tide back, so let's make murder legal.

      Yeah, not so much.

      Laws aren't put in place to make it impossible to commit a crime. Laws are meant to provide a level of punishment that makes the inappropriate behavior no longer worthwhile to a rational person. There will always be some people who still break those laws, but the majority of people will abide by them.

  2. Yeah, that's sound about right by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, deliberately and knowingly entering reserved airspace dozens of times probably should earn someone a hefty fine, or rather should really earn prison time. Doodling around in the flights paths of commercial airliners constitutes a ridiculous and needless risk if the FAA complaint is accurate. People hate the idea of the FAA controlling drones, but the FAA will *need* power over drones if their pilots keep acting like reckless fuckers.

    Maybe Congress could get off their ass and give the FAA a specific, bounded mandate for controlling and allowing drone flights so airspace regulations doesn't descent into a quagmire of confused case law and bureaucratic over-reach like the ATF handling of firearms has become. There's options, but again if drone pilots don't practice some fucking sense the realistic options for minimal regulation will just keep diminishing.

  3. 'They bluntly allege'? by bytesex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell is that all about? I rather like the idea of being able to board an aircraft and not have any problems because some yokel with too much money decides it's fun to fly a piece of plastic into the engine of my plane. Please FAA - keep on fining!

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  4. Were you endangered? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SkyPan operated the 43 flights in the New York Class B airspace without receiving an air traffic control clearance to access it, the FAA alleges. Additionally, the agency alleges the aircraft was not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment. The FAA further alleges that on all 65 flights, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration, and SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations. SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property, the FAA alleges.

    If you have flown to New York and Chicago between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014 you might have been endangered by this company. It operated drones which were not airworthy, it operated drones without the transponder to alert the ATC about its altitude, location and speed. These machines are too small to show up in radar. Without a transponder they are nearly invisible to radar.

    New York is where both engines of USAir flight were hit by soft bodied geese weighing less than 20 pounds each and forced the plane to crash land in the Hudson river. The drones have hard metal parts and hard plastic. They would do far more damage to the plane.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Were you endangered? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It operated drones which were not airworthy

      It operated drones without an Airworthiness Certificate. Note quite the same thing as (not airworthy).

      Note that very few, if any, of the RC model aircraft that have been flying since before most of you were born had Airworthiness Certificates, and yet there was no screaming, wailing, and tearing of clothes.

      Problem seems to be that EVVVVIIIIILLLL!!!! word "drone", not the actual physical object in question....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"