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.

21 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your understanding of US law is not correct. You have control over what is considered "reasonable enjoyment". The specific height is not defined.

    2. Re:That's not the answer! by buck-yar · · Score: 2

      I don't see easement anywhere in the law https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

    3. Re:That's not the answer! by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The City also owns the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street, but the property resident is required to keep it mowed or raked, as required. And everybody has legal access to it. Very little regarding these types of issues breaks down into the arguments that chest-thumping my-king-is-my-castle advocates use. When they try to understand the mowing requirement, they invariably get bent out of shape; they're compelled to feel under attack, because their misguided stand-in for property rights would leave the requirement on the adjacent owner, not the resident.

      I just get upset I can't legally engage in sword duels on "private property." So much for the castle theory. I'm only allowed if I catch them crawling through the window, not if they consent.

      In the story though, the morons aren't accused of violating private property, but rather restricted airspace. The funny thing about the private property angle; protecting uniquely valuable property is one of the reasons for restricted air spaces in cities. And people with rooftop helipads have a right to make use of the airspace, which is negatively impacted by unlicensed pilots flying shit through air traffic lanes.

      As with everything else, just regulation will assist in managing legitimate access, and unjust regulation will block access. No regulation, combined with locally scarce airspace, would just leave it unsafe for manned flights.

      The fine isn't just for unauthorized drone use; it is for unauthorized drone use in restricted airspace, dozens of times. That alone makes it reckless, because the restricted areas are for real public safety reasons. Doing it repeatedly shows a recklessly casual disregard for safety regulations, while violating them, and in the physical presence of people, property, and aircraft that are supposed to be protected by the flight rules.

      And not only is there is an air traffic easement, there is also a variable building height limit. You can certainly still stand on the roof and enjoy your 500' though.

      Another thing that slipped through the cracks:
      From the Cornell link:

      The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

      You own the bottom 500' or so, but that is because it is not navigable airspace. In the same way that a river with obstructions is not "navigable" but might still have small watercraft tootling about. In my State the State owns all navigable waterways, and there is a law allowing 10' of bank access. So most waterfront property has a public easement and can't legally molest bank fisherman who would otherwise be trespassing. If things are officially classified as navigable is a major thing in understanding these regulations. If it is navigable, I can also get a permit to dredge for gold. Of course regarding air space there is still an easement, because access below the navigable level is permitted for takeoff and landing, and some other uses.

      And the Godwin-equivalent for these discussions: Property tax! That's my 500', but I lease it from the State indefinitely.

  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.

    1. Re:Yeah, that's sound about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is a result of the situation in which drones exist but no airspace exists for drones to fly in. If there were a clear and viable way for drone operators to legally share the airspace with other aircraft, then they'd probably do it, especially the commercial ones.

    2. Re:Yeah, that's sound about right by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      What you have isn't a drone, it is an RC copter. Video transmission or autonomous flight is required to be considered a drone.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Yeah, that's sound about right by BostonPilot · · Score: 2

      1) I've been flying helicopters 30 years and I think I know what will and will not take down a helicopter. Ask PHI and the families of the 9 people who were killed when a 2.4 pound bird went through the windshield. You think a 2.4 bird is going to cause less damage than a 2.5 pound drone? And... are you willing to limit drones to a maximum weight of 2.5 pounds or would you like to be able to fly larger ones in the airspace?

      By the same token, I expect private and commercial aircraft to stay the *F%$* above 500 feet unless taking off or landing.

      2) You might expect aircraft to stay above 500 feet, but you have no regulatory basis for that belief. The current situation is that we are allowed to operate below 500 feet when we take certain precautions, even when not taking off or landing. You might not like it, but until you get the FAA to change those regulations (which they are very unlikely to do) the fact is that even at 100 feet you may be sharing the airspace with us.

      Buy a drone, fly it, *learn how it works*, then you can contribute seriously to this discussion.

      3) So, I have to buy a drone before I can contribute to the discussion? Do you have to get a pilot license before you get to contribute to the discussion?

      Your attitude is exactly what is going to polarize people against drone usage. I was talking with our FAA Tower chief last night and he mentioned that MedFlight has been complaining about so many drones around the hospitals and around scene calls that the Massachusetts State Police air wing now is on alert to chase down drone operators who are not following regulations. They've specifically asked us to keep an eye out for drones and report them to the police, much like has had to happen with laser pointer attacks.

      If you'd like access to the airspace, I suggest you tone down your attitude and try cooperating with the people who are on the side of drone usage, otherwise you could easily see people throwing up roadblocks. Sure, drones are going to eventually happen. Would you rather have it happen in the next 2-3 years or would you like to polarize the aviation community and have it delay drones for 10 years? Right now I'm still on the side of sharing the airspace with drones if the safety concerns can be met, but after the last couple of discussions on Slashdot I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth it.

  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. Re:Stiffling innovation by gsslay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's ridiculous. You even hear of people getting lengthy prison sentences just for driving a car! Do we need these kind of government regulations??

    True, they happened to be driving their car at great speed through a crowd of pedestrians on the side walk, but still. As long as we can phrase criminally reckless behaviour as innocent sounding activities, the government should keep their nose out of it!

  5. Air safety relies on enforcement of rules by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Air safety is achieved by rigorous enforcement of rules. One can not show the lack of adverse consequences for a violated rule as defense for violating the rule. At the time the rule violation happened, the violator did not know it would have no adverse consequences.

    It did not matter the Air Traffic Control violated 1 km horizontal separation and 1000 feet vertical separation without a mid air collision. If the rule was violated the incident report must be filed. All rule violations must be filed. Accidents are too infrequent to infer statistically significant conclusions.

    Among the federal agencies FAA has a very good track record of amending the rules and regulations to help improve safety. It does not simply issue fines for incident violations. When some rule violation becomes too frequent it analyses the situation and comes up with a solution too.

    For example, when the pilots go through the check lists, if it gets interrupted, the rule is to start from the top all over again. Pilots should NOT try to remember what was done and continue from the middle. But this rule was getting violated too often. They analyzed and found that the check lists were getting too long and it was quite tedious to start from the top. They broke the check list into sections, and amended the rule "Start from the top of section. Each section should start in its own page. No section should have more than so many checks". This is how we achieved the safety in air travel. It might hurt the free market fanatics to accept it, but FAA is one federal agency that is doing its job right.

    May be a little too slow to respond, and may be it has some conflict of goals in its charter, "to promote safety" as well as "to promote air travel". It is high time we remove the requirement for it to promote air travel and make safety its single goal.

    In fact its procedures draw universal acclaim and some medical researchers are arguing for check lists for surgeons for their procedures.

    If FAA says this drone operator flew their machines with reckless disregard for safety, they did. They should pay the fine.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Air safety relies on enforcement of rules by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      If FAA says this drone operator flew their machines with reckless disregard for safety, they did. They should pay the fine.

      That's not quite how it works: the company should have the option to go to court, just like you should have the option of contesting your traffic ticket in court.

  6. 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"
    2. Re:Were you endangered? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

      Note that most of those "RC model aircraft that have been flying since before most of you were born" also didn't fly in restricted airspace, or commercial flight lanes. This has nothing to do with it being a drone and everything to do with how it was being flown. It would be the same situation of some RC flyer decided to be a douche in the same way. Except he'd probably also be facing jail time.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    3. Re:Were you endangered? by russotto · · Score: 2

      Not the point. Most hobbiests would follow the rules, which require them to a) fly in Class G airspace below certain heights

      Nonsense. There's so much class B and otherwise restricted airspace around all the way to ground level in most metropolitan areas that tons of hobbyists are flying in it. For instance, all of the District of Columbia and most of Northern Virginia. I fly in New Jersey 15 miles from Manhattan, and I'm just barely outside the class B limit.

  7. Drone manufacturers aren't the problem by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    It's not the manufacturers, it's the users. Those of us who fly rockets - and all the traditional RC aircraft pilots - know the regs and we stick to them pretty damned closely because it's safety. The manufacturers are selling a product, and while it needs to be airworthy and safe to operate, they have no control over where it's operated.

    I can only fly certain impulse rockets near my house because of air traffic restrictions. That doesn't mean manufacturers should make bigger engines - it just means if I want to fly them I have to take them somewhere where they will be safe and legal (like Black Rock).

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. Re:Shutdown new tech ASAP, it's scary! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Keep your toy away from my property and away from planes. Quit trying to cast your fucking hobby as some sort of virtuous enterprise.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Setting a dangerous precedent by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's the problem: If you allow the FAA to get away with this crap, then you have lost the war and have given up power to yet another byzantine bureaucracy. This five-mile rule is ridiculous for several reasons: 1) Airports generally don't have 360-degree approach patterns (heliports notwithstanding and even they have approach and departure rules), 2) No airport pattern is lower than 800 feet except on final and departure legs which are clearly defined and those don't need 5 miles, 3) Where did they come up with that figure for the fine and who gets the money?

    1. Re:Setting a dangerous precedent by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      I suppose you've read up on the history and rationale behind Class B airspace? No? You should.

      TL;DR - planes don't always go where they planned to go. Emergencies crop up. During said emergencies, the pilots are busy with the emergency and not terribly interested in looking for random balloons, Cessnas, drones and other rif raf. Radars tend to work best if they have a clear sweep of the sky. Five miles at several hundred miles per hour is a very short time frame.

      And other important technical issues.

      It's not because some power mad bureaucrat wants to make your libertine life harder.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. Re:Rules v. consequences by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    Speeding causes deaths, too. Should speeding, even a little, be punished as severely as drunk driving? People die from falling objects too; should you be sent to jail for accidentally knocking a flowerpot off your balcony? A lack of serious consequences is no defense for violating the rule, but it is a mitigating circumstance when it comes to setting the punishment. And conversely, rule-breaking may well earn you a stiffer punishment in case you do cause an accident. If you hit someone with your car and you were found to be speeding or drunk, you'll be more likely to be held fully responsible than if you were operating your car within the rules of the road.

    Punishing a person more because they were unlucky and someone died is the cruel part.