Drone Pilot charged with Reckless Endangerment

GoodnNuff · Oct 29, 2015

The Phantom Pilot whose drone hit a parade goer in the head, knocking her unconscious last June, has been charged with reckless endangerment and faces a $5000 fine.

Man charged for Seattle drone crash that knocked woman out

snerd · Oct 29, 2015

A little justice being meted out, 'bout time! The victim can take his dumb-*** to civil court, too, I believe. Nothing like having to pay out thousands and thousands of dollars to get the meatheads out of the hobby!

GoodnNuff · Oct 29, 2015

snerd said:
A little justice being meted out, 'bout time! The victim can take his dumb-*** to civil court, too, I believe. Nothing like having to pay out thousands and thousands of dollars to get the meatheads out of the hobby!

The print media did not mention this, but the TV news said last night the pilot actually has his FAA exemption and works for a videography company. They didn't say if this flight was a commercial flight or a recreational flight however.

snerd · Oct 29, 2015

Hmmm.......... well, either way, seems he was close enough to the crowd/people to pose a danger to them. That's reckless. Having the 333, I'm sure he's also got a pilot's license? I wonder how these drone crashes will affect their pilot's licenses, if at all?

JKDSensei · Oct 29, 2015

Do you think the same charges should apply if the person had an FAA 333 exemption and had done everything "by the book"...and this incident occured?

The civil suit could still be filed of course, but should the criminal charges still apply in that case?

(Was writing this before I saw the post above by GoonNuff)

Snerd, do you think you were a bit premature at first with your response or still feel the same?

Is it still "reckless" if it was the drones fault and not his? Where is the line drawn?

GoodnNuff · Oct 29, 2015

JKDSensei said:
Do you think the same charges should apply if the person had an FAA 333 exemption and had done everything "by the book"...and this incident occured?

The civil suit could still be filed of course, but should the criminal charges still apply in that case?

Yes.
Reckless is reckless regardless of whether you are flying stupid free of charge, or actually getting paid for it.
Cab and bus drivers follow the same rules of the road as I do.

JKDSensei · Oct 29, 2015

GoodnNuff said:
Yes.
Reckless is reckless regardless of whether you are flying stupid free of charge, or actually getting paid for it.
Cab and bus drivers follow the same rules of the road as I do.

And if it was the drones fault ?

All I'm saying is that it often seems that drone operators are very quickly demonized before all the facts are known. Even by their peers.

Why would you need a 333 exemption if not to do things like this?

Maybe you're saying drones are not a valid technology for videography when people are anywhere near?

Problem is, government agencies and law enforcement are using them around people every day. And the military lost a blimp yesterday that dragged a 10,000 foot cable from one state into another.
Things happen.

Let's prosecute the intentional bad guys that don't give a ****, but use restraint when it appears something beyond control happened to otherwise good guys.

snerd · Oct 29, 2015

Yes, I still think he was reckless. The 333 doesn't give you license to fly over crowds and do anything else that's not recommended. And a malfunctioning drone is still the flyer's responsibility. That's why he (should) have insurance. If I'm the person knocked out by a falling drone, I don't care who the operator was, if it was his fault or the bird's, they're gonna have to learn a costly lesson................. monetary damages is how we do it in this country. Sure beats having 10 more new laws on the books! Most everything is already in place to handle this stuff................... let's use it already!

GoodnNuff · Oct 29, 2015

And if it was the drones fault ?
Then the drone will pay the fine and do the time? Sue DJI?

All I'm saying is that it often seems that drone operators are very quickly demonized before all the facts are known. Even by their peers.
Did someone "demonize" this pilot? I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link?

Why would you need a 333 exemption if not to do things like this?
To crash into people? To fly recklessly? Not sure what you think an exemption entitles you to do?

Maybe you're saying drones are not a valid technology for videography when people are anywhere near?
LOL, HUH? Such a thought has never crossed my mind. But it has yours apparently. Care to elaborate?

Problem is, government agencies and law enforcement are using them around people every day.
Really? Where do you live? Is it like that Audi commercial where the skies are filled with drones in your hood? There are no LE drones here in Seattle. The citizens made sure of that a few years ago. Don't think they are used in this state. Where are they "around people everyday?"

And the military lost a blimp yesterday that dragged a 10,000 foot cable from one state into another.
Things happen.
Yes, things happen. Totally unrelated things. And one doesn't justify the other in any way, shape. or form.

Let's prosecute the intentional bad guys that don't give a ****, but use restraint when it appears something beyond control happened to otherwise good guys.
I prefer equality where bad guys and good guys both get equal treatment when they do stupid things that are against the law. Trying to prove who is good vs who is bad is more problematic than trying to prove who is guilty regardless of their character. How about that?

witold · Oct 29, 2015

Will you look at that, laws that have been on the books for 100 years working just fine when applied to new technology.

JKDSensei · Oct 29, 2015

nNuff, I could counter your arguments....but I'm not going to get dragged into an argument with you.and I'm sure you feel you are right. And that's fine. I made what I felt were valid points. Feel free to rip them however you please.

JKDSensei · Oct 29, 2015

snerd said:
Yes, I still think he was reckless. The 333 doesn't give you license to fly over crowds and do anything else that's not recommended. And a malfunctioning drone is still the flyer's responsibility. That's why he (should) have insurance. If I'm the person knocked out by a falling drone, I don't care who the operator was, if it was his fault or the bird's, they're gonna have to learn a costly lesson................. monetary damages is how we do it in this country. Sure beats having 10 more new laws on the books! Most everything is already in place to handle this stuff................... let's use it already!

Well, I don't know the area mentioned in the ad but if he was over the crowds and it is accepted that flying a drone over crowds is inherently dangerous then I can see your point as well.

I just feel this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter in this case. I'm not aware if there were specific laws pertaining to drone flights in that manner in that area.

GoodnNuff · Oct 29, 2015

JKDSensei said:
nNuff, I could counter your arguments....but I'm not going to get dragged into an argument with you.and I'm sure you feel you are right. And that's fine. I made what I felt were valid points. Feel free to rip them however you please.

.

LOL

GoodnNuff · Oct 29, 2015

JKDSensei said:
Well, I don't know the area mentioned in ad but if he was over the crowds and it is accepted that flying a drone over crowds is inherently dangerous then I can see your point as well.

I just feel this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter in this case. I'm not aware if there were specific laws pertaining to drone flights in that manner in that area.

She is certainly free to sue for pain and suffering in a civil court. The pilot could easily have to face two judges for his reckless flight.
The only thing that came out of the infamous Pirker case was that drone pilots can be prosecuted for reckless flights.

kj286 · Dec 10, 2015

If your a drone driver you need to use your head. And not screw it up for the rest of us. Pay attention!!!

Lone-Rider · Dec 14, 2015

If only the FAA had required registration sooner, this needless injury could have been avoided...

JKDSensei · Jan 5, 2016

Lone-Rider said:
If only the FAA had required registration sooner, this needless injury could have been avoided...

Yep, the world is safe now from the evil drone threat.

Nakelp86 · Jan 9, 2016

There is more to FAA registration, so far they say there are over 180.000 people registered and is this the way to get on a black list??!!
Drone Play Could Land Users In NYPD’s Counter-Terror Database