Why was this drone operator arrested and fined?

[jason]

He can't. And who would enforce stupid laws?? Stupid people!!

 

[steveeds]

Reading between the lines here I'm feeling a lot of directed hate here for the Don, all this talk of stupid this and stupid that, fear not when he's elected the stupid will even out, or did I just miss the point.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Sorry, I sometimes assume that people will read between the lines. My bad.
If your HOA bans RC planes/boats/autos from being used in the common areas, then don't argue your drone is allowed because you HOA bylaws do not specifically mention drones, just ALL other RC craft...
Yes, TJ, it should be simple - if the park says no RC planes allowed, common sense would tell me that would include RC drones and helicopters despite the fact that drones nor helicopters are specifically mentioned by the sign posted at the park.
Have you not seen these very topics posted and debated on this forum? Just a few weeks ago a member here was ready to sue his condo's HOA for telling him he couldn't fly a drone from his balcony because only RC planes were banned, not drones. He had a lot of backing and support from other forum members who were exercising their "common sense" and telling him to just fly since drones are not mentioned.
There is a member on this list who has a strong dislike for me because our first interaction was his post here proudly telling how he'd stood for his rights and argued with Seattle City Park employees and subsequently the Seattle City Police over his "right" to fly and film a soccer game in a city park where a sign was posted banning RC planes, boats, etc. I told him his "common sense" should have precluded him from trying to fly there, let arguing with police over his perceived right. He had a lot of support as well.
So just because someone pretends to be familiar with common sense, can use the term in a sentence, it does not mean they possess any.

Then we agree, if there is a rule against it, don't do it.

Reading between the lines here I'm feeling a lot of directed hate here for the Don, all this talk of stupid this and stupid that, fear not when he's elected the stupid will even out, or did I just miss the point.

What? Where was DT mentioned here?

 

[SteveMann]

This can lead to knee jerk laws that would crush this hobby

Finally, someone gets it.

 

[ianwood]

Was this guy stupid for flying over the parade? Yes. That I think we can all agree. Steve's point is still 100% valid though. If drones are to be treated as aircraft and regulated by the FAA, then they should be regulated by the FAA and not through a disjointed patchwork of local laws and questionable enforcement policy.

Furthermore, charging this guy with some catch all crime of disorderly conduct is BS. How were his actions disorderly? There's no law that says flying a drone over a parade is considered disorderly.

There was a case in a rural town where a local was charged similarly for flying over his property as well as that of his neighbor's. His neighbor complained to the police repeatedly that he was being spied upon. The man was charged with several misdemeanors for disorderly conduct.

It's a very slippery slope. If cities don't want you flying over a parade, they should request a TFR.

 

[Bob Dennis]

You see it's people like him and you not knowing the rules. You do not fly over a public gathering. You just highlight the fact the few will spoil it the the majority through ignorance, which is not a defence..

 

[SteveMann]

Not sure why i bothered but I looked up ny admin code. The only thing I could find was this:
York City Administrative Code

§ 10-126 Avigation in and over the city. a. Definitions. When used in
this section the following words or terms shall mean or include:
1. "Aircraft." Any contrivance, now or hereafter invented for
avigation or flight in the air, including a captive balloon, except a
parachute or other contrivance designed for use, and carried primarily
as safety equipment.
2. "Place of landing." Any authorized airport, aircraft landing site,
sky port or seaplane base in the port of New York or in the limits of
the city.
3. "Limits of the city." The water, waterways and land under the
jurisdiction of the city and the air space above same.
4. "Avigate." To pilot, steer, direct, fly or manage an aircraft in or
through the air, whether controlled from the ground or otherwise.
5. "Congested area." Any land terrain within the limits of the city.
6. "Person." A natural person, co-partnership, firm, company,
association, joint stock association, corporation or other like
organization.
b. Parachuting. It shall be unlawful for any person to jump or leap
from an aircraft in a parachute or any other device within the limits of
the city except in the event of imminent danger or while under official
orders of any branch of the military service.
c. Take offs and landings. It shall be unlawful for any person
avigating an aircraft to take off or land, except in an emergency, at
any place within the limits of the city other than places of landing
designated by the department of transportation or the port of New York
authority.
d. Advertising. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to use, suffer
or permit to be used advertising in the form of towing banners from or
upon an aircraft over the limits of the city, or to drop advertising
matter in the form of pamphlets, circulars, or other objects from an
aircraft over the limits of the city, or to use a loud speaker or other
sound device for advertising from an aircraft over the limits of the
city. Any person who employs another to avigate an aircraft for
advertising in violation of this subdivision shall be guilty of a
violation hereof.
2. Any person who employs, procures or induces another to operate,
avigate, lend, lease or donate any aircraft as defined in this section
for the purpose of advertising in violation of this subdivision shall be
guilty of a violation hereof.
3. The use of the name of any person or of any proprietor, vendor or
exhibitor in connection with such advertising shall be presumptive
evidence that such advertising was conducted with his or her knowledge
and consent.
e. Dangerous or reckless operation or avigation. It shall be unlawful
for any person to operate or avigate an aircraft either on the ground,
on the water or in the air within the limits of the city while under the
influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics or other habit-forming
drugs, or to operate or avigate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger life or property of another. In any proceeding
or action charging careless or reckless operation or avigation of
aircraft in violation of this section, the court, in determining whether
the operation or avigation was careless or reckless, shall consider the
standards for safe operation or avigation of aircraft prescribed by
federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics.
f. Air traffic rules. It shall be unlawful for any person to navigate
an aircraft within the limits of the city in any manner prohibited by
any provision of, or contrary to the rules and regulations of, the
federal aviation administration.
g. Reports. It shall be unlawful for the operator or owner of an
aircraft to fail to report to the police department within ten hours a
forced landing of aircraft within the limits of the city or an accident
to an aircraft where personal injury, property damage or serious damage
to the aircraft is involved.
h. Rules and regulations. The police commissioner is authorized to
make such rules and regulations as the commissioner may deem necessary
to enforce the provisions of this section.
i. Violations. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Considering how vague they define aircraft I suppose it would fit. My guess is they used this as a generic charge because there isn't anything specific to drones.

The definition of aircraft is vague enough to include any model aircraft which would include drones.
However, c. and d. would be difficult to hold up against a court challenge.
In d. SCOTUS has already said that cities cannot regulate banner towing. Banner Advertising Inc. v. People of City of Boulder, Colo. 1994 -- A city ordinance banning commercial signs towed by aircraft is preempted by the Federal Aviation Act.
c. may have the same problem as generally a city cannot tell a property owner what they may do on their property without good reason. There are two cases working their way to a possible consideration by SCOTUS. I can't find the exact reference right now but two cities have passed ordinances forbidding the erection of solar power arrays.

 

[hog guts]

You need a pilots license to fly an aircraft under 400ft.
Not a quad copter.

I don't consider a quad copter my kid could buy from the store down the street for $75 an aircraft that can be flown illegally and an imminent danger to the public.

At no point does buying the $75 quadcopter require a drivers license, pilots license, law degree etc.

To conclude, in reality, what's the difference between a $75 quad that can fly 50 feet and a $4000 quad that can fly 50 feet with a camera to take video. It's all about perspective. All the little details matter (how high, how fast, how large, how heavy, circumstances, intent, etc. to point blank say anyone flying any remote controlled vehicle over anyone in public is stupid - is stupid. Do we need more laws? Hell no we have to darn many already. But realistically, with the sheer number of remote controlled craft hitting the streets these days there certainly needs to be something done. That includes airborne craft, water craft, underwater craft, space craft, land craft etc. a 12 year old can take a 30-06 into the woods and hunt with it. Now that's a dangerous weapon. What did he need to do that? Supervision and most likely a hunters safety course. I'm all for educating folks the proper way to operate their remote controlled vehicles. Problem is it may never happen the way it *should* and would become another way for the govmt to put their hand out. It's so simple yet so complicated. I'm about to opt out of this thread - too opinionated (that's about all it is) and not going to ever get anywhere. Hope everyone stays safe and responsible. Hope government stays out of it but I don't see that happening. They already try to control who small business owners sell their products to.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[logbuilder]

Not sure why i bothered but I looked up ny admin code. The only thing I could find was this:
York City Administrative Code

§ 10-126 Avigation in and over the city. a. Definitions. When used in
this section the following words or terms shall mean or include:
1. "Aircraft." Any contrivance, now or hereafter invented for
avigation or flight in the air, including a captive balloon, except a
parachute or other contrivance designed for use, and carried primarily
as safety equipment.
2. "Place of landing." Any authorized airport, aircraft landing site,
sky port or seaplane base in the port of New York or in the limits of
the city.
3. "Limits of the city." The water, waterways and land under the
jurisdiction of the city and the air space above same.
4. "Avigate." To pilot, steer, direct, fly or manage an aircraft in or
through the air, whether controlled from the ground or otherwise.
5. "Congested area." Any land terrain within the limits of the city.
6. "Person." A natural person, co-partnership, firm, company,
association, joint stock association, corporation or other like
organization.
b. Parachuting. It shall be unlawful for any person to jump or leap
from an aircraft in a parachute or any other device within the limits of
the city except in the event of imminent danger or while under official
orders of any branch of the military service.
c. Take offs and landings. It shall be unlawful for any person
avigating an aircraft to take off or land, except in an emergency, at
any place within the limits of the city other than places of landing
designated by the department of transportation or the port of New York
authority.
d. Advertising. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to use, suffer
or permit to be used advertising in the form of towing banners from or
upon an aircraft over the limits of the city, or to drop advertising
matter in the form of pamphlets, circulars, or other objects from an
aircraft over the limits of the city, or to use a loud speaker or other
sound device for advertising from an aircraft over the limits of the
city. Any person who employs another to avigate an aircraft for
advertising in violation of this subdivision shall be guilty of a
violation hereof.
2. Any person who employs, procures or induces another to operate,
avigate, lend, lease or donate any aircraft as defined in this section
for the purpose of advertising in violation of this subdivision shall be
guilty of a violation hereof.
3. The use of the name of any person or of any proprietor, vendor or
exhibitor in connection with such advertising shall be presumptive
evidence that such advertising was conducted with his or her knowledge
and consent.
e. Dangerous or reckless operation or avigation. It shall be unlawful
for any person to operate or avigate an aircraft either on the ground,
on the water or in the air within the limits of the city while under the
influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics or other habit-forming
drugs, or to operate or avigate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger life or property of another. In any proceeding
or action charging careless or reckless operation or avigation of
aircraft in violation of this section, the court, in determining whether
the operation or avigation was careless or reckless, shall consider the
standards for safe operation or avigation of aircraft prescribed by
federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics.
f. Air traffic rules. It shall be unlawful for any person to navigate
an aircraft within the limits of the city in any manner prohibited by
any provision of, or contrary to the rules and regulations of, the
federal aviation administration.
g. Reports. It shall be unlawful for the operator or owner of an
aircraft to fail to report to the police department within ten hours a
forced landing of aircraft within the limits of the city or an accident
to an aircraft where personal injury, property damage or serious damage
to the aircraft is involved.
h. Rules and regulations. The police commissioner is authorized to
make such rules and regulations as the commissioner may deem necessary
to enforce the provisions of this section.
i. Violations. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Considering how vague they define aircraft I suppose it would fit. My guess is they used this as a generic charge because there isn't anything specific to drones.

Would not the Macy parade 'balloons' be illegal then?

 

[Freebird1]

This thread is the reason we're gonna have drone registration. Unreal how many peeps believes what he did was ok. Cmon man.

 

[buford]

Has there ever been an incident where some guy was flying like a 10 y.o., as in flying over a parade, flying at Disneyworld over crowds of people, flying anywhere near people, (over people, that's the common thread I think) and the drone malfunctioned and either fell to the ground and hurt someone or flew into someone due to pilot error?

 

[buford]

Would not the Macy parade 'balloons' be illegal then?

I think it maybe the fact that they move in slow motion, and don't have 4 to 8 spinning knives hooked on em.

 

[Keith Lampman]

Maybe next year New York's finest will have one of these
'Death ray' can take out airborne drones from up to five miles away

 

[buford]

If the FAA thinks the operator was flying careless and reckless, then the FAA can charge him with violating 91.13. That would be the appropriate enforcement. If the city doesn't like his flying then the FAA asks them to collect evidence and refer the issue to the FAA enforcement division. It is not up to the city to decide, you're stupid so we will arrest you.

You DO NOT want thousands of towns and cities to have their own, often different rules regulating flight. If it's airborne, it's in the FAA's jurisdiction. No one else.

I have a little scooter on the back of my motorhome. I Missouri where I'm from, a 49cc scooter is not considered a motorcycle, so you can ride it anywhere. Up through town, waving at the cops (I've done it) and they wont give you a ticket. No plates, no insurance, no nothing, except a valid, non motorcycle drivers permit. I couldn't even license it in Mo. But, not all towns in Mo are this way, some will give you a ticket for no plates and no registration and no ins, and you better have a motorcycle license, or you'll get one for that too. This is an example of cities doing what they want, whether it follows state law or not, and states doing what they want, whether is follows federal law or not. I'm all for laws to protect people, what I'm opposed to is federal law makers wanting to impose a law for registration of drones, and not wanting to regulate anything that's not in the news. I guess it all comes down to politicians. They want to fight for anything, as long as its gonna be on TV.

 

[480sparky]

If flying a drone over people is 'reckless endangerment', then so is driving a car on a public road.

So everyone who is playing the reckless endangerment card needs to give up driving on public roads.

 

[buford]

He can't. And who would enforce stupid laws?? Stupid people!!

Its simple. Don't fly your drone over a parade. If you do, you're stupid.

 

[buford]

If flying a drone over people is 'reckless endangerment', then so is driving a car on a public road.

So everyone who is playing the reckless endangerment card needs to give up driving on public roads.

Not a relevant argument.

 

[Andy Collins]

There isn't a 'law' against dropping a 500 lb rock from the top of a building,,but guess what, its against the law if it endangers someone. You can't have a specific law for every specific situation, or they would never stop wrtting laws.

Wreckless Endangerment is how things no one ever though of are handled, if you do it, and it endangers others, yes, you can be arrested, charged and convicted of wreckless endangerment,,it doesn't matter if your flying a drone, throwing a rock, or shooting a water cannon,,,,if you endanger the life of others, you can and should be arrested

 

[kirk2579]

If the FAA thinks the operator was flying careless and reckless, then the FAA can charge him with violating 91.13. That would be the appropriate enforcement. If the city doesn't like his flying then the FAA asks them to collect evidence and refer the issue to the FAA enforcement division. It is not up to the city to decide, you're stupid so we will arrest you.

You DO NOT want thousands of towns and cities to have their own, often different rules regulating flight. If it's airborne, it's in the FAA's jurisdiction. No one else.

I agree on the proliferation of laws locally.

Just the past few months A small Village "outlawed" drone flights in the Village, from the village , over the village etc.
BTW, I live about 1 mile to town center, cant wait for my new P3 to get here at Christmas.

A local school board Outlawed the use of drones on property or OVER it.....
Others followed in some way or another with regulations..

Its funny though, another school board in a more progressive area bought several P3's and actually run a class on use and video editing etc.

But local rules need to go away as it doesn't help anything, I set of rules that fit everyone everywhere.
That way we know, the authorities know, what is or is not OK to fly!

I look at it in OHIO we had hundreds and hundreds of local laws, ordinances, rules etc. for firearms and carry for years and years. No one knew what was what half the time.
About 10 years back the state took back complete control of firearm laws, invalidating EVERY local law.

Now one set of rules are listed for EVERYONE in the state and it is the same set of rules EVERYWHERE in the state.
So much easier for everyone that way and it works just fine.....

 

[NEair]

I'm sure the balloons or rather the people in charge of the balloons got permits to be in the parade so that would eliminate them from enforcement of that code. Thats the funny thing about public events; if you get permission its ok but if you don't you can get in trouble. The argument of the mere act of flying over someone is an act of reckless endangerment is interesting. If that were the case why does the FAA guideline say not to fly over "non-participating" people and not just not to fly over people? In this particular case if he was flying over just the people in the parade, i.e. the people participating in the parade not the spectators, would he still be flying reckless? Im not advocating endangering people, just playing devils advocate on the topic.