Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
May 02, 2014, 04:28 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Discussion

FAA seek $2200 fine from New York DJI Phantom pilot




You might remeber the Phantom that hit several buildings and fell to the ground in central New York last year. The FAA are after him and sUAS News is happy to have the scoop!

We have a copy of the letter

A little bit more but not much here http://www.suasnews.com/2014/05/28920/faa-seeks-2200-fine-from-dji-phantom-pilot/
Last edited by Gary Mortimer; May 02, 2014 at 04:43 PM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
May 02, 2014, 04:35 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Boy howdy I though balcony barnstorming was all the rage?
May 02, 2014, 04:45 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
This case is against somebody using it as a model aircraft so the AMA will have to get involved no doubt. It's not commercial use this time.
May 02, 2014, 05:09 PM
VP of Policy & Legal at DJI
bmschulman's Avatar
Read carefully, it asserts a violation for failing to obtain ATC clearance in Class B airspace. That imperils dozens if not hundreds of AMA fields not to mention the casual park flyers who happen to be near major airports.
May 02, 2014, 05:25 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Yes I did notice that, Patrick knows best but I think for a while the DHS wanted all AMA fields in CAS to be closed.

Now do you think the smaller fine makes it harder to fight in court, by that I mean it might cost way more than that to fight so rather just pay the fine and I presume pick up a criminal record at the same time??
May 02, 2014, 05:29 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman
Read carefully, it asserts a violation for failing to obtain ATC clearance in Class B airspace. That imperils dozens if not hundreds of AMA fields not to mention the casual park flyers who happen to be near major airports.
It also notes operation that endangered the NAS and operating BLOS. Section 336 carved out an exception for FAA to go after reckless operation, which is essentially what I see them doing here.

I know FAA has commented on this already and their position is that while what he did may have lacked good judgement it did not rise to the point of being in violation of any rules.

Sadly, it is precisely this kind of @$$#@t guy that is going to make it tough on the rest of us.

Oh, I will not be shocked if the coming NPRM makes operation in Class B airspace a lot more difficult to do. Established model flying sites may be the only exception since they are static and predictable to some extent. They may have let the cat out of the bag here on this. "Spoiler Alert"!!

Interesting that they called it an "aircraft" and not a "model airplane".
May 02, 2014, 05:41 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
All US based pilots would do well to start looking at sites like SkyVector and learning how to read aviation sectional charts, especially if you live in a large city with a Class B airspace airport.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.80793633...chart=24&zoom=

BTW, as far as established model fields go, I know of very few, if any, that are within Class B airspace. Several are located under it, but I'm not sure how many are actually located in it. Here in SOCAL and AZ I do not know of any.
May 02, 2014, 05:54 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer
This case is against somebody using it as a model aircraft so the AMA will have to get involved no doubt. It's not commercial use this time.
It's not Los so not model aircraft

AMA has nothing to do with this case

AMA only has jurisdiction on AMA sanction fields
Or should I say flown from AMA sanctioned field
May 02, 2014, 05:56 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
All US based pilots would do well to start looking at sites like SkyVector and learning how to read aviation sectional charts, especially if you live in a large city with a Class B airspace airport.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.80793633...chart=24&zoom=

BTW, as far as established model fields go, I know of very few, if any, that are within Class B airspace. Several are located under it, but I'm not sure how many are actually located in it. Here in SOCAL and AZ I do not know of any.
FAA only can do something if they have a video or proof of a reckless flight

It's the people who do stupid things that get into trouble
May 02, 2014, 06:05 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by David22
AMA only has jurisdiction on AMA sanction fields
Or should I say flown from AMA sanctioned field
This is not strictly correct. FIrst, there is no such thing as an "AMA sanctioned field." AMA charters clubs, which may, or may not have a flying site. Those that do can get a certificate of insurance for the site owner for an additional charge is the land owner wants one. That is the only involvement that AMA has with a club flying site. They do not approve, inspect, sanction or in any other way grant any status on a club flying site.

AMA does have suggested field guidelines, but they are just that, guidelines and not requirements.

Beyond that, AMA does have some "jurisdiction" anywhere an AMA member operates since members are required to fly in accordance with the AMA Safety Code no matter where they happen to be flying.

It is also not known, but doubtful, that the NYC fellow is an AMA member.
May 02, 2014, 06:07 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by David22
FAA only can do something if they have a video or proof of a reckless flight

It's the people who do stupid things that get into trouble
Given the proclivity of many of us to post anything and everything we do on YouTube I think the FAA will not be hard pressed to obtain evidence of what they may see as improper operation.
May 02, 2014, 06:09 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer
Yes I did notice that, Patrick knows best but I think for a while the DHS wanted all AMA fields in CAS to be closed.
Never heard that one before. I'll be seeing Rich Hanson from AMA next week and I am anxious to get his take on the rapidly changing environment both we hobbyists and others are trying to operate in.
May 02, 2014, 06:16 PM
Suspended Account
Oh I thought as an example at an AMA field fpv had to be done Los
As example
I thought this was a strict rule at AMA fields

In order for insurance purposes

I thought it was forbidden to fly out of Los at all AMA fields

This guy who fly from balcony obviously deserves big fine
May 02, 2014, 06:20 PM
Registered User
Deadstick 8409's Avatar
IIRC, this was not an FPV flight. From what I gathered it is simply someone who flew their "toy" helicopter that got away from him, and consequently lost control. Seems like severe overreach from the FAA, this was not navigable airspace, even if, technically, it was in class B.
A good law dog should be able to throw long with this. LOL, they called his phantom an "aircraft". I really hope they get their buts kicked again on this one.
May 02, 2014, 06:20 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
This is not strictly correct. FIrst, there is no such thing as an "AMA sanctioned field." AMA charters clubs, which may, or may not have a flying site. Those that do can get a certificate of insurance for the site owner for an additional charge is the land owner wants one. That is the only involvement that AMA has with a club flying site. They do not approve, inspect, sanction or in any other way grant any status on a club flying site.

AMA does have suggested field guidelines, but they are just that, guidelines and not requirements.

Beyond that, AMA does have some "jurisdiction" anywhere an AMA member operates since members are required to fly in accordance with the AMA Safety Code no matter where they happen to be flying.

It is also not known, but doubtful, that the NYC fellow is an AMA member.

Here ya go
AMA or no AMA fpv must be line of sight to be model aircraft
Last edited by David22; Sep 27, 2014 at 09:07 AM.