Come on man. In any case the trier of facts is going to look at mitigation, what did the defendant (alleged professional) do towards mitigating the risk (a well known risk of 4-rotor craft) of the UAV failing and dropping on a person's head. That is why the FAA tells you don't do it. I am not a lawyer but I play one on forums.Believe what?
I pay my lawyers good money, and if I'm covered for flying over people by my insurance, and have a waiver to do it based on insurance, pilot skill, and any other risk mitigation factors I wrote into the waiver. How could I be held responsible for a mechanical failure that, especially with DJI hardware, will most likely fall on a defect?
I'm not trying to argue, nor am I specifically talking about the dude...Come on man. In any case the trier of facts is going to look at mitigation, what did the defendant (alleged professional) do towards mitigating the risk (a well known risk of 4-rotor craft) of the UAV failing and dropping on a person's head. That is why the FAA tells you don't do it. I am not a lawyer but I play one on forums.Just my 2 cents, done with this thread.
I'm not trying to argue, nor am I specifically talking about the dude...
I'm referencing a situation that happens all the time, news choppers for instance. They have insurance and maintenance records etc...
And my lawyer doesn't play a lawyer, although I am shopping for someone to remotely advise us that deals specifically with aircraft and UAS.
1. Octocopters
2. Am I wrong in being able to waive that section with proper risk management?
3. See #1
4. Waiver?
Wild west.... yeah, ain't that the truth
Very true when it comes to this guy...This has nothing to do with drones, 333, or 107, and everything to do with reckless endangerment.
You can commit the crime of reckless endangerment with a lawnmower, bicycle, baseball, hockey stick, rc anything, your car, motorcycle, etc. The charge of Reckless Endangerment he was found guilty of has been around many years (before drones were even thought about).
Posting an article from 2015 is FAKE NEWS. (look up the word "news").
example - My Flipbook app keeps showing this article as if it just happened, I almost killed someone with a drone (date ?? Nov 13 2014). Face palm is earned here.
Real news would be that 4 small aircraft crash into neighborhoods per day in the US.
This has nothing to do with drones, 333, or 107, and everything to do with reckless endangerment.
You can commit the crime of reckless endangerment with a lawnmower, bicycle, baseball, hockey stick, rc anything, your car, motorcycle, etc. The charge of Reckless Endangerment he was found guilty of has been around many years (before drones were even thought about).
Posting an article from 2015 is FAKE NEWS. (look up the word "news").
example - My Flipbook app keeps showing this article everyday, (as if it just happened), I almost killed someone with a drone (date ?? Nov 13 2014). Face palm is earned here.
Real news would be that 4 small aircraft crash into neighborhoods per day in the US.
[emoji23] hahahaha"Posting an article from 2015 is FAKE NEWS. (look up the word "news")."
1937? Must be fake news...View attachment 12558
Yes, I was trying to discuss the implications of running that operation properly...Well if you change the basic premise then the facts are no longer applicable. The OP was about the Seattle dumbass with a quad Yes, anything in 107 is subject to waiver.
As far as I know Skinner didn't have a part 107 waiver.
§ 107.39 Operation over human beings. No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is:
(a) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft; or
(b) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.
Performance-Based Standards
1. Applicant must provide a method such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground.
2. Applicant must mitigate risk to non-participants through an operational risk assessment, testing, and data, addressing design features, operational limitations, or a combination thereof specific to the operation.
3. Applicant must address the risk from exposure to rotating parts and sharp edges which could injure a non-participating person. 4. Applicant must show the pilot in command, or person manipulating the controls, have adequate knowledge, experience, and ability to safely operate an unmanned aircraft over non-participating persons including recent flight experience within last 30 days.
Very true when it comes to this guy...
My issue is, even flying next to people as per the law, it could still lead to this very situation... although, then the intent to be reckless goes away and it firmly lands in "accident" territory.
see ya, miss ya. I reply to the post any manner I see fit. Don't like it, don't read it. I do not "keep forcing their opinion on you relentlessly" If the individual changes the premise then I reply with different information. Do you know how to ignore posters? If not I can show you. otherwise leave the policing to the editor...Licensed pilot, I have been looking at this site for quite some time now.
I understand that it is your moniker to keep forcing your opinion on everyone here, over and over, and over again. Most folks post their opinion once in a thread, but you will post the same argument 6-7-8 times in one thread. It is tiring to have someone keep forcing their opinion on you relentlessly, so a smart individual will leave the thread, as I will now.
When I get home from work and I turn on the "News", I want to hear what's "New", (not what's old).
See ya
lastly - this individual did not get busted for breaking ANY drone laws or rules, he got busted for "reckless endangerment". Live with it
I regularly work, as a freelance camera person, for the major broadcast networks and they all have stringent policies in place for drone use. This includes licensing and liability insurance.Needless to say this wasn't a professional drone operation, although the guy calls himself an aerial photographer. If he was a licensed pilot he would most definitely call himself a pilot! Too many photo and video enthousiasts make the jump into our airspaces without realising that they are actually piloting an aircraft, even if it's just a small 2 pound toy. Crashing down from 100m it can still kill.
Flying over uncontrolled crowds, with a non redundant quadcopter (like in this case a Phantom2 with Gopro probably), and without commercial operator license (the article isn't clear if he had, part 107 didn't exist in 2015 anyway), as well as proper Aviation Authorities approved safety procedures and exemptions, is a real crime.
We have television networks working with amateurs just like that. I think they should go after the ones who hired him and set an example for the world to see.
That's why I am certain that he wasn't operating for NBCI regularly work, as a freelance camera person, for the major broadcast networks and they all have stringent policies in place for drone use. This includes licensing and liability insurance.
I know NBC News camera staffers received multi-day training from professionals and all have FAA Remote Pilot licenses. My biggest problem is getting them to ok a flight as they're quite paranoid about using them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?