FAA list of fines against UAS operators

licensed pilot · Jun 6, 2016

The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined

Joola · Jun 6, 2016

It seems like they're only fining people for reckless endangerment or flying in restricted airspace. This list will likely embolden those who believe you do not actually need a 333 Exemption to operate commercially in the US.

licensed pilot · Jun 6, 2016

Joola said:
It seems like they're only fining people for reckless endangerment or flying in restricted airspace. This list will likely embolden those who believe you do not actually need a 333 Exemption to operate commercially in the US.

Perhaps, but there's always a first time...

RaptorMan · Jun 7, 2016

My take-away ... don't fly over a stadium even if no ones there but particularly if it's crowded. And don't fly anywhere near DC.

Brian

SultanGris · Jun 8, 2016

Joola said:
It seems like they're only fining people for reckless endangerment or flying in restricted airspace. This list will likely embolden those who believe you do not actually need a 333 Exemption to operate commercially in the US.

That's because the fact is that you do not actually need a 333 exemption to fly a uav commercially, it's not legally enforceable and that's why they aren't charging anyone with that. They tried early on and lost in court so they no longer do so. Those rules apply to full size aircraft only, they don't legally apply to uavs and reckless endangerment is the only thing they can charge you as far as flying a uav is concerned.

licensed pilot · Jun 8, 2016

SultanGris said:
That's because the fact is that you do not actually need a 333 exemption to fly a uav commercially, it's not legally enforceable and that's why they aren't charging anyone with that. They tried early on and lost in court so they no longer do so. Those rules apply to full size aircraft only, they don't legally apply to uavs and reckless endangerment is the only thing they can charge you as far as flying a uav is concerned.

Careful with the bad advice; there are young impressionable minds reading this forum. The only case I am aware of is Pirkle
The Commercial Drone Pilot Who Ruined the FAA's 2014 Has Settled His Case

And he really didn't "win" anything, he settled for a lower fine after spending probably thousands of $$ in lawyer fees. The FAA's "loss" was only to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, The FAA's appeal to the full National Transportation Safety Board ruled in the FAA's favor. An appeals board has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has wide latitude to make all drone flights illegal in the United States.
All I'm saying is if we are going to post advice that may get others in trouble we have to provide all the facts. The feds can still make our lives miserable with civil fines.

EMCSQUAR · Jun 8, 2016

From the same source as OP - Is Flying a Drone Illegal? A Comprehensive Guide to America’s Drone Laws

licensed pilot · Jun 8, 2016

EMCSQUAR said:
From the same source as OP - Is Flying a Drone Illegal? A Comprehensive Guide to America’s Drone Laws

Very good discussion. However, the bottom line the author never touched on is the very clear difference between "legality" (criminal sanctions) and "civil" (fines). The feds have enough rules behind them and enough lawyers to financially ruin any small operator going against them and keep you in court for years...If you are going to fly commercially w/o a 333 keep a low profile.

Figbar · Jun 8, 2016

I was just called in to meet with the FAA...I was doing "free" aerial video for clients as an added value to ongoing productions. I was told that this falls under commercial use of drones and that I should have the .333.

However, the FAA rep. told me point blank that this .333 is no longer going to be required and will be replaced by Part 107 which will be coming "soon." Part 107 will not require a pilot's license. I'm sure everyone knows this.

So why waste time getting all bent out of shape about this .333 waiver when it will no longer be required to make a few bucks?

licensed pilot · Jun 8, 2016

The FAA told me the only thing part 107 will change is pilot license no longer required for commercial operations; part 107 will not replace 333.
Go figure...

RaptorMan · Jun 8, 2016

Yeah, the need for a pilots license was only ever a stop-gap until the FAA had a better handle on the situation. By instituting the 333 provision they permitted people to fly drones commercially and to have a reasonable confidence that the 333 pilots would know the rules pretty well AND have some skin in it if they screwed up. Whatever replaces the 333 provision will need to accomplish a couple things:

1. Some way to make sure the pilot has minimum skill and knowledge of the rules

2. Some way to provide the "stick" if they screw up

With licensed pilots with the 333 the FAA could suspend or revoke the pilots license and that was/is a pretty effective stick. Going forward with a part 107 or whatever it becomes my guess is the stick will be some combination of revocation of flight permission and fines -- big fines!

Brian

Steve@AerialImagesPro · Jun 11, 2016

licensed pilot said:
Careful with the bad advice; there are young impressionable minds reading this forum. The only case I am aware of is Pirkle
The Commercial Drone Pilot Who Ruined the FAA's 2014 Has Settled His Case

And he really didn't "win" anything, he settled for a lower fine after spending probably thousands of $$ in lawyer fees. The FAA's "loss" was only to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, The FAA's appeal to the full National Transportation Safety Board ruled in the FAA's favor. An appeals board has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has wide latitude to make all drone flights illegal in the United States.
All I'm saying is if we are going to post advice that may get others in trouble we have to provide all the facts. The feds can still make our lives miserable with civil fines.

Keep in mind also, that if you're doing a commercial shoot and someone gets injured and you don't have a 333, you can expect a hefty lawsuit with no chance of winning.

Ted Belden · Jun 11, 2016

I don't believe that Part 107 eliminates the need for a Section 333 exemption. 333 exempts you from certain requirements that apply to larger manned aircraft. So to operate commercially you'll still need to request those exemptions. Part 107 does remove some of the stipulations that are currently required to get a 333 exemption.

licensed pilot · Jun 11, 2016

You be right. Somewhere someone started the rumor that 107 does away with 333, it does not. It only does away with the manned a/c pilot certificate requirement. Not applying for a 333 while waiting for the 107 is a mistake and an unnecessary delay for anyone wanting to fly commercially.

Boycie702 · Jun 12, 2016

107 will probably just do away with some of the b/s paperwork that we all have to do in order to operate these things legally. For example it is pointless that 5000 people have to petition that they cannot "display the certificate of airworthiness in the cockpit", put a 12" tall N-Number on the side of a 6 inch tall platform, or carry 30 mins VFR diversion fuel.

Apparently 333 takes over 7 months these days. The system is broken.

licensed pilot · Jun 12, 2016

"The system is broken" Only the feds would disagree with this statement.

SultanGris · Jun 13, 2016

licensed pilot said:
Careful with the bad advice; there are young impressionable minds reading this forum. The only case I am aware of is Pirkle
The Commercial Drone Pilot Who Ruined the FAA's 2014 Has Settled His Case

And he really didn't "win" anything, he settled for a lower fine after spending probably thousands of $$ in lawyer fees. The FAA's "loss" was only to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, The FAA's appeal to the full National Transportation Safety Board ruled in the FAA's favor. An appeals board has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has wide latitude to make all drone flights illegal in the United States.
All I'm saying is if we are going to post advice that may get others in trouble we have to provide all the facts. The feds can still make our lives miserable with civil fines.

I think you'll notice I pointed out that you can be charged with reckless endangerment if you don't fly safely.

licensed pilot · Jun 13, 2016

SultanGris said:
I think you'll notice I pointed out that you can be charged with reckless endangerment if you don't fly safely.

The only thing I saw was your openly encouraging others to ignore FAA rules...(while encouraging safe flying) A bit of a dichotomy?

SultanGris · Jun 13, 2016

licensed pilot said:
The only thing I saw was your openly encouraging others to ignore FAA rules...(while encouraging safe flying) A bit of a dichotomy?

I was pointing just pointing out that the pilots license requirement as well as their other recommendations such as staying under 400 ft aren't enforceable and there's no reason to get one, I never encouraged or endorsed flying unsafely. You should always fly safe and be mindful of your surroundings. Use common sense, for example I wouldn't fly at 1200 feet 2 miles away fpv but you can safely fly that high if you have a wide open area with no other air traffic where you know there are no aircraft and can see for miles in all directions in case one comes along.

licensed pilot · Jun 13, 2016

SultanGris said:
I was pointing just pointing out that the pilots license requirement as well as their other recommendations such as staying under 400 ft aren't enforceable and there's no reason to get one, I never encouraged or endorsed flying unsafely. You should always fly safe and be mindful of your surroundings. Use common sense, for example I wouldn't fly at 1200 feet 2 miles away fpv but you can safely fly that high if you have a wide open area with no other air traffic where you know there are no aircraft and can see for miles in all directions in case one comes along.

"you know there are no aircraft and can see for miles in all directions in case one comes along" Talk about misleading!!!
Do you carry a Doppler radar in your back pocket? Ever had an EMS chopper come charging out of "nowhere"?
Flying a UAV at 1,200 feet altitude, anywhere, without a transponder/ADS-B and high intensity strobe lights is irresponsible and criminal...