I also pointed out "recreational" because it makes a difference. When you are a commercial drone pilot, you agree to certain "regulations" in order to obtain your 107 license. At that point you agree to follow the rules or be punished.
Yes. And for the record, the Seattle flight at issue appears to have been for recreational not commercial purposes. However, as I noted before, the defendant’s employer had filed a 333 exemption request with the FAA before the accident describing a desire to perform aerial photography for hire. The trial judge admitted the 333 request into evidence over defense objection.
As far as reckless endangerment goes, it'll be interesting to see if the FAA guidelines are a factor considering they weren't enacted/presented, I believe, until after the accident.
Actually, I think the hobby guidelines have been in existence since 2012 when Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act which included “a special rule for model aircraft.”
Among other things, the special rule says that a model aircraft must be flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft and in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community based organization (like the AMA).
If you were charged with reckless endangerment for flying a hobby drone and chose to testify on your behalf, it would be very helpful for you to be able to say that you knew and followed the guidelines of the FAA and the AMA. In fact they could be your safe harbor.
You could walk in and tell the jury that you do not give a flying F through a doughnut what the FAA or AMA says or thinks because you do exactly as you wish. It just seems risky strategy if jail is on table.
Now, lets switch the facts. Lets say you were charged with reckless endangerment by drone and you exercised your right not to testify (which might be smart). Could the prosecution get those FAA guidelines admitted into evidence for the jury to consider with no explanatory testimony from a qualified expert? I do not yet know if that happened here but working on it.
BTW: Under WA reckless endangerment law, the prosecutor is not required to prove a particular law (or guideline) was broken. Just that the activity created a substantial risk of serious injury.
Considering that the Solo has had known problems, couldn't you be charged for flying it at all?
I know you have had your own challenges learning to operate solo and if you think its inherently dangerous, then don’t fly it. However, IMHO, anecdotal stories published on the internet not subject to cross-examination under oath do not come remotely close to proving any “known problem” sufficient to make this drone inherently dangerous for anyone to fly anywhere in the world as implied by your question.
If you do not read the manual and do not fully understand how the drone works before you fly, and your ignorance causes accident, then yes you could be charged with reckless endangerment.
In a negligence case, the prosecution has to prove you knew the outcome was probable.
Not exactly. Negligence means you acted carelessly causing forseeable risk of injury. Negligence is less serious than Reckless Endangerment which is acting in a manner that creates substantial risk of death or serious injury. Its one notch up from negligence but one notch below acting intentionally to cause harm.
My first unit flew away when it was only a couple hundred feet away from me total. Luckily it landed in a field less than a mile away. I was unaware of the unit's problems back then but I'm well aware now as so are all of you.
I know you have had your own challenges learning to operate solo and if you think its inherently dangerous, then don’t fly it. However, IMHO, anecdotal stories published on the internet not subject to cross-examination under oath do not come remotely close to proving everyone in the world has constructive knowledge of a dangerous defect.
Who knows what happened to your solo. My recollection is that your problems resolved when you gave it swift smack on butt. Some of the events described by others on this forum are hard for me to unravel.
The 3DR Solo has reliable built in fail safe mechanisms which greatly enhance safety. I have flown 4 different solos and never had RTH fail to operate correctly in event of disconnection of wireless signal.
Thanks?
Yes, thanks to you and all for the lively discussion.