What do you think of this drone/multi-rotor accident ? 30 days jail + 5K fine

Lon Denard · Apr 16, 2017

Whirlygig said:
FAA can cite any drone operator for reckless flying anywhere in the USA. FAA can seek to impose its own penalties on top of or in addition to any sought by state or local prosecutors for violation of state or local laws like trespass or reckless endangerment.

FAA has limited resources. It cannot know or pursue but a tiny fraction of potential cases. But, if you get in their sights for doing something very dangerous, they may pursue you or may simply decide to advise and assist state and local prosecutors bring the pain. The FAA has gone to great trouble to educate state and local LEO across the country how to investigate possible drone crimes including trespass and reckless endangerment. They have branch offices for this very purpose!

Of course, they're thinking there's money in it!

Mauiwind · Apr 16, 2017

it's simple: :do not fly in airspace where persons could be injured in the event of a an unexpected malfunction. duh..

Mauiwind · Apr 16, 2017

Hey,, as the pilot,, it doesn't matter what the aircraft does or doesn't do. It's about the pilot.

Mauiwind · Apr 16, 2017

I disagree,, the drone can be deadly. as such, reckless behavior can kill people. that's not OK.

Whirlygig · Apr 17, 2017

Here are some excerpts from the defendant's sentencing memorandum. I bolded what sounds like a variation of the Denard Drone Defense (DDD):

Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum (Excerpts)

The City does not contend defendant meant to cause harm - yet they ask the Court to impose 90 days in jail. The City knows defendant’s story of rehabilitation and hard work - yet they ask the Court to impose 90 days in jail. Why? And why would the City reject a reasonable agreement and instead force a lengthy and expensive trial? And pay thousands of dollars to fly in an expert witness? When the defendant is offering to pay restitution and be under a court order regarding his conduct? The answer is simple: the City is not concerned with the defendant, nor are they concerned with the actual conduct here. The City's sentencing recommendation is a political act, which has no place in a criminal sentencing. It is the last act in a series of political decisions, from charging, to rejecting a resolution, to issuing a press release after the verdict. The defense is asking this Court to sentence the actual conduct in this case, and the defendant who is before you.

A Deferred Sentence is Appropriate

The aims of sentencing can be accomplished through a deferred sentence. The mere fact of criminal prosecution is enough to deter other drone operators, and defendant has shown through his conduct that he was deterred by the event itself. There are no rehabilitative programs available in jail that will benefit defendant, or the community. It will just cost the citizens of Seattle thousands of more dollars on top of what has already been wasted in this case. The actions in this case are not in and of themselves criminal. The FAA does not criminalize flying a drone over people. The City of Seattle has no criminal penalty for flying a drone over people. The crime here is taking a risk. A risk that nobody can accurately quantify in this case, or any case involving a drone. It is an emerging technology. The jury concluded the defendant made a mistake in using that technology in a place where a malfunction could cause harm. It is not claimed that defendant tried a risky aerial maneuver, or flew the drone in some dangerous manner. lnstead, the expert testimony at trial regarding how this drone model can malfunction when it receives a "retum to home" command makes it very likely that is what happened in this case. And while that may appear to some people as being "reckless" for even flying the drone at that place and time, it is not something worthy of imprisonment for 90 days.

The defense respectfully requests that the Court impose a deferred sentence. The conditions of the sentence would be to remain crime free for a period of 24 months, pay a fine of
$500.00, and complete 80 hours of community service. The crime here was unintentional and without malice of any kind. It was an accident involving emerging technology that is prone to malfunction. Defendant’s personal rehabilitation and positive growth would be fostered by such a sentence, and it would recognize the unique facts, and unique offender, before the Court. The City's recommendation does neither, and instead continues a politically motivated effort to place defendant’s head on a stick at the City's gates -something not appropriate in any prosecution, but made even more inappropriate by the acts involved and the defendant's personal history.

The Court should be made aware that defendant reached an agreement to resolve this matter without a trial, but the elected prosecutor vetoed that agreement, forcing the lengthy and expensive jury trial.

Lon Denard · Apr 17, 2017

Whirlygig said:
Here are some excerpts from the defendant's sentencing memorandum. I bolded what sounds like a variation of the Denard Drone Defense (DDD):

Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum (Excerpts)

The City does not contend defendant meant to cause harm - yet they ask the Court to impose 90 days in jail. The City knows defendant’s story of rehabilitation and hard work - yet they ask the Court to impose 90 days in jail. Why? And why would the City reject a reasonable agreement and instead force a lengthy and expensive trial? And pay thousands of dollars to fly in an expert witness? When the defendant is offering to pay restitution and be under a court order regarding his conduct? The answer is simple: the City is not concerned with the defendant, nor are they concerned with the actual conduct here. The City's sentencing recommendation is a political act, which has no place in a criminal sentencing. It is the last act in a series of political decisions, from charging, to rejecting a resolution, to issuing a press release after the verdict. The defense is asking this Court to sentence the actual conduct in this case, and the defendant who is before you.

A Deferred Sentence is Appropriate

The aims of sentencing can be accomplished through a deferred sentence. The mere fact of criminal prosecution is enough to deter other drone operators, and defendant has shown through his conduct that he was deterred by the event itself. There are no rehabilitative programs available in jail that will benefit defendant, or the community. It will just cost the citizens of Seattle thousands of more dollars on top of what has already been wasted in this case. The actions in this case are not in and of themselves criminal. The FAA does not criminalize flying a drone over people. The City of Seattle has no criminal penalty for flying a drone over people. The crime here is taking a risk. A risk that nobody can accurately quantify in this case, or any case involving a drone. It is an emerging technology. The jury concluded the defendant made a mistake in using that technology in a place where a malfunction could cause harm. It is not claimed that defendant tried a risky aerial maneuver, or flew the drone in some dangerous manner. lnstead, the expert testimony at trial regarding how this drone model can malfunction when it receives a "retum to home" command makes it very likely that is what happened in this case. And while that may appear to some people as being "reckless" for even flying the drone at that place and time, it is not something worthy of imprisonment for 90 days.

The defense respectfully requests that the Court impose a deferred sentence. The conditions of the sentence would be to remain crime free for a period of 24 months, pay a fine of
$500.00, and complete 80 hours of community service. The crime here was unintentional and without malice of any kind. It was an accident involving emerging technology that is prone to malfunction. Defendant’s personal rehabilitation and positive growth would be fostered by such a sentence, and it would recognize the unique facts, and unique offender, before the Court. The City's recommendation does neither, and instead continues a politically motivated effort to place defendant’s head on a stick at the City's gates -something not appropriate in any prosecution, but made even more inappropriate by the acts involved and the defendant's personal history.

The Court should be made aware that defendant reached an agreement to resolve this matter without a trial, but the elected prosecutor vetoed that agreement, forcing the lengthy and expensive jury trial.

Hahaha! I don't know if it qualifies as a "defense" but it does point out what I said about the "criminality" of ignoring the FAA's guidelines as a hobbyist. Guidelines, regulations and laws are not the same thing people.

Whirlygig · Apr 17, 2017

Lon Denard said:
...Guidelines, regulations and laws are not the same thing people.

True. But the "guidelines" may be admitted into evidence at civil or criminal trial (with the right expert) to help prove negligence or recklessness which puts us back in the donut hole.

519 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1975)

MUNCIE AVIATION CORPORATION v. PARTY DOLL FLEET, INC

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Abbreviated Summary

The primary issue this appeal presents is whether advisory materials not having the force and effect of law but published by a governmental agency, are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, when such materials are relevant to the issue of negligence and are otherwise trustworthy. We hold that they are admissible and affirm the judgment below.

This case arose out of a collision between Muncie Aviation Corporation's Piper Seneca aircraft and Party Doll Fleet's Cessna 310-J aircraft on March 1, 1972, at the Cartersville-Barstow County Airport in Georgia. Muncie sued for damages to its aircraft, alleging negligence by Party Doll's pilot in failing to follow the standard landing traffic pattern procedures at an uncontrolled airport, and in failing to familiarize himself before the flight with advisory materials issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The defendant objected to the introduction of the circulars, contending that they were merely opinions of the writers, and had not been consulted by the defendant's pilot. The trial court, conceding that the circulars were without the force or effect of law, admitted the publications, as well as testimony of their contents, as evidence of practices customarily followed by pilots at uncontrolled airports and thus, relevant to establish the standard of care in determining negligence.

At no time did the court instruct the jury that either the circulars themselves or the inference of custom derived from their contents and the testimony relating to them was dispositive of the applicable standard of care. Rather, they were admitted to provide the jury with guidelines for determining what procedures were followed by pilots in the ordinary course of such landings and to assist the jury in measuring ordinary negligence.

The relevance of the circulars to the issues of negligence is manifest. Evidence of custom within a particular industry, group, or organization is admissible as bearing on the standard of care in determining negligence. Compliance or noncompliance with such custom, though not conclusive on the issue of negligence, is one of the factors the trier of fact may consider in applying the standard of care.

Lon, I'm trying to throw you a life preserver but we are taking on water...

Lon Denard · Apr 17, 2017

I'm not sure how I'm "sinking"? I've always maintained that prosecutors, courts-both criminal and civil, judges, government agencies, etc can and do use guidelines to make their cases. I've also always maintained that if there is property damage or injury all bets are off. In the case of the plane collision you posted, if there hadn't been the actual crash, there wouldn't have been any consequences to the pilot's actions because they were guidelines. Guidelines are not actionable by themselves as many here have contended. If I fly my drone at 500 feet nothing is going to happen. If I fly my drone at 500 feet and I run into a helicopter....

One of the DMV's main driving guidelines is to use both hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel. There is no law that I'm aware of that requires this, so you can't be cited for not doing it. However, if you get into an accident and they can prove that you weren't using both hands as suggested by the DMV, Dept of Transportation, etc you could be charged with reckless endangerment. Right?

All I've ever said and all I'll ever say is that there is a clear and defined difference between guidelines, regulations and laws. Period. You can make up any possible scenario that you wish. You can show how guidelines were used in a case by the prosecution. The guys on here can repeat and repeat how you're going to get into trouble if you don't follow the guidelines as much as they want. It still won't change the simple fact that guidelines are not laws. There is no criminality attached to them. They are not actionable by themselves.

Whirlygig · Apr 17, 2017

Best check your own state law. Vermont passed law in 2016 which reads in part:

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

Sec. 1. 18 V.S.A. chapter 42B is added to read (excerpt):

§ 4623. USE OF DRONES; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(a) Any use of drones by any person, including a law enforcement agency, shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration requirements and guidelines.

(b) It is the intent of the General Assembly that any person who uses a model aircraft as defined in the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 shall operate the aircraft according to the guidelines of community-based organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code.

Is that not the DDD's final denouement?

Lon Denard · Apr 17, 2017

Whirlygig said:
Best check your own state law. Vermont passed law in 2016 which reads in part:

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

Sec. 1. 18 V.S.A. chapter 42B is added to read (excerpt):

§ 4623. USE OF DRONES; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(a) Any use of drones by any person, including a law enforcement agency, shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration requirements and guidelines.

(b) It is the intent of the General Assembly that any person who uses a model aircraft as defined in the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 shall operate the aircraft according to the guidelines of community-based organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code.

Is that not the DDD's final denouement?

It's not that I don't realize that you're no longer trying you have an intelligent conversation with me but are just trying to provoke a response. If I thought you were stupid, I'd accept this post as as legitimate attempt at a counter argument but as you know full well. FAA guidelines are not actionable, a law based on FAA guidelines is. In Vermont, if you are caught flying a drone within 5 miles of an airport you will face a penalty. In Vermont, if you are caught flying over a crowd you will face a penalty. In Vermont, if you are caught flying over 400 feet from the ground, or whatever gay rule some model airplane club makes up, you will face a penalty. Although, that second part clearly states "model aircraft" and you all are adamant that the Solo is an actual aircraft based on FAA guidelines and not a model or a toy.

pyrate · Apr 17, 2017

agree local laws are popping up
but I contend. These things can be flown safely and the risk of injury or damage can be mitigated to a acceptable level.

Keep your gear maintained
Know the limits of that gear, flying downtown between buildings is going to degrade performance
Know your limits, if something goes wrong can you fly your craft manually or know how to ditch it safely
Create best environment, shoot when few or no people are around. (morning light is great)
Make sure everyone that has to be in the area knows what to do if something goes wrong

Chances are if you plan and get your shot and get out, you will be gone before anyone has time to get upset
If no one gets hurt or no damage is done you most likely will never have an issue

Yes occasionally over zealous Law enforcement can be a problem, cooperate and have your day in court.

David Boulanger · Apr 18, 2017

Love the early morning. 7:30 - 9:30.

Whirlygig · Apr 20, 2017

Lon Denard said:
...In Vermont, if you are caught flying a drone within 5 miles of an airport you will face a penalty. In Vermont, if you are caught flying over a crowd you will face a penalty. In Vermont, if you are caught flying over 400 feet from the ground, or whatever gay rule some model airplane club makes up, you will face a penalty. Although, that second part clearly states "model aircraft" and you all are adamant that the Solo is an actual aircraft based on FAA guidelines and not a model or a toy.

Whirlygig · Apr 20, 2017

New Michigan statute says recreational drone must be operated in a manner consistent with federal law governing model aircraft. Interesting variation on a theme. Not as exacting language as Vermont's law. However, as a practical matter, Im not sure there is much difference.

Whirlygig · Apr 20, 2017

The sentence in this case was not just 30 days in jail and $500 fine. The sentence was actually one year with 11 months suspended and $5000 fine with 4500 suspended for two years. This means that if guy does anything wrong in the next two years, the court could order him to serve another 11 months. For sake of comparison, here is video of an intentional assault at Seattle Gay Pride Parade. Assailant had 23 or so prior criminal convictions. All charges were dismissed within four days. City prosecutor could not be bothered.

Lon Denard · Apr 21, 2017

Whirlygig said:
New Michigan statute says recreational drone must be operated in a manner consistent with federal law governing model aircraft. Interesting variation on a theme. Not as exacting language as Vermont's law. However, as a practical matter, Im not sure there is much difference.
View attachment 6027

Again, I realize that you're just trying to get my goat or whatever... It clearly states "law", the only federal law that recreational uav pilots must obey is the registration law. Everything else is a "guideline". I can't explain my position any clearer.

Mauiwind · Apr 21, 2017

A few months ago, there was a Hawaii State Senate hearing on a proposed law to keep UAVs (drones) above 200' over residential areas. I pointed out that airspace over The United States is the exclusive purview of the Federal Government via the FAA. The bill died right there.

States, municipalities, etc. have no business whatsoever, legislating control over the Federal airspace.

If the State wants to assist in enforcing the Feds airspace rules, they certainly can assist, but they would be challenged in court (and lose) if they tried to control the airspace. It's not theirs to control.

If anyone is interested, i can give you the URLs to the bill and subsequent testimony.

Whirlygig · Apr 22, 2017

Mauiwind said:
A few months ago, there was a Hawaii State Senate hearing on a proposed law to keep UAVs (drones) above 200' over residential areas. I pointed out that airspace over The United States is the exclusive purview of the Federal Government via the FAA. The bill died right there.

States, municipalities, etc. have no business whatsoever, legislating control over the Federal airspace.

If the State wants to assist in enforcing the Feds airspace rules, they certainly can assist, but they would be challenged in court (and lose) if they tried to control the airspace. It's not theirs to control.

If anyone is interested, i can give you the URLs to the bill and subsequent testimony.

Nicely done and inspirational too! Might have to try to do the same one day. This federal preemption argument has big, strong legs!

Whirlygig · Apr 23, 2017

Here are the instructions given to the jury explaining the burden of proof and the crime of reckless endangerment. As you can see, the prosecution has to prove more than defendant was negligent or careless.

Lon Denard · Apr 23, 2017

Whirlygig said:
Here are the instructions given to the jury explaining the burden of proof and the crime of reckless endangerment. As you can see, the prosecution has to prove more than defendant was negligent or careless.

So they have to prove that he knew that someone could be killed or incur extensive bodily harm? You'd think that would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt considering, to my knowledge, no one has ever died from a toy/hobby/recreational drone crash.