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

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.

Yes, that is just what I was thinking. My hunch is the prosecutor's expert was big factor. He has very impressive resume and probably told jury this was very reckless and dangerous. Hard to overcome if the defendant does not testify and explain what he was thinking and doing.
 
You'd like to imagine that the millions of incident free flights should be of some defense.
 
Here is another question for the professor: If a 107 pilot crashed his drone into someone leaving cut on forehead that required bandage but no stitch and resulted in no loss of consciousness and no hospitalization would he be under any duty to even report the incident to the FAA?
 
Last edited:
Here is another question for the professor: If a 107 pilot crashed his drone into someone leaving cut on forehead that required bandage but but no stitch and resulted in no loss of consciousness and no hospitalization would he be under any duty to even report the incident to the FAA?

I'm not one of these "commercial pilot" guys but I'm OSHA 30 certified and have been involved in several investigations in my time. The short answer is probably yes considering the way the federal govt likes to do things. The more reports the better is their moto. If the question is would I report it? Believe it or not, I would. There is nothing that looks worse to federal officials than a non reported incident that gets reported another way. Your best plan of action is to bite the bullet.

Besides, you've read it, isn't there an incident report clause?
 
...Besides, you've read it, isn't there an incident report clause?

Yes. This is from FAA Analysis of Public Comments:

The FAA agrees with commenters who suggested that injuries and property damage falling below certain thresholds should not be reportable…In determining the threshold at which to set injury reporting, the FAA agrees with commenters who suggested that the threshold should generally be set at serious injury. A serious injury is an injury that qualifies as Level 3 or higher on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

The AIS is an anatomical scoring system that provides a means of ranking the severity of an injury and is widely used by emergency medical personnel. Within the AIS system, injuries are ranked on a scale of 1 to 6, with Level 1 being a minor injury, Level 2 moderate, Level 3 serious, Level 4 severe, Level 5 critical, and Level 6 a non-survivable injury. An AIS Level 3 injury is one that is reversible but usually involves overnight hospitalization.
AIS Severity Levels


AIS Level

Severity
Type of injury
1
Minor
Superficial.


2
Moderate
Reversible injury; medical attention required.


3
Serious
Reversible injury; hospitalization required.


4
Severe
Life threatening; not fully recoverable without medical care.


5
Critical; Non-reversible injury; unrecoverable even with medical care.


6

Virtually Un-Survivable, Fatal.

The FAA currently uses serious injury (AIS Level 3) as an injury threshold in other FAA regulations. DOT and FAA guidance also express a preference for AIS methodology in classifying injuries for the purpose of evaluating the costs and benefits of FAA regulations. Additionally, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses AIS level 3 injuries as the metric evaluating the effectiveness of occupant safety measures for automobiles  and for estimating the costs associated with automobile accidents. The FAA has significant operational experience administering the serious-injury threshold and because the AIS Level 3 standard is widely used and understood, it is the appropriate injury threshold to use in this rule.

In addition to serious injuries, this rule will also require accident reporting for accidents that result in any loss of consciousness because a brief loss of consciousness may not rise to the level of a serious injury. However, the confined-area-of-operation regulations discussed in section III.E.3 of this preamble, such as the general prohibition on flight over people, are designed with the express purpose of preventing accidents in which a small unmanned aircraft hits a person on the head and causes them to lose consciousness or worse. Thus, if there is a loss of consciousness resulting from a small UAS operation, there may be a higher probability of a regulatory violation.
 
Here is condensed version of the prosecution expert's resume:

GREGORY S. MCNEAL, JD/PhD Professor of Law and Public Policy Pepperdine University Malibu CA

ASTM International, Committee F38 on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (2015 – Present), Voting member of the multinational committee that addresses issues related to design, performance, quality acceptance tests, and safety monitoring for unmanned air vehicle systems.

Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Rulemaking Committee Member • Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Registration Task Force (November 2014) • Performance Standards and Requirements for Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems (March 2015)

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (2015 – Present) • Advocacy and Technical Advisory Committee member Humanitarian UAV Network/WeRobotics (July 2015 – Present) Board Member Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force (May 2014 – Present) • Academic member, contributing on matters related to cybersecurity, search & seizure, computer crime. University of Texas, Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law Senior Fellow (May 2015 – Present)

BOOKS AND BOOKS IN PROGRESS Unmanned Aircraft Law and Policy (West Academic) (in progress, manuscript due March 2017)

Cybersecurity and Privacy Law: Hornbook Series • Privacy Law: Concise Hornbook • Cybersecurity Law: Concise Hornbook

Antiterrorism and Criminal Enforcement co-author with Norman Abrams (West Academic) (4th edition supplement and 5th Edition onward) National Security Investigations and Bureaucratic Control: Intelligence, Reorganization and the Department of Justice After 9/11 (Oxford University Press, in progress)

Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal (Carolina Academic Press, 2006)(eds. with Michael P. Scharf) ARTICLES AND ARTICLES IN PROGRESS (15) Deferenc, Power and Emerging Security Threats TEXAS LAW REVIEW (forthcoming 2016) (14) Drones and the Future of Aerial Surveillance, GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW (2016) (13) Drone, Cybersecurity and Data Retention, WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW (2015) (12) Reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Through Presumptive Appellate Review and Presumptive Transparency, 38 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 77-101 (2015) (11) Targeted Killing and Accountability, 102 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 681-794 (2014) • Winner of L’Association Internationale de Droit Penal’s “Article of the Year Award” (10) The Origins of National Security Expertise, 44 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW 1585-1625 (2012) (9) The Status Quo Bias and Counterterrorism Detention, 101 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 855-884 (2011) (8) Seemingly Voluntary Post-Abuse Statements, 59 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW 943-978 (2010) (7) Organizational Culture, Professional Ethics and Guantanamo, 42 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 125-149 (2010) (6) Institutional Legitimacy and Counterterrorism Trials, 43 UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW 967-1019 (2009) (5) Beyond Guantanamo, Obstacles and Options, 103 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW COLLOQUY 2953 (2008) (4) Cyberembargo: Countering the Internet Jihad, 39 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 789-826 (2008) (3) Unfortunate Legacies: Why the Iraqi High Tribunal Should Reject Hearsay, Ex Parte Affidavits and Anonymous Witnesses, 4 INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON EVIDENCE 1-9 (2006) (peer reviewed) (2) ICC Inability Determinations in Light of the Dujail Case, 39 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 325-350 (2007) (1) Snatch and Grab Ops: Justifying Extraterritorial Abductions 16 IOWA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 491-522 (2006) (with Brian Field) BOOK CHAPTERS “New Approaches to Reducing and Mitigating Harm to Civilians,” in Counterinsurgency: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare, ed. William C. Banks, (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 127-140. “Are Targeted Killings Unlawful Killings: A Case Study in Empirical Claims Without Empirical Proof,” in Targeted Killings: Law & Morality in an Asymmetrical World, eds. Claire Finkelstein, Jens David Ohlin, & Andrew Altman (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 326-346.

GRANTS 2014-2015 $165,000, Carthage Foundation grant to fund a study of the U.S. government’s intelligence protocols and data analytic techniques in remotely piloted aircraft targeting processes.

2006 $246,807, U.S. Department of Justice Grant #2006-F4128-OH-DD Enhancing Enforcement Capabilities for Responding to Terrorist Acts: Transnational Counterterrorism Cooperation Program

SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC Advisor and Author with the Department of Defense, Rule of Law and Peacekeeping Operations Institute • Assisted in the drafting of the Civilian Casualty Mitigation field manual. • Wrote two sections of the manual, which is the first in the history of the United States to address the impact of armed conflict on civilians and the first military manual to develop techniques to prevent future harm to civilians. • Hosted a military and NGO working team at Pepperdine to finalize the manual for publication. • Served as an expert commentator on drafts of The Protection of Civilians Military Reference Guide, a doctrine-like reference for military forces and peacekeeping training centers to address protection of civilian considerations during military operations. Testimony and Briefings • Advised the White House, OMB, OIRA and OSTP on privacy, and security related to civilian drones. • Testified before the U.S. Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee. Up in the Air: Examining the Commercial Applications of Unmanned Aircraft for Small Businesses • Testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security. Unmanned Aerial System Threats: Exploring Security Implications and Mitigation Technologies. • Testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. Drones and the Fourth Amendment. • Testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee regarding SB 142, Drones and Trespass. • Briefed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence regarding The Homeland Security Threat from Drones. Testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. The U.S. Strategy to Counter Jihadist Websites.

Advisory Work on Matters of Law and Public Policy • Advised members of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee (Senators Collins and Lieberman) on cyber security legislation. • Advised Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell (AK), other state representatives, and the Aerospace States Association regarding legislation to govern the use of unmanned systems in domestic airspace. • Advised the Washington State legislature, the Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Nevada governor’s office on legislation to govern the use of unmanned systems in domestic airspace. • Advised U.S. Senator Udall’s staff on privacy legislation related to unmanned aerial vehicles. • Advised U.S. Congressman Frank Wolf on religious extremism and jihadist websites. • Advised members and committee staff in both houses of Congress regarding counterterrorism financing reforms, and made recommendations regarding military commissions following the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision.

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Military Commissions Consultant to the Chief Prosecutor, 2006-2007 • Supported the prosecution team through objective and independent legal, policy and strategic communications advice. Directly supported CMCR Cases US v. Hamdan and US v. Khadr. U.S. Department of Justice, Byrne Training Program Co-Principal Investigator, Transnational Counterterrorism Cooperation, 2006-2008 • Worked directly with senior U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors and their foreign counterparts in the U.K., The Netherlands and Germany.

• Designed and co-directed a transnational counterterrorism prosecution program. Developed methods for enhancing cooperation in the use and sharing of foreign evidence, protection of intelligence information, preservation of the admissibility of interrogation evidence, and coordination of discovery obligations.

PRIOR ACADEMIC POSITIONS HELD Seattle University School of Law Visiting Assistant Professor of Law (May 2010- August 2010) • Courses Taught: Criminal Law, Federal Criminal Law

The Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law Visiting Assistant Professor of Law (June 2007-June 2010) • Courses Taught: Information Privacy Law, National Security Law, Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law, Counterterrorism & Criminal Enforcement, Evidence, Civil Procedure

Case Western Reserve University, School of Law Senior Fellow in Counterterrorism and International Law (May 2006-Jan. 2008) Assistant Director of the Institute for Global Security Law and Policy (May 2006-May 2007)

EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS Ph.D., Public Administration, Pennsylvania State University • Fields: Public Policy Analysis, Public Administration, Organizational Theory • Dissertation: “Killer Bureaucracy: A Case Study of the U.S. Government’s Targeted Killing Program” (first dissertation in history of the program to be defended with unanimous perfect scores)

J.D., Case Western Reserve University, School of Law • Deans List- 4 semesters • Executive Editor Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (symposium issue) • Selected for a Fulbright Fellowship to Israel (declined)

M.P.A., American University, School of Public Affairs • Degree conferred with Distinction • Certificate in Public Management • Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities Fellowship Recipient

B.A., Lehigh University, International Relations • Hispanic Scholarship Fund Scholarship Recipient, Army R.O.T.C. Scholarship Recipient

United States Army, Judge Advocates Legal Center and School • Graduate of the 2 week residential Operational Law of Armed Conflict (OPLOAC) course

Force Sciences Institute • Certified Use of Force Analyst

UVA, Center for National Security Law • National Security Law Short Course (1 week)

OTHER EXPERIENCE Former Signal Corps Officer in the U.S. Army (Active Duty: 1999-2002) Led the management of telecommunications network for 10,000 users in Korea. Responsible for SIPRNET, NIPRNET and recovery efforts following the Melissa and I Love You virus attacks; Led a platoon and served as an executive officer of a Signal company at Fort Meade, MD.

Veterans Pro Bono Assistance Program (2008-2011) Consortium Attorney • Represented veteran clients in appellate cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

City of Shaker Heights, City Law Department and City Prosecutor (2004-2006) Law Clerk • Represented the city in 23 bench trials in criminal and civil matters. • Conducted over 600 pre-trial negotiations in criminal cases. • Assisted the City Council in drafting of legislation. • Evaluated the legality of public policies and public management procedures.
 

What I'm interested in its how much they paid him? There was a lawsuit stemming from a motorcycle accident a few years ago and I was asked to be an expert witness. Me, a basic nobody, was paid over $400 per hour to drive down a section of road and testify in court. I can't imagine what they paid that guy.with his credentials. It seems like a lot of trouble to fine a guy a few thousand dollars.
 
Lon, a transcript of the expert’s testimony will likely be filed with the court during the appeal so we may eventually find out exactly what he said and the amount of any fee. I agree it seems like a lot of time, money and effort over a scratch on a forehead. Very foolish to fly at that place and time and then flee the scene but good grief.

WA Evidence Rule 702: TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.


upload_2017-4-27_16-7-59.png
 
...There was a lawsuit stemming from a motorcycle accident a few years ago and I was asked to be an expert witness. Me, a basic nobody, was paid over $400 per hour to drive down a section of road and testify in court...

Dont leave us hanging! What happened? How was the experience?
 
Research study was published about a week ago which analyzes risk of injury from being hit on head by DJI Phantom and pieces of wood and steel of equal weight. Does study support argument that flying drone over crowd creates "substantial risk" of death or "serious injury" obvious to any reasonable person (whether they have specialized knowledge of drones or not) beyond a reasonable doubt?

ASSUREuas - Research Projects - sUAS Ground Collision Report
 

Attachments

  • FAAGroundAssureTestResults.jpg
    FAAGroundAssureTestResults.jpg
    177.3 KB · Views: 30
...Does study support argument that flying drone over crowd creates "substantial risk" of death or "serious injury" obvious to any reasonable person (whether they have specialized knowledge of drones or not) beyond a reasonable doubt?

I apologize for sloppy word choice which requires correction. The issue is not whether the substantial risk of death or serious injury would be obvious to any reasonable person in the same situation. The issue is whether this particular defendant knew and understood the risk in his own mind and made the conscious decision to ignore it which is obviously much harder to prove.
 

Attachments

  • Jury Inst 7.jpg
    Jury Inst 7.jpg
    396.7 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
The issue is whether this particular defendant knew and understood the risk in his own mind and made the conscious decision to ignore it which is obviously much harder to prove.

You may have heard that ignorance of the law is no defense. But, ignorance of certain facts can be!

LCullum.jpg
 
It would be difficult for reasonably careful person to get past first few paragraphs of DJI's Safety Guidelines and Disclaimers and NOT understand the need to carefully study and follow rules to reduce potential risk of injury.

Phantom Safety Guidelines1.jpg
 
But, neither the DJI User Manual or Safety Guidelines were admitted into evidence at trial. Nor were the AMA guidelines for that matter.
XList_.jpg
 
How could anyone know beyond reasonable doubt what drone operator knew or did not know of rules and risks at time of accident if he made no statement and did not testify at trial?
 
Here are some news clips discussing a reckless endangerment case involving a child thrown off a bridge. Compare the statements of the two female witnesses. The close friend who is trying to help unwittingly does the most damage by saying the mother was anxious and tentative to permit her daredevil son to perform the stunt because she knew it was dangerous. While the woman who was outraged and called the police makes a great defense witness by reporting the mother showed no anxiety or concern (ie no appreciation of risk or danger) until the police arrived. For the record, the mother pled guilty to reckless endangerment and received the exact same sentence as the drone operator in this case.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Cheese bro another twilight zone drone experience? The drone fly’s into a building then falls and knocks the woman unconscious and also cuts another bystander but the pilot still manages to fly the drone to Safeco. Amazing flying if you ask me….give him a job a drone pilot instructor because I want to know how on earth he managed that amazing feat. Anyway only the governments are allowed to hurt people with drones.

Look it is simple. love for your neighbour and caring about others is all it really takes. If you did, you would be very careful when and where you fly. Some people only care about themselves and so the authorities create mindless trash stories painted as news to threaten people to behave. It’s called policy with a policy..e force to enforce the policy. Same as drinking and driving if you actually cared about others you would never drink and drive or speed. Same thing here. Be considerate and loving and you won’t get into trouble with the policy/e force.
 
Last edited:
The drone fly’s into a building then falls and knocks the woman unconscious and also cuts another bystander but the pilot still manages to fly the drone to Safeco.

Actually, the drone struck two people and then fell to the ground where it was grabbed by a witness and held for the police. The pilot tried to get it back but witness refused and pilot fled. There was no flight to Safeco and there was no loss of consciousness.

Look it is simple. love for your neighbour and caring about others is all it really takes...Be considerate and loving and you won’t get into trouble with the policy/e force.

Hmhhh........are you sure? I don't see that in FAA regs or Federal Register.
 

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,095
Messages
147,750
Members
16,065
Latest member
alan r pfennig