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

[Jubalr]

We are talking about a one time hobbyist flight that led to cut on one person's forehead which required no stitch vs 65 flights for money over heavily populated areas and some of the most congested airspace in the country which could have caused 9/1/1 scale disaster. More importantly, we should compare the cases side by side because "putting lives at risk" is the essence of a reckless endangerment charge. No proof of actual injury is required.

OK, Compare them. Someone injured, someone could have been. Same thing only different.

 

[Whirlygig]

OK, Compare them...

Skypan has lots of $$ and friends in high places. Guy from Podunk, WA does not.

 

[Jubalr]

Skypan has lots of $$ and friends in high places. Guy from Podunk, WA does not.

OK, new variable; how much attorney can yo afford can be more important than the charge. Just ask OJ.

 

[Whirlygig]

The SPD found several photos of this person inside the drone. They knew she took photos of the drone and drone pilot with her cell phone. They did a reverse image search, found her on social media and called her on the telephone and asked what she knew...

 

[Whirlygig]

Has he been sentenced yet? The articles refer to the maximum penalties, curious to see what he ends up with.

30 day jail sentence stayed on appeal. Appeal Hearing not until October. Could be it for now. No more ground to plow. Take care and fly safe....

 

[Whirlygig]

The FAA said there are certain rules...

I wonder if the FAA used the word rule as opposed to guideline in this conversation.

 

[Whirlygig]

2017 FAA Registration card says:

Safety guidelines for flying your unmanned aircraft:
· Fly below 400 feet
· Never fly near other aircraft
· Keep your UAS within visual line of sight
· Keep away from emergency responders
· Never fly over stadiums, sports events or groups of people
· Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol
· Never fly within 5 miles of an airport without first contacting air traffic control and airport authorities

Laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, whatever.....

 

[Lon Denard]

Yes, as far as I know, my auto and homeowners insurance cover me if I engage in varying degrees of dumbassedness just not intentional wrongdoing. Anyone can make a mistake or be careless or have bad luck. That is one reason to buy insurance. My question for you Doug is suppose you take off from safe place but lose wireless and GPS connection and drone flys away or descends on someone causing injury? Should you still go directly to jail? Or do you have a defense?

I'm with you. So if you have a fly away and your drone crashes into someone, should you go to jail? Automatically? Other than the fact that there were people around, I'm not sure there's proof that he did anything wrong.

 

[pyrate]

Lawyers don't care about that, and that is why people need to not be so cavalier
these things are not toys and can hurt people severely

 

[Whirlygig]

...if you have a fly away and your drone crashes into someone, should you go to jail? Automatically? Other than the fact that there were people around, I'm not sure there's proof that he did anything wrong.

Lon, my answer now is it depends on facts and circumstances including whether pilot planned for possible loss of connection. The other big factors are whether you have any known history of returning multiple solos to 3DR or have admitted flying in excess of 400 feet AGL at least once on any drone forum.

Im just kidding on the last two factors.

As far as the case goes, I think this guy was foolish to fly over parade in downtown Seattle and should be punished but 30 day jail sentence is unduly harsh. He did several things wrong (including not taking responsibility at scene) but prosecution may still be flawed. For example, how could prosecutor prove beyond reasonable doubt that drone was operated outside line of sight when the exact position of the operator is unknown?

You raised on other thread whether the FAA Hobby Guidelines are "actionable." Great question! Lon, you are way out there on some stuff on that thread but that word actionable made a bulb go off in my head and I thank you for it.

I have no problem with the guidelines myself. I think they are reasonable and do not impede my fun. But, can a state or city prosecutor really charge someone with a crime for violating an FAA guideline? How does the prosecutor even get such guidelines admitted into evidence in a trial when there is no expert to explain how they were created or how they should be interpreted and enforced?

Hopefully we find out. In meantime, please take care and fly safe.

 

[Jubalr]

"But, can a state or city prosecutor really charge someone with a crime for violating an FAA guideline?"

In Short, no. State and local authorities can not prosecute for violations of any federal statutes, laws, crimes, etc. Charges have to be specific to a law under the authority of the affiant. For instance, I have helped send many to Federal prison as an investigator with the county, but a Federal Agent (usually ATF or DEA) actually charged under Federal Law and presented to US Attorneys, who are the only ones that can prosecute Federal crimes.

 

[Lon Denard]

Lon, my answer now is it depends on facts and circumstances including whether pilot planned for possible loss of connection. The other big factors are whether you have any known history of returning multiple solos to 3DR or have admitted flying in excess of 400 feet AGL at least once on any drone forum.

Im just kidding on the last two factors.

As far as the case goes, I think this guy was foolish to fly over parade in downtown Seattle and should be punished but 30 day jail sentence is unduly harsh. He did several things wrong (including not taking responsibility at scene) but prosecution may still be flawed. For example, how could prosecutor prove beyond reasonable doubt that drone was operated outside line of sight when the exact position of the operator is unknown?

You raised on other thread whether the FAA Hobby Guidelines are "actionable." Great question! Lon, you are way out there on some stuff on that thread but that word actionable made a bulb go off in my head and I thank you for it.

I have no problem with the guidelines myself. I think they are reasonable and do not impede my fun. But, can a state or city prosecutor really charge someone with a crime for violating an FAA guideline? How does the prosecutor even get such guidelines admitted into evidence in a trial when there is no expert to explain how they were created or how they should be interpreted and enforced?

Hopefully we find out. In meantime, please take care and fly safe.

Lon, my answer now is it depends on facts and circumstances including whether pilot planned for possible loss of connection. The other big factors are whether you have any known history of returning multiple solos to 3DR or have admitted flying in excess of 400 feet AGL at least once on any drone forum.

Im just kidding on the last two factors.

As far as the case goes, I think this guy was foolish to fly over parade in downtown Seattle and should be punished but 30 day jail sentence is unduly harsh. He did several things wrong (including not taking responsibility at scene) but prosecution may still be flawed. For example, how could prosecutor prove beyond reasonable doubt that drone was operated outside line of sight when the exact position of the operator is unknown?

You raised on other thread whether the FAA Hobby Guidelines are "actionable." Great question! Lon, you are way out there on some stuff on that thread but that word actionable made a bulb go off in my head and I thank you for it.

I have no problem with the guidelines myself. I think they are reasonable and do not impede my fun. But, can a state or city prosecutor really charge someone with a crime for violating an FAA guideline? How does the prosecutor even get such guidelines admitted into evidence in a trial when there is no expert to explain how they were created or how they should be interpreted and enforced?

Hopefully we find out. In meantime, please take care and fly safe.

Thanks? 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.

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. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's interesting that you tied these two threads together. Considering that the Solo has had known problems, couldn't you be charged for flying it at all? In a negligence case, the prosecution has to prove that you knew that the outcome was probable.

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. Even if we follow the guidelines to the letter, couldn't we be charged with reckless endangerment if an accident occurred when we operated our Solos knowing it was almost probable that they might fail?

 

[Lon Denard]

"But, can a state or city prosecutor really charge someone with a crime for violating an FAA guideline?"

In Short, no. State and local authorities can not prosecute for violations of any federal statutes, laws, crimes, etc. Charges have to be specific to a law under the authority of the affiant. For instance, I have helped send many to Federal prison as an investigator with the county, but a Federal Agent (usually ATF or DEA) actually charged under Federal Law and presented to US Attorneys, who are the only ones that can prosecute Federal crimes.

Which brings me to wonder is it a federal crime to ignore a "guideline"? Especially on private property? As in, unrealistic scenario here, I'm flying 405 feet off the ground at my family farm. An FAA official drives by and using a range finder determines that I'm over 400 feet high. Can this official write me a citation or legally confiscate my equipment? That is what I mean my actionable.

 

[Jubalr]

Which brings me to wonder is it a federal crime to ignore a "guideline"? Especially on private property? As in, unrealistic scenario here, I'm flying 405 feet off the ground at my family farm. An FAA official drives by and using a range finder determines that I'm over 400 feet high. Can this official write me a citation or legally confiscate my equipment? That is what I mean my actionable.

Short answer, yes. The last time the USSC addressed this issue was in 1946, to conclude that a homeowner owns to 83' above their property but did not provide any more guidance than that. Which left it a grey area between 83' and 500', with 500' where the FAA claims 'navigable airspace'. But that was until the FAA recently began writing sUAS regulations for the space below 500'.

 

[Lon Denard]

Short answer, yes. The last time the USSC addressed this issue was in 1946, to conclude that a homeowner owns to 83' above their property but did not provide any more guidance than that. Which left it a grey area between 83' and 500', with 500' where the FAA claims 'navigable airspace'. But that was until the FAA recently began writing sUAS regulations for the space below 500'.

Sure, but does that mean they can write you a ticket? Example, the federal government has always suggested the use of seat belts in cars but until recently it wasn't the law in most states. The federal government has "guidelines" for EVERYTHING, that doesn't mean that they can take you to jail if you don't follow them. The property example was only a part of the story, the main gist is what the FAA's available actions are. I've read the regs, now show me the published punishments scale. You can't have a law or regulation without outlining the consequence if broken. In fact, I submit that there aren't any. Therefore these are suggestions. The 107 guys are a different case because the feds can pull their license and whatever else they agreed to to get their license. Guidelines are not laws, stop pretending that they are.

 

[Jubalr]

Sure, but does that mean they can write you a ticket? Example, the federal government has always suggested the use of seat belts in cars but until recently it wasn't the law in most states. The federal government has "guidelines" for EVERYTHING, that doesn't mean that they can take you to jail if you don't follow them. The property example was only a part of the story, the main gist is what the FAA's available actions are. I've read the regs, now show me the published punishments scale. You can't have a law or regulation without outlining the consequence if broken. In fact, I submit that there aren't any. Therefore these are suggestions. The 107 guys are a different case because the feds can pull their license and whatever else they agreed to to get their license. Guidelines are not laws, stop pretending that they are.

OK

 

[Whirlygig]

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.

 

[Lon Denard]

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.

That's a lot to unpack. I'll touch a couple things;

I've had 6 Solos total and the butt smacker was sent back to 3DR for the refurb I currently own. I had purchased a second complete unit (including a Hero 4 Black)from B&H but the gimbal control was bad. I tried two gimbals and sent it back as defective for a refund.

I'm well aware of the "blame the operator" attitude on this forum and if you'd like to pretend that there aren't inherent problems with the controller, GPS, WiFi, etc that's fine with me. A day doesn't go by without someone posting a problem here. I can only imagine what 3DR has spent replacing drones that have flown away. I've personally had hardware/software problems with almost every unit I've owned.

The notion that I haven't read the manual is ridiculous. I've also watched every video that 3DR has produced. Even though I tend to present myself as a n00b, I've actually operated RC vehicles since I was a kid (I'm 51 now). I even purchased an AR Drone when they first became available several years ago.

In any case, I always enjoy a lively debate (debate team in high school). I don't typically resort to personal insults to make a point though...

 

[Whirlygig]

Ok, got it straight. Prosecutor brought in law professor from Malibu, CA to explain to Seattle, WA jury why flying drone over crowd outside direct line of sight is reckless endangerment.
Checked whether the expert posted anything on Facebook the same day he testified in trial and found this:

“If Defendant doesn’t testify in criminal trial, but in close Defense counsel poses hypothetical alternate actor. Would you consider it an alibi defense?”

In other words, the prosecution expert commented publicly about the defendant’s exercise of his 5th Amendment right not to testify while jury was deliberating. Lon, do you believe in no harm no foul?

 

[pyrate]

Don't forget that all of this matters not in a civil case
you injure someone or damage property and some hammer lawyer would take the case in a minute if they figure you have assets worth taking