Part 107 Pilot gets busted in Chicago....
- Thread starter Mindbank
- Start date
No other crimes in Chicago to prosecute? The model cesspool of America.
PatR
Premium Pilot
He won, but he also lost. He avoided a conviction and paying fines or jail time but his defense likely cost in the neighborhood of $500.00/hour, and every second his attorneys were involved was billed to him. Hour many hours of legal time, 20, 40, 60, 100? This case is also an example of why professionals should obtain insurance.
This case perfectly demonstrates why multirotor/drone operators need to either form an organization to lobby lawmakers or join one with a shared vision that already has that ability. Some might believe the AMA could assist but being a commercial endeavor the AMA would not become involved. We do have a few choices; AUVSI, AOPA, and a couple nondescript others.
The AMA is, IMO, not a good option as they turned their back on anything commercial. Even where the amateur operator is concerned their insurance program would not extend because there was no injury or property damage. As mentioned in the article, many cities and states are enacting local laws that restrict or ban flight of "drones". Those bans generally extend to both amateur and commercial operations, and where they don't specifically ban commercial operations they place unreasonable qualification requirements on the professional operator. The point here is we are all in the same boat, and that boat is leaking badly. We need to come together as a group, not as amateurs, not as professionals, but together as a single organized voice aligned together to protect our hobby, profession, and freedom. We needed to do this a long time ago, we have to do it now.
This case perfectly demonstrates why multirotor/drone operators need to either form an organization to lobby lawmakers or join one with a shared vision that already has that ability. Some might believe the AMA could assist but being a commercial endeavor the AMA would not become involved. We do have a few choices; AUVSI, AOPA, and a couple nondescript others.
The AMA is, IMO, not a good option as they turned their back on anything commercial. Even where the amateur operator is concerned their insurance program would not extend because there was no injury or property damage. As mentioned in the article, many cities and states are enacting local laws that restrict or ban flight of "drones". Those bans generally extend to both amateur and commercial operations, and where they don't specifically ban commercial operations they place unreasonable qualification requirements on the professional operator. The point here is we are all in the same boat, and that boat is leaking badly. We need to come together as a group, not as amateurs, not as professionals, but together as a single organized voice aligned together to protect our hobby, profession, and freedom. We needed to do this a long time ago, we have to do it now.
An per the article, Congress needs to add “express federal preemption” to the 2017 FAA Reauthorization Act to stop local and state governmental authorities from meddling with traditional federal regulation of our national airspace. Which BTW will create a cluster f for companies like UPS and Amazon trying to use drones commercially. I'm betting it will take those companies to intervene (because to their own interests) to make Congress do their job which in the end should help all of us. Hopefully.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Those planning on that kind of operation will remain grounded until BLOS regulations are formally adopted, which may be for yet some time to come. Until those regs are in place there won't be much help from companies like Amazon, UPS, and others that will lack incentive to become involved until they could benefit directly.
Last number I recall, IIRC, put federal drone registrations somewhere in the area of 700,000 before the registration requirement was rescinded. The AOPA has ~385,000 members while the AMA has ~180,000 members. The AMA's charter prohibits political lobbying while the AOPA actively engages in political lobbying. The AMA's charter limits support of commercial endeavors while the AOPA supports both commercial and private operations. So one group has considerable advantages over another and throwing the support of the drone community provides one considerably more political clout that the other. One can be proactive in doing something, the other is more reactive than proactive, and their history pretty much verifies that. The AUVSI has proven itself having little or no concern for the hobbyists or small commercial operator, being more focused on showcasing expensive hardware for the government, military, LEA, and large agricultural interests. The Small UAV Coalition brought us the association of Amazon, Go Pro, 3DR, Yuneec, and DJI, who promptly lobbied for rules that were focused primarily on their corporate benefit, not ours. The primary members of the FAA's Drone Advisory Committee were drawn from corporate aerospace, aviation avionics manufacturers, and professional manned aviation groups, with DJI in the distant background. We don't factor into their policy making, and policy making is exactly what they were enlisted to do. We should bear in mind that commercial use of multirotors came into legal status only because a small group of 6 or so multirotor operations focused on the cinema industry came together and lobbied the FAA to come up with rules (Part 333) that permitted their businesses to survive. Imagine what a large, organized group of drone operators could accomplish.
So we can wait and hope someone else will eventually, indirectly, come to our aid or take immediate steps to do something for ourselves. Waiting for someone else would leave us at their mercy, having to hope and accept what they need for themselves would spill over to us in whatever areas might apply. We could end up with nothing, being excluded from a process intended solely to benefit corporate interests, which is what typically happens when big money is handed the reins of control.
Last number I recall, IIRC, put federal drone registrations somewhere in the area of 700,000 before the registration requirement was rescinded. The AOPA has ~385,000 members while the AMA has ~180,000 members. The AMA's charter prohibits political lobbying while the AOPA actively engages in political lobbying. The AMA's charter limits support of commercial endeavors while the AOPA supports both commercial and private operations. So one group has considerable advantages over another and throwing the support of the drone community provides one considerably more political clout that the other. One can be proactive in doing something, the other is more reactive than proactive, and their history pretty much verifies that. The AUVSI has proven itself having little or no concern for the hobbyists or small commercial operator, being more focused on showcasing expensive hardware for the government, military, LEA, and large agricultural interests. The Small UAV Coalition brought us the association of Amazon, Go Pro, 3DR, Yuneec, and DJI, who promptly lobbied for rules that were focused primarily on their corporate benefit, not ours. The primary members of the FAA's Drone Advisory Committee were drawn from corporate aerospace, aviation avionics manufacturers, and professional manned aviation groups, with DJI in the distant background. We don't factor into their policy making, and policy making is exactly what they were enlisted to do. We should bear in mind that commercial use of multirotors came into legal status only because a small group of 6 or so multirotor operations focused on the cinema industry came together and lobbied the FAA to come up with rules (Part 333) that permitted their businesses to survive. Imagine what a large, organized group of drone operators could accomplish.
So we can wait and hope someone else will eventually, indirectly, come to our aid or take immediate steps to do something for ourselves. Waiting for someone else would leave us at their mercy, having to hope and accept what they need for themselves would spill over to us in whatever areas might apply. We could end up with nothing, being excluded from a process intended solely to benefit corporate interests, which is what typically happens when big money is handed the reins of control.
Last edited:
Do you think the AOPA has the clout necessary to protect recreational and commercial UAV pilot interests?
PatR
Premium Pilot
I believe they do, and such support aligns with their continuing mission to protect the rights of private pilots and assuring airspace access. Our activities fit within their existing framework, and they have publicly welcomed us into the organization. They have a long history of success.
The faa is in fact encouraging the local police to be the first point of contact with handling drone cases. There is a lengthy sop regarding this on the faa's website. You will have to search reporting Uas violations for the link. I think it's a joke the faa is passing the burden of enforcement to the local policec which in most cases doesn't have a clue of commercial drone operations. That guy should sue Chicago police for wrongful conviction. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Typically, law enforcement personnel that engage in their duties believing that a crime is being, has been committed are immune from punitive action at the community level, but might be subject to action at the individual level.
To assist those that would like to know what the FAA has told LEA's, read the attached document with attention given to section 2. Note they are not well informed as to what is or is not legal or illegal. Public law enforcement is provided wide latitude to enforce "public safety", although they are encouraged to become familiar with Parts 336 and 107 of the FAR's. This is something those flying RC aircraft should also become familiar with, if for no other reason that to provide the basis for your own defense when being interviewed by an LEA. They need only have an individual opinion of what they view as safe or unsafe to initiate an FAA investigation. Some guy out flying an aerobatic quad in an open field could easily be deemed as flying in an unsafe manner when viewed by people lacking any understanding of the hobby because it might appear the aircraft was not under the full control of the operator.
To assist those that would like to know what the FAA has told LEA's, read the attached document with attention given to section 2. Note they are not well informed as to what is or is not legal or illegal. Public law enforcement is provided wide latitude to enforce "public safety", although they are encouraged to become familiar with Parts 336 and 107 of the FAR's. This is something those flying RC aircraft should also become familiar with, if for no other reason that to provide the basis for your own defense when being interviewed by an LEA. They need only have an individual opinion of what they view as safe or unsafe to initiate an FAA investigation. Some guy out flying an aerobatic quad in an open field could easily be deemed as flying in an unsafe manner when viewed by people lacking any understanding of the hobby because it might appear the aircraft was not under the full control of the operator.
Last edited:
Yes this is the document I was referring to. Thanks for posting. We should all be familiar with this document if we're flying recreationally or commercially.
Similar threads
