Rule breakers getting the good work

[Texy]

I saw a promo vid from my competition in a Facebook thread. I counted 12 waivers and some Class B violations that were probably not waived because he is a startup business and just hasn't had enough time for the applications needed. He was flying at night, over the Texas Rangers Stadium, over crowded parks in downtown Dallas, over outdoor music crowds at night, over crowded downtown streets, and more.

His claim was that he can get the shots that others don't dare to attempt. I assume it's because we're afraid to lose our license and he's ok with that risk. I'm not sure if I should be mad about it or not. He moved up from a Phantom 3 to an Inspire 2 with dual operators off the money from those shots.

 

[Shadowolf]

Yep sounds like some guys around here.

 

[Texy]

I replied to his video comment with, "Wow! That's a lot of waivers!" And then he deleted the video from the comment. I am tempted to rat on him.

 

[iSkyInAC904]

Looks like he's ratting on himself. Posting your crimes on FB is not too sharp.

 

[James (Randy) Smith]

There's different ways to look at "ratting him out" one is that he simply should not be doing it, two is that he is breaking the rules which are there for a reason and the biggest way and main way is that he is going to hurt somebody or people. flying over a busy stadium at night is a huge issue if his drone goes down in the crowd there will be a group of people injured which may include children. keeping quite when you know someone may be going to hurt others has been a very large problem in our day and time now! if that happens and you knew about it before hand, how would you feel!

I'm not saying one way or the other but as drone operators we do have a certain amount of responsibility we have to carry. While I do not have a license yet which I know may be wrong, I am only flying my drone over the golf course I run and only when and where no people are at. This allows me a chance to learn how to comfortably fly my drone as well as get accustomed to all of the camera and video features. I could spend the next year just learning how to do this on my own course. eventually I will start getting my license, but I really do not want to take that step until I know more than is required to just get the thing. So far I may of only went out 5-6 times to fly as luckily so far no real issues.

This site has been the biggest asset I have ever had in regards to flying drones. there is basically nothing you guys do not know when ask. So as a newbi THANKS TO EVERYONE HERE!!!

 

[jchittam]

I wouldn't use the term "ratting him out" so much as protecting our community. For every irresponsible person like him out there, there are 10 of us that follow the rules. Who makes the news and the public eye? Rule breakers. Who is blamed? All of us. What are the rules/regs and eventually laws going to based on? The rule breakers. Your protecting all of us by stopping his behavior before serious damage is done.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[PatR]

People like that are violating the regs, violating the ability of legal operators to generate revenue, and violating the public by jeopardizing safety.

File a complaint with the area FAA FSDO office. You could file one with DHS as well for the stadium violation.

 

[Murray Martz]

I saw a promo vid from my competition in a Facebook thread. I counted 12 waivers and some Class B violations that were probably not waived because he is a startup business and just hasn't had enough time for the applications needed. He was flying at night, over the Texas Rangers Stadium, over crowded parks in downtown Dallas, over outdoor music crowds at night, over crowded downtown streets, and more.

His claim was that he can get the shots that others don't dare to attempt. I assume it's because we're afraid to lose our license and he's ok with that risk. I'm not sure if I should be mad about it or not. He moved up from a Phantom 3 to an Inspire 2 with dual operators off the money from those shots.

Because we have been hit so hard with rules in Canada, I don't tolerate anyone that goes against the new rules. I copy the video or photo files. I make sure there is some info as to the date they did it and any comments they have made to help back it up. I don't contact them to let them know either, that way they won't remove their content before it is investigated.
This is what I like to call doing the right thing. We all know the rules by now.
I also report abusers because Transport Canada needs to know there are users out there that are trying to help keep this an industry with credibility. So yes, report and file a complaint. If we turn a blind eye we are no better.

 

[FlushVision]

My biggest bone of contention is recreational users (those that do not have a licence) taking paid for flights. Anyone doing it in the area that I'm likely to operate is, essentially, robbing me and other PfCO holders of cash. I spent a lot of money and classroom time to get my PfCO. Ensuring I have two operational aircraft, and paying through the nose for commercial insurance, so it really gets on my nipples when I see amateurs without the necessary qualifications taking commercial jobs. Whenever I learn of someone doing it I will report them in the blink of an eye.
Further, in my view, if someone is prepared to take on a commercial job illegally, then they are prepared to break other laws for their own gains. Their aircraft aren't registered (at the moment there is no requirement for a hobby flyer to register their aircraft in the U.K.) so if it goes down on a crowd, say, there would be a good chance they will get away with it.

 

[PatR]

If they registered their purchase to assure warranty coverage I can bet their aircraft could be easily traced back to them. If they are flying DJI there's almost no way for them to avoid registering with the manufacturer, and DJI makes it clear they will provide info to authorities.

The amateur fast cash operator is not going to go away until enforcement starts taking them down and that enforcement is not going to happen unless complaints are constantly getting filed. I came across a power line inspection company the other day that employed several drone operators to fly Inspires to inspect the power lines. Nobody from the top down was a certified commercial operator, they just bought some equipment and started doing it. That's a big money operation totally ignoring the law and being paid for illegal work.

 

[Texy]

After reading the above comments I find that I agree with all of them. I lost the link because the comment is gone now, but I know what to do next time.

 

[Tuna]

The biggest problem is proof. Casey Neistat has been reported multiple times for some very clear violations of the regulations - some with a million or more hits on YouTube. The cases have all (to date) been rejected because video shot from a drone doesn't prove that an unlicensed pilot was flying. Even videos of someone holding the controller don't prove that they are doing the illegal flying.

 

[Texy]

The biggest problem is proof. Casey Neistat has been reported multiple times for some very clear violations of the regulations - some with a million or more hits on YouTube. The cases have all (to date) been rejected because video shot from a drone doesn't prove that an unlicensed pilot was flying. Even videos of someone holding the controller don't prove that they are doing the illegal flying.

I can't stand that guy. So annoying.

 

[Murray Martz]

The biggest problem is proof. Casey Neistat has been reported multiple times for some very clear violations of the regulations - some with a million or more hits on YouTube. The cases have all (to date) been rejected because video shot from a drone doesn't prove that an unlicensed pilot was flying. Even videos of someone holding the controller don't prove that they are doing the illegal flying.

In Canada, no matter who is flying the drone, the drone owner and the person that hire them are on the hook. The video owner * usually the pilot ) is the one that has to prove they had an SFOC, and if no SFOC....massive fines.

 

[Texy]

In Canada, no matter who is flying the drone, the drone owner and the person that hire them are on the hook. The video owner * usually the pilot ) is the one that has to prove they had an SFOC, and if no SFOC....massive fines.

Down here we call the head pilot in charge the PIC. And I agree, there should be a standard way to ID a PIC if nobody owns up to it.

 

[PatR]

He who posts a video or picture get the bill

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

I replied to his video comment with, "Wow! That's a lot of waivers!" And then he deleted the video from the comment. I am tempted to rat on him.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

 

[Joseph Corrado]

I have this same problem. I have people asking me all the time if I can make a video like the one they just saw on FB. That video is filled with violations. FILLED! I basically explain why I can't but I'm not sure that's going to stop some potential clients from working with the guy who broke the rules. Here's the sad part though. At some point that guy is going to screw up or crash etc. some one is going to get hurt or worse and then the state or fed will make it impossible for people just trying to make a living doing it the right way.

 

[AJupstateNY]

I replied to his video comment with, "Wow! That's a lot of waivers!" And then he deleted the video from the comment. I am tempted to rat on him.

Blow his/her *** in to FAA, just making you and me look bad and we sure as **** don't need that!

 

[archybaker]

In the couple weeks, I've seen several high profile incidents in the news. Someone flying a drone over a wild fire in Arizona interfered with a plane carrying material that was to be dropped on the fire; someone flew a drone onto a military base (I don't remember which one) and nearly wrecked an Air Force jet. The first incident cost the state millions of dollars because the plane ended up dropping the load sooner than they wanted to. The second incident pissed off the Air Force. They now want Congress to give them permission to shoot down drones.

There is also impetus to require all drones to carry an electronic emitter that identifies the drone, so that authorities can track down who owns it, if it violates restrictions on flying. The military supports this action. In the article that discussed the drone flying into restricted space over a base, a military spokesperson said that if it was a manned vehicle, they could track the plane back to the airport and confront the pilot (which they have apparently done). With drones, they have no idea who was operating the drone.

Sen. Feinstein has introduced legislation that would give state and local authorities the ability to introduce their own drone regulations.

NASA has developed software that will shut off any drone flying in restricted space. If your drone is 200 ft in the air, it will crash. The software does try to force a landing before shutting it off.

People who fail to follow the rules will ultimately lead to more onerous restrictions on those of us who follow the existing rules. I don't have a problem with my drone carrying an electronic emitter identifying it. If that helps keep people and property safe (including my drone), I have no problem with it.

People who show no respect for the current regulations will only increase support for bills like the one introduced by Feinstein.

I do have problems with the NASA software. While there are safeguards built into it, I still worry about an error. What if you have permission to fly in a restricted area, but, the software screws up and misidentifies your craft, and crashes it?

I bring up these points because we do need to call out irresponsible pilots or we will have Feinstein's bill shoved down our throats, or the kill switch NASA has developed.