hoo boy....1.9 million civil penalty! that's a lot of photos!

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
from the FAA's website

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555

Press Release – FAA Proposes $1.9 Million Civil Penalty Against SkyPan International for Allegedly Unauthorized Unmanned Aircraft Operation

For Immediate Release
October 6, 2015
Contact: Les Dorr or Alison Duquette
Phone: (202) 267-3883; email: les.dorr@faa.gov

NEW YORK – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announces the largest civil penalty the FAA has proposed against a UAS operator for endangering the safety of our airspace.

The FAA proposes a $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International, Inc. of Chicago. Between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated cities, violating airspace regulations and various operating rules, the FAA alleges. These operations were illegal and not without risk.

The FAA alleges that the company conducted 65 unauthorized commercial UAS flights over various locations in New York City and Chicago between March 21, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2014. The flights involved aerial photography. Of those, 43 flew in the highly restricted New York Class B airspace.

“Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations.”

SkyPan operated the 43 flights in the New York Class B airspace without receiving an air traffic control clearance to access it, the FAA alleges. Additionally, the agency alleges the aircraft was not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment.

The FAA further alleges that on all 65 flights, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration, and SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations.

SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property, the FAA alleges.

SkyPan has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
 

Old Man

Active Member
All those people that have elected to ignore airspace safety regs are now solidly on notice. As news of this expands I wonder how much posts of aerial videos on You Tube will decrease. Perhaps we'll begin to see fewer long range/BLOS FPV threads on different forums.
 

Hexacrafter

Manufacturer
They were given a 333 exemption back in April....
They filed for only one aircraft a Trex 770E... single rotor....
Their exemption is very specific to flying under VERY specific conditions..... vacant undeveloped properties..etc....
The typical restrictions for a blanket COA....
I would not be surprised if the PIC is also given sanctions by the FAA... suspension of pilots license...
Additionally, I assume revocation of the 333...???
 


Hexacrafter

Manufacturer
My answer...
This has nothing to do with the current regulations, but rather a simple matter of violation of Class B airspace...
Airspace restrictions have always existed... violations of that airspace and easy charge to make with minimal evidence...
Kind of like charging Al Capone with Tax evasion... the government has many arms and ways to pursue those they wish to control...
 

flyqucik

Member
Well I guess the more the people will be flying around and taping, the stricter the rules will be. If this hobby goes viral, it will have very strict jurisdiction
 


fltundra

Member
All those people that have elected to ignore airspace safety regs are now solidly on notice. As news of this expands I wonder how much posts of aerial videos on You Tube will decrease. Perhaps we'll begin to see fewer long range/BLOS FPV threads on different forums.

But you also have company's promoting bad behavior, like it's fine to just fly anywhere.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:





Old Man

Active Member
But you also have company's promoting bad behavior, like it's fine to just fly anywhere.:rolleyes:

I agree, companies that promote features such as Lightbridge or other operating and video system range enhancement devices are directly encouraging illegal behavior as part of their advertising. Considering who they hired for an attorney I'm surprised they are still promoting and market various means of performing long range, BLOS operations to rank amateurs, let alone to experienced operators.
 


Old Man

Active Member
Perhaps, but the story has made the big time in the aero industry. Drone life and Flight Global are all over it too. It got to me today via our daily industry updates newsletter. I will have to agree that a legal action against the FAA is a great way to get attention. Our government is nothing if it isn't retaliatory.
 

Considering who they hired for an attorney I'm surprised they are still promoting and market various means of performing long range, BLOS operations to rank amateurs, let alone to experienced operators.
Ok, I'll bite. What attorney are you referring to (PLEASE don't say "F. Lee Bailey")?
 

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Might have been their lawsuit against the FAA last year had something to do with getting on their radar.

somewhere in the archives I said the FAA does not yield ground to ANYBODY and that they have a long long memory...sorry to see it in action. research Bob Hoover's experience with the FAA if you're curious
 



Old Man

Active Member
somewhere in the archives I said the FAA does not yield ground to ANYBODY and that they have a long long memory...sorry to see it in action. research Bob Hoover's experience with the FAA if you're curious

I remember Hoover's experience well. Years of bureaucratic B.S. because of a what appeared to be a clash with a local level FAA airshow inspector. A low level G.S. employee power play that should have never happened let alone go as far as it it.
 

Top