It is not, directly, applicable to part 107 but it is applicable to people that find themselves at the end of the barrel of a governmental institution.
No that's incorrect... one found himself at the "end of the barrel" of Govt, the other violated law and ignored any opportunity to work with the Govt Institute.
It may be accurate in that a govt institution was involved... that's where they end with any similarity. His story is different in multiple ways... he performed an activity the govt took offense that was challenged and proven poorly defined and that infringed his citizen fundamental rights that another Govt Instute, the Judiciary system reconized in his favor. More of a challenge of "rights" to exhibit and speak... and proper court challenge pursued and won.
In this case the govt didn't take wrong action, they responded to improper & illegal action that was documented improper action in multiple instances. Then the FAA gave the individual ample time to respond and an opportunity to avoid or reduce fines. He elected to ignore not once but multiple times causing his fines to multiply. If you recall, the other situation, he paid his fines while pursuing a legal defense, he didn't ignore the legal system, he worked within the legal system.
This wasn't a case of challenging the legal system if he had rights to perform... that's within our rights and encouraged. Rather this situation was a violation of law that wasn't in dispute... it was a violation. He didn't challenge the offenses, he recognized most likely it was in violation of FAA and choose to ignore any opportunity to respond when offered... a violation that wasn't disputed as a "rights" challenge. It was a violation of FAA law.
One was a challenge to a law without merit and challengable in Court. The other was breaking the law that was well defined, well documented and the responsiblilty to know the law by the sUAV operator and not challengable.
Through the lenience of the Govt Agency (FAA) he was presented the opportunity to avoid or reduce legal action... that he choose to ignore. Giving the FAA no option other than proceed with charges and fines.
There are thousands of different situations involving law, and these different situations all involve an individual or entity and the legal system. To group a trespassing charge and armed robbery into similar situations isn't the same... same as these two are not the same.
His rights weren't being challenged, he broke the law and took a chance he wouldn't get caught. Then continued to make it worse by defying the law and opportunity to work with the FAA agents.
I don't agree with the fines imposed, in my opinion way to much, but they weren't excessive due to his action of violation, rather refusal to cease and ignoring the violations.
But I do agree that flying an sUAV requires the Pilot to have an understanding of the FAA rules... we need to have rules in a society and in aviation to prevent problems and maintain order. The FAA rarely takes action in these matters without first providing the opportunity to recognize and cease violations.
Ignorance of the law isn't a challenge of one's rights and isn't a justified defense. You accept that responsibility when you choose to fly an aircraft; it's your responsibility to operate within that law. If you disagree, then challenge them in Court and work to have them modified. In the interim, operate within the law.
Not saying I agree with all the FAA rules & regulations, although I recognize the need for aviation rules. Just as I reconize the rights of being a citizen. They're clearly not the same.
