Drone News: Pilot Fined w/o TRUST

[GFields]

Drone News: Pilot Fined w/o TRUST, New DJI Mini 3, Xwing working on Fighting Wildfires​

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[kenautelevo2pro]

not cool. fine is from local/state gvt, not faa.

 

[dirkclod]

not cool. fine is from local/state gvt, not faa.

Don’t matter you need the Trust to fly. Don’t care to get a easy test
you can’t fail then quit flying.

 

[kenautelevo2pro]

Don’t matter you need the Trust to fly. Don’t care to get a easy test
you can’t fail then quit flying.

my point was it shouldnt be the state or local gvt fining him whether he needed it or not. if the faa is pretty lenient on this requirement because they know the word is not getting out and this is still pretty new and they are practicing discretion, it shouldn't be up to the state or local government to press the issue; not their job.

we don't know the details of the incident, maybe he took the trust but didn't have the paperwork. sorry it's just my opinion but we cannot have 20,000 different government agencies trying to enforce drone laws. dhs was there, let them decide.

 

[GFields]

my point was it shouldnt be the state or local gvt fining him whether he needed it or not. if the faa is pretty lenient on this requirement because they know the word is not getting out and this is still pretty new and they are practicing discretion, it shouldn't be up to the state or local government to press the issue; not their job.

we don't know the details of the incident, maybe he took the trust but didn't have the paperwork. sorry it's just my opinion but we cannot have 20,000 different government agencies trying to enforce drone laws. dhs was there, let them decide.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A Columbus man is facing charges related to a drone spotted before the Ohio State-Wisconsin football game earlier in the 2022 season.

NBC4 obtained the affidavit record for the case, which detailed an officer’s account of the Sept. 24 incident. Detectives from the Columbus Division of Police’s Counter Terrorism Unit said they spotted a drone around 9 a.m. above the Ohio Stadium. The drone flew south and then landed in the Lincoln Tower Park practice fields nearby. [read more]

my point was it shouldnt be the state or local gvt fining him whether he needed it or not.

Why would you think that the local authorities shouldn't fine him for the infraction? Secondly, it's not "whether" he/she needs one or not, but you DO need it.


"the faa is pretty lenient on this requirement because they know the word is not getting out and this is still pretty new and they are practicing discretion" Please cite your source on this information.

 

[kenautelevo2pro]

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A Columbus man is facing charges related to a drone spotted before the Ohio State-Wisconsin football game earlier in the 2022 season.

NBC4 obtained the affidavit record for the case, which detailed an officer’s account of the Sept. 24 incident. Detectives from the Columbus Division of Police’s Counter Terrorism Unit said they spotted a drone around 9 a.m. above the Ohio Stadium. The drone flew south and then landed in the Lincoln Tower Park practice fields nearby. [read more]

Why would you think that the local authorities shouldn't fine him for the infraction? Secondly, it's not "whether" he/she needs one or not, but you DO need it.


"the faa is pretty lenient on this requirement because they know the word is not getting out and this is still pretty new and they are practicing discretion" Please cite your source on this information.

i checked the entire state and local laws in my area and there's nothing in there that says a deputy, a trooper, a marshal, a corrections officer, a constable, or a police officer can charge someone for not having a drone license. however, i understand there are some jurisdictions that might not codifying federal law into their statues.

then i checked with the courts and it says only the federal government has jurisdiction. i personally think it's a bad idea if non-federal leo start to enforce federal laws on the citizens.

on multiple calls and videos with the faa, they often and frequently give the impression that they are all about education and leniency rather than enforcement and sanctions especially if it's the first time, minor, and no harm was done or no other crimes involved. from many so-called faa letter than recipients have published, sounds like the faa wants you to comply but not very strict when it comes to forcing you to comply (meaning they are willing to give you a chance to comply). if this guy did nothing wrong other than not have a trust, why not just have him walk thru the test right there on the spot and then let him go? i guess that depends on his attitude and whatever else he might have done. did they even say what drone he was flying, was it an autel nano?

in my area, for example if you driving a car going to school and you don't have a driver's license and you get caught and you didn't do anything else wrong, they'll probably tell you not to drive and make you walk home and a licensed driver to come get your car. you won't have your drone towed and you likely won't be facing state charges even though the automobile is so unsafe it has literally killed thousands of people.

btw, i thought i had heard homeland security made the call (maybe as part of joint task force) but if it columbus city police counter terrorism unit then yeah he's probably busted. so who's side are we on for this one?

 

[GFields]

i checked the entire state and local laws in my area and there's nothing in there that says a deputy, a trooper, a marshal, a corrections officer, a constable, or a police officer can charge someone for not having a drone license. however, i understand there are some jurisdictions that might not codifying federal law into their statues.

then i checked with the courts and it says only the federal government has jurisdiction. i personally think it's a bad idea if non-federal leo start to enforce federal laws on the citizens.

on multiple calls and videos with the faa, they often and frequently give the impression that they are all about education and leniency rather than enforcement and sanctions especially if it's the first time, minor, and no harm was done or no other crimes involved. from many so-called faa letter than recipients have published, sounds like the faa wants you to comply but not very strict when it comes to forcing you to comply (meaning they are willing to give you a chance to comply). if this guy did nothing wrong other than not have a trust, why not just have him walk thru the test right there on the spot and then let him go? i guess that depends on his attitude and whatever else he might have done. did they even say what drone he was flying, was it an autel nano?

in my area, for example if you driving a car going to school and you don't have a driver's license and you get caught and you didn't do anything else wrong, they'll probably tell you not to drive and make you walk home and a licensed driver to come get your car. you won't have your drone towed and you likely won't be facing state charges even though the automobile is so unsafe it has literally killed thousands of people.

btw, i thought i had heard homeland security made the call (maybe as part of joint task force) but if it columbus city police counter terrorism unit then yeah he's probably busted.

The intent of this Thread is to Educate! I am not going to argue this issue. Yes, the FAA has complete authority over Airspace. However, local authorities do have jurisdiction on the ground! One should obey both local and federal laws and that includes completing the TRUST exam and if you're a commercial pilot, Part 107.

"on multiple calls and videos with the faa, they often and frequently give the impression that they are all about education and leniency" so you have spoken to an FAA agent on multiple calls? I find that hard to believe. Nonetheless, as I said, the intent of this Thread is to educate and encourage pilots to do the right thing and to point out that there might be consequences when you don't.

 

[Dave Pitman]

FYI, apparently, this person was charged with violating Ohio state law, not federal. Nothing to do with airspace. They would accept a Part 107 cert, or proof of completing the TRUST curriculum.

"No person shall operate any aircraft in this state unless such person is the holder of a valid aviator's license issued by the United States."

Section 4561.14 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov

 

[Andrew01]

FYI, apparently, this person was charged with violating Ohio state law, not federal. Nothing to do with airspace. They would accept a Part 107 cert, or proof of completing the TRUST curriculum.

"No person shall operate any aircraft in this state unless such person is the holder of a valid aviator's license issued by the United States."

Section 4561.14 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov

And this here is the problem. No one will argue the pilot didn't do a bad thing, but the way it is handled matters. If the fine is not levied by the FAA and instead a state, this is improper process and should be invalidated as it is illegal. The Ohio law is preempted by federal law, and enforcing on the grounds of an invalid state law is violating federal law. States cannot just decide they are above federal law, regardless of whether or not the pilot acted badly.

 

[GFields]

And this here is the problem. No one will argue the pilot didn't do a bad thing, but the way it is handled matters. If the fine is not levied by the FAA and instead a state, this is improper process and should be invalidated as it is illegal. The Ohio law is preempted by federal law, and enforcing on the grounds of an invalid state law is violating federal law. States cannot just decide they are above federal law, regardless of whether or not the pilot acted badly.

Not true.

The Constitution's 10th Amendment gives the states the right to create their own laws and legislation.

 

[Dave Pitman]

And this here is the problem. No one will argue the pilot didn't do a bad thing, but the way it is handled matters. If the fine is not levied by the FAA and instead a state, this is improper process and should be invalidated as it is illegal. The Ohio law is preempted by federal law, and enforcing on the grounds of an invalid state law is violating federal law. States cannot just decide they are above federal law, regardless of whether or not the pilot acted badly.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that states can't have rules that affect the use of drones? For example, the state of Washington prohibits the take off, and operation of, a dronet (or any aircraft) from state park property. Being in the air over the state park property is in the realm of FAA airspace regulations.

The FAA does not care if states and municipalities draft laws concerning the use of aircraft, including drones. They do not cede authority over the airspace. Tfhe Ohio state law does not conflict with any FAA regulation as far as I can see. How do you see a conflict?

 

[AnchorageAk]

Ask almost any fix wing pilot how they fill about the FFA in Alaska. They are not respected by many. All you have to do is deal with them to understand. My mechanic has "YFFAY" on his car plates. Ever hear of the required drug plate your plane has to have?

 

[EBEPLS]

Well, I got my TRUST cert. Just like the man said at "Pilot Institute", the FAA wants all recreational pilots certified.

I was shocked at how easy it was (I knew most of the questions). It was funny when you clicked on an answer that was wrong, "sorry wrong answer, try again". I believe my dog could pass it.

I was telling a sheriff deputy friend about flying my drone; the first he said was "have you got your TRUST cert ?" I showed to him and he said here in our county, no flying in public parks, parades, public gatherings, etc. 1st offense is $100, he didn't say what would happen on 2nd offenses.

I'm looking forward to the part 107 test. At least I'll be legally able to take pretty aerial pictures for my clients.

 

[FreedomFlight]

my point was it shouldnt be the state or local gvt fining him whether he needed it or not. if the faa is pretty lenient on this requirement because they know the word is not getting out and this is still pretty new and they are practicing discretion, it shouldn't be up to the state or local government to press the issue; not their job.

we don't know the details of the incident, maybe he took the trust but didn't have the paperwork. sorry it's just my opinion but we cannot have 20,000 different government agencies trying to enforce drone laws. dhs was there, let them decide.

I agree. I'd also like to throw out that I haven't seen many drone pilots asking a key question, which is whether the government agencies which do enforcement of various types of laws/rules/regulations pertaining to drones, actually have legitimate authority to do that. The question about who has authority to do what kind of making of or enforcing of regulations, needs to be clarified.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I agree. I'd also like to throw out that I haven't seen many drone pilots asking a key question, which is whether the government agencies which do enforcement of various types of laws/rules/regulations pertaining to drones, actually have legitimate authority to do that. The question about who has authority to do what kind of making of or enforcing of regulations, needs to be clarified.

I've read correspondance from the FAA that states that they are all in favor of local law enforcement taking action when they encounter airspace violations. LLE is better positioned to actually encounter folks being bad more so than the FAA, was their reasoning. The FAA would be the entity actually bringing action in such cases. So, the question has been answered.

 

[FreedomFlight]

I've read correspondance from the FAA that states that they are all in favor of local law enforcement taking action when they encounter airspace violations. LLE is better positioned to actually encounter folks being bad more so than the FAA, was their reasoning. The FAA would be the entity actually bringing action in such cases. So, the question has been answered.

FAA may be in favor of this, but this doesn't make it lawful for LLE to take this action. My sense is that the federal government can't delegate/assign tasks to state law enforcement. Rather the reverse is the case. States control the federal government and can assign them tasks.

 

[GFields]

doesn't make it lawful for LLE to take this action.

You are simply mistaken here. LLE certainly has the right to enforce the laws within their state (may vary from state to state), and their cities.
This a good article to read by one of our vendors here

Furthermore, another consideration is that although LLE may not have jurisdiction over the airspace, they can use a number of existing state and local laws to help address suspected illegal or improper UAS operations, depending on the situation. For example, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, voyeurism, inciting violence, trespassing, obstruction of police emergency services duties, and nuisance/noise laws might apply. (See sidebar, Laws Used to Deal With Suspicious UAS Operations). Law enforcement should take appropriate action based on the facts and circumstances of the incident and site/area-specific laws and rules.

Bottom line: Do what's right. TRUST is free, just get it. Follow Local and Federal Laws.

 

[FreedomFlight]

You are simply mistaken here. LLE certainly has the right to enforce the laws within their state (may vary from state to state), and their cities.
This a good article to read by one of our vendors here

Furthermore, another consideration is that although LLE may not have jurisdiction over the airspace, they can use a number of existing state and local laws to help address suspected illegal or improper UAS operations, depending on the situation. For example, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, voyeurism, inciting violence, trespassing, obstruction of police emergency services duties, and nuisance/noise laws might apply. (See sidebar, Laws Used to Deal With Suspicious UAS Operations). Law enforcement should take appropriate action based on the facts and circumstances of the incident and site/area-specific laws and rules.

Bottom line: Do what's right. TRUST is free, just get it. Follow Local and Federal Laws.

Of course LLE have the right to enforce laws in their state, but they have no authority to enforce unlawful laws. Are you assuming that all drone-related rules, regulations and laws are lawful? I'm not assuming that. In fact I very much doubt that is the case.

 

[Dave Pitman]

but they have no authority to enforce unlawful laws.

What does that even mean?

 

[GFields]

Of course LLE have the right to enforce laws in their state, but they have no authority to enforce unlawful laws. Are you assuming that all drone-related rules, regulations and laws are lawful? I'm not assuming that. In fact I very much doubt that is the case.

Unlawful laws? Certainly not the case here.