Drone News: Pilot Fined w/o TRUST

[GFields]

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

 

[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?