Yes, the FAA did issue a $2700 fine upon a hobbyist

[Jagerbomb52]

Yes, the FAA did issue a $2700 fine upon a hobbyist for not registering! (even when it WASN’T a regulation or law)

Yes, the FAA did issue a $2700 fine upon a hobbyist for not registering! (even when it WASN’T a regulation or law)

The question had previously been pondered by most drone operators – Has anyone ever been charged by the FAA for not registering their drone? The answer had always been assumed to be no. That assu…

thatdroneblog.wordpress.com

A little over my head but none the less the FAA is out there doing their jobs and its going I think you might start to see more fines being issued.

This is a final order that cannot be appealed. The FAA didn't charge him as an airman with appeal rights to the NTSB, as it did with Pirker. Here, he was charged under rules that apply to non-airmen. Seems to be a change in how drone pilots are charged or strict interpretation of the definition of pilot under Part 13 as a Part 61 pilot.

 

[G_G]

Absolutely bizarre!
"The FAA is quite willing to issue an enforcement based upon the lack of registration, even when it was NOT required!"

 

[SnagsWolf]

I'm curious why this article makes no mention of the possibility of taking this matter to court to get the fine tossed out. Based on the facts presented, it seems like it would be an easy case to win.

 

[G_G]

I'm curious why this article makes no mention of the possibility of taking this matter to court to get the fine tossed out. Based on the facts presented, it seems like it would be an easy case to win.

Exactly! I have to take issue with Agustine's statement that this a final order that cannot be appealed.

 

[SnagsWolf]

Exactly! I have to take issue with Agustine's statement that this a final order that cannot be appealed.

I took that to mean it couldn't be appealed through the FAA.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Exactly! I have to take issue with Agustine's statement that this a final order that cannot be appealed.

Not my statement, just a copy and paste from a lawyer who deals in this stuff. Like I said its over my head. I just bring you the news

 

[Jagerbomb52]

From reading further comments it seems he just ran out of time to appeal

" It could have been appealed after the May 11th letter he received. But he did not respond and thus the Final Order letter cut off all appeals. "

 

[Ansia]

I don't know if you guys read the entire article, but there is much more into play than just not registering the drone when it was not required. He also was charged with not having a certificate and flying over people. There is also a police complaint that he was spying on his neighbor and daughter, and to top it off, the pilot in question says his 11 year old was the one piloting. There are clearly many violations into play here. They may not enforce most of these, but he will go down.

On another note, this is a great way for the FAA to create presedent and start giving fines to irresponsible pilots.

 

[HiloHawaiian]

I guess what scares me the most is who witnessed the event(s) to the extent they can passed absolute judgement. Yea, it wasn’t registered, guilty. The rest?? Had he appealed, the result might have been different.

I was in a jury about a car 2-car accident injuring several folks. I learned a lot. The lawyers for the victims couldn’t have the Highway Patrol officer testify, or use his accident investigation report, (clearly concluded other driver guilty), because it is hearsay. He wasn’t there, didn’t see it happen, report was based on an investigation, not first-hand knowledge. Did an FAA investigator witness this event personally, or was it based on 2nd-hand knowledge = hearsay?

 

[Ansia]

I guess what scares me the most is who witnessed the event(s) to the extent they can passed absolute judgement. Yea, it wasn’t registered, guilty. The rest?? Had he appealed, the result might have been different.

I was in a jury about a car 2-car accident injuring several folks. I learned a lot. The lawyers for the victims couldn’t have the Highway Patrol officer testify, or use his accident investigation report, (clearly concluded other driver guilty), because it is hearsay. He wasn’t there, didn’t see it happen, report was based on an investigation, not first-hand knowledge. Did an FAA investigator witness this event personally, or was it based on 2nd-hand knowledge = hearsay?

The FAA says they have video taken from Youtube as evidence. What does the video show, I do not know. I believe it's better for this person to take the 2k fine for not having the registration. In my opinion, it will be cheaper than any other fine he might get for the other violations.

 

[HiloHawaiian]

Yea....... YouTube giveth and YouTube taketh away. I’ve seen several videos on this forum flying over groups of people. Unfortunately it’s not uncommon. I’ve done it by accident more than once, over houses too low, etc. b/c it was hard to make that judgement from 1/2 mile+ away.

Is the FAA making an example here?

 

[G_G]

From reading further comments it seems he just ran out of time to appeal View attachment 4457

" It could have been appealed after the May 11th letter he received. But he did not respond and thus the Final Order letter cut off all appeals. "

That makes more sense.

 

[G_G]

Is the FAA making an example here?

Not exactly the best example case, given that he was charged with not having something that wasn't even legally required at the time. Further reading reveals this was actually really a neighbor dispute that spun out of control, no pun intended! FAA should not be settling squabbles between neighbors that really have nothing to do with the FAA. The annoyed neighbor was clearly using a federal agency to do his personal bidding!

 

[G_G]

I guess what scares me the most is who witnessed the event(s) to the extent they can passed absolute judgement. Yea, it wasn’t registered, guilty. The rest?? Had he appealed, the result might have been different.

I was in a jury about a car 2-car accident injuring several folks. I learned a lot. The lawyers for the victims couldn’t have the Highway Patrol officer testify, or use his accident investigation report, (clearly concluded other driver guilty), because it is hearsay. He wasn’t there, didn’t see it happen, report was based on an investigation, not first-hand knowledge. Did an FAA investigator witness this event personally, or was it based on 2nd-hand knowledge = hearsay?

Reports based upon investigations by experts after the fact are not hearsay, and are admissible, if a proper foundation is laid for their admissibility, which includes the testimony of the investigating officer himself, who can authenticate the report, assuming he qualifies as an expert in accident investigations. Must have been something else going on that you, as a juror, were not privy to. Often, there is also a ticket issued, and a guilty plea on the ticket can be used as evidence in the civil case, but not a plea of nolo contendere, or no contest, which is usually what the defendant will plead, when there is a pending civil case.

 

[HiloHawaiian]

Reports based upon investigations by experts after the fact are not hearsay, and are admissible, if a proper foundation is laid for their admissibility, which includes the testimony of the investigating officer himself, who can authenticate the report, assuming he qualifies as an expert in accident investigations. Must have been something else going on that you, as a juror, were not privy to. Often, there is also a ticket issued, and a guilty plea on the ticket can be used as evidence in the civil case, but not a plea of nolo contendere, or no contest, which is usually what the defendant will plead, when there is a pending civil case.

Nope, nothing else going on, it was a simple case. Defendant said it happened one way, plaintiff another way. No other witnesses. California Highway Patrol is unquestionably the best source to investigate a crash on a California highway, yet the lawyer for the defendant claimed his report was hearsay, because he had to extrapolate from his investigation what probably happened. Could he be sure? Nope, he didn’t see it. How the accident most likely happened was based on “some” speculation, so it’s legally hearsay. Judge didn’t hesitate to tossed it...

 

[G_G]

Nope, nothing else going on, it was a simple case. California Highway Patrol is unquestionably the best source to investigate a crash on a California highway, yet the lawyer for the defendant claimed his report was hearsay, because he had to extrapolate from his investigation what probably happened. Could he be sure? Nope, he didn’t see it. How the accident most likely happened was based on “some” speculation, so it’s legally hearsay. Judge didn’t hesitate to tossed it...

Apparently, the plaintiff was not well represented, and the judge can do anything he wants, if there is no attorney to point out it isn't hearsay when the witness is testifying about his own expert opinion, from his own reports. You don't need to be sure to offer an expert opinion. Lots of judges don't know the law, or rule incorrectly, especially if they are new, just like plaintiff attorneys without much trial experience! Plaintiff got screwed. In a civil case, you only need to prove more likely than not (51%), instead of beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty (99%). OJ was acquitted of murder in the criminal case, but lost the civil case over wrongful death. Different standards of proof!