Basically No One is Getting Fined for Flying Drones Without a License

[AviationBroker]

I found this news article in my daily search for UAS related news. I know I am preaching to the choir here but I can foresee this being a very big problem in coming years. Thoughts?

https://gizmodo.com/basically-no-one-is-getting-fined-for-flying-drones-wit-1822866519

 

[B_Dawson]

I think they'll start enforcing it once they get all their "ducks in a row" legality wise. If they don't then the certification will lose all credibility and nobody will take it seriously. What's the point of going through the studying and testing if there aren't consequences for not following the rules?

 

[A Higher Perspective]

" If they don't then the certification will lose all credibility and nobody will take it seriously.

I'm starting to think that boat has already sailed.

 

[Russ Still]

At some point LE will become involved. Not sure how that will work, but it is inevitable.

 

[Rodger]

This is sad, we, the people that worked very hard and spent countless hours to be responsible and comply with the FAA are a mockery. Why isn't the FAA enforcing it's own rules and supporting us responsible Remote Pilots! We are doing the right thing and the people that disregard and laugh in the face of the FAA are taking our work away.

 

[David Hart]

More clients are asking for insurance as they can be held liable too, no Pfco means no insurance its a matter of time when the cowboys won't get a look in.

 

[Rodger]

I'm starting to think that boat has already sailed.

Along with theTrain

 

[Photo Elevate]

This is sad, we, the people that worked very hard and spent countless hours to be responsible and comply with the FAA are a mockery. Why isn't the FAA enforcing it's own rules and supporting us responsible Remote Pilots! We are doing the right thing and the people that disregard and laugh in the face of the FAA are taking our work away.

It's exactly the same here in the UK for us PFCO holders.

 

[Mike Nevins]

I agree with you B_Dawson. As a retired police officer, I can tell you that regulation comes first, then a short period of little or no enforcement, then it kicks in and enforcement will begin in earnest. Then and only then will our hard work and diligence come into play. If I am wrong, then it will be just anarchy and not worth the effort.

 

[Tennessee Drone Services]

Why isn't the FAA enforcing it's own rules and supporting us responsible Remote Pilots! We are doing the right thing and the people that disregard and laugh in the face of the FAA are taking our work away.

Part 107 was rushed. LANC was rushed. My understanding is that the FAA is trying to make allowances for progress in the UAS field, but they were/are ill prepared for the growth in popularity of drones. With all that being said, they regulate the manned aircraft realm very well. The growth there is very predictable and forecasting regulations is also very predictable.

On the other side of it, they simply do not have the man power to police drone usage. Again, the drone boon was not totally expected. However, the powers that be are working on more technical ways to monitor drone use... I don't think we're going to like it. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Bob]

This tells me that we need a political lobby to help those in charge understand this industry.I just think we dont have numbers,the infrastructure or the money. I do think this will occur in the future.

 

[lmmavrick]

This will get many goats . but i say keep it all free , buyer beware . the more regulation the more costs the more pia . i have my 107 great to have safety is everything . but if someone want s to pay for pictures from a fly-by -night operation then so be it .That's capitalism .

 

[R.Perry]

Well if you want to make good money, you better have a 107 cert and insurance. I wouldn't have the job I do if I wasn't certified and insured. The construction company wouldn't even let me on site until they verified it.

 

[Boefinator]

At some point LE will become involved. Not sure how that will work, but it is inevitable.

The problem right now is that local law enforcement has no jurisdiction and therefore cannot detain anyone unless the local jurisdiction has a law that prohibits flying from a certain location.

 

[Home Inspector]

This will get many goats . but i say keep it all free , buyer beware . the more regulation the more costs the more pia . i have my 107 great to have safety is everything . but if someone want s to pay for pictures from a fly-by -night operation then so be it .That's capitalism .

Breaking the law has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[924]

As states and municipalities become more interested - and they will - we'll see more law enforcement. It's inevitable that states will enact laws affecting the use of UAVs - at least under certain circumstances. Then drone operators will stop being a curiosity and a nuisance and will start being "law breakers" that can be arrested/fined under certain common scenarios. As it is, there are federal laws on the books that can only be enforced by federal agents - such as "counterfeiting" - but state laws are broad enough for a police officer to arrest you under the same fact pattern for "forgery" or something similar, as an example.

Those "commercial" operators who refuse to get their part 107 certification are ignoring their added risk in terms of liability. It MAY BE the case that insurance companies will balk at covering claims arising out of injuries or damage sustained by operators who failed to meet minimal legal requirements while operating; and it MAY BE the case that those bootleg operators will only get the "little fish;" too, but they will PAY when some unforeseen accident happens and someone is injured. A good attorney will have no problem demonstrating the operator's deliberate indifference to the basic requirements of the operation.

I suppose the only thing the rest of us can do is do it right.

 

[lmmavrick]

Breaking the law has nothing to do with capitalism.

it's not about breaking the law . It's about free enterprise with out tons of regulations and hoops to jump through . having the part 107 is good as i mentioned safety is important . but the more regulations the harder it will be for all . i know people who are better drone pilots then many with their 107 . in fact getting a 107 is easy and does not guarantee you will get a safe or qualified pilot . let experience and the market dictate who makes it . . maybe they will come up with a 200hr qualification in order to get your part 107 . right now it's a simple written test . but it may develop into a real mess for all .

 

[924]

it's not about breaking the law . It's about free enterprise with out tons of regulations and hoops to jump through . having the part 107 is good as i mentioned safety is important . but the more regulations the harder it will be for all . i know people who are better drone pilots then many with their 107 . in fact getting a 107 is easy and does not guarantee you will get a safe or qualified pilot . let experience and the market dictate who makes it . . maybe they will come up with a 200hr qualification in order to get your part 107 . right now it's a simple written test . but it may develop into a real mess for all .

I read a very interesting article published by the American Manufacturer's Association about a year ago that detailed a particular problem a company had meeting federal requirements in order to install a new spray booth (I think that's what it was) inside a factory that was already running several such stations. Every official that was part of the process of "licensure" had a different understanding of the instant regulation. The goalpost kept being moved to and fro, and in the end it cost the company several times the amount of money to comply with the standard than the published rules stated. In that particular instance the regulations were arrived at by people who didn't even understand the industry that they were regulating.

Letting "experience and the market dictate who makes it..." doesn't appear to be what's happening in the U.S. - probably not anywhere else either. I do think you're right about the potential for future regulation to become a mess for all. In the meantime, I guess we can only try (individually) not to be a reason to justify the over-regulation. Forums like this one are a good start. The positive energy generated here - when it is positive - helps to forestall the cloud of doom.

 

[Home Inspector]

This could end up like the gun issue. Our lawmakers (local, state and federal) will always think the solution is to enact more laws while the real problem is no one is enforcing existing laws. Unlicensed drone operators flying for compensation is a clear example.

 

[skyeboysteve]

I read a very interesting article published by the American Manufacturer's Association about a year ago that detailed a particular problem a company had meeting federal requirements in order to install a new spray booth (I think that's what it was) inside a factory that was already running several such stations. Every official that was part of the process of "licensure" had a different understanding of the instant regulation. The goalpost kept being moved to and fro, and in the end it cost the company several times the amount of money to comply with the standard than the published rules stated. In that particular instance the regulations were arrived at by people who didn't even understand the industry that they were regulating.

Letting "experience and the market dictate who makes it..." doesn't appear to be what's happening in the U.S. - probably not anywhere else either. I do think you're right about the potential for future regulation to become a mess for all. In the meantime, I guess we can only try (individually) not to be a reason to justify the over-regulation. Forums like this one are a good start. The positive energy generated here - when it is positive - helps to forestall the cloud of doom.

This is what happens after decades (if not centuries) of CRONY capitalism. Many regulations (in the name of safety or the environment) actually have nothing to do with either; but are set in place by well paying lobbyist to get legislation passed to make it too expensive for any potential competition to the company (that these lobbyist represent), from ever getting off the ground. Sometimes they are used to artificially inflate the salaries of those involved in an industry. I'm not suggesting that all regulations are like this--just pointing out that many are weaponized to protect those companies that are wealthy enough to wine-and-dine the many corrupt politicians and un-elected bureaucrats that run the USA and somehow become millionaires.