Suing someone because they claim to have programming installed that prevents that intrusion does matter.
Calif. tourist fined $20K for out-of-control drone that landed at airport in Las Vegas flight in 2018
- Thread starter BigAl07
- Start date
Suing someone because they claim to have programming installed that prevents that intrusion does matter.
It gets better. One of his YouTube videos is a drone flight over Santa Fe Dam. Resevoir for another word around the censor. Santa Fe has a very high probability of being a flight restricted area for everything via an agreement between DHS, FAA, and public water utilities. Most water reservoirs are unmarked no fly zones, with the closed areas including watershed land area.
So the FAA and DHS have to option of going after the guy a second time, using his published video as evidence.
Watching his videos it’s pretty obvious he cares nothing about rules, regs, or flight safety.
So the FAA and DHS have to option of going after the guy a second time, using his published video as evidence.
Watching his videos it’s pretty obvious he cares nothing about rules, regs, or flight safety.
I’ve got an app on my phone that alerts me to speeding but the responsibility still falls on the operator. If I get pulled over for speeding I doubt the LEO or Judge is going to understand that I was relying on an app.
If you’re silly enough to rely on something like that to keep you out of trouble you may need to re-evaluate your operations fundamentally.
If you’re silly enough to rely on something like that to keep you out of trouble you may need to re-evaluate your operations fundamentally.
I believed he launched from within controlled airspace. And it does matter. Blaming DJI for his recklessness will not fly, as demonstrated by the FAA's actions . I only hope he's banned for life from ever holding a part 107.
He took off within a published VIP TFR. He could not legally fly within 30 miles of where his drone ended up. Whether the drone had geo fencing or not is irrelevant, he intentionally flew when it was illegal to fly anything without ATC approval, a filed flight plan, in constant contact with ATC, and equipped with a transponder or ADS-B.
The courts eliminated the ignorance of the law argument a long time ago.
I think that lifetime ban should include owning or operating anything that flies. The guy is either incredibly stupid or just doesn’t care.
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
AMann
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 117
He knowingly flew it.
Also, I believe it was FAA registered, which if so, he saw the rules and regs and agreed to follow them as stated on that site as well.
The app "alerts" you to speeding. The producer of the app never claims they can prevent your car from speeding.
You say "silly enough" but I don't think silly covers all circumstances. DJI touts its geofencing and NFZ functions as a way to prevent violations of airspace. Both of us have been flying for decades and understand the PIC is the final authority on the operation of the aircraft. Newbies into this world that have no other experience with flying, and whose first experience may be with a DJI drone, may have a far different understanding of just what Geofencing is and is not. If a lawyer can win a lawsuit when someone drops a hot cup of coffee in their lap I'm very confident a lawyer given a certain set of circumstance could win a lawsuit given what DJI advertises Geofencing is capable of doing.
Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything in the article that indicates he "knowingly" flew into controlled airspace.
AMann
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 117
I just said he knowingly flew it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Not an excuse but circumstantial factors, like a manufacturer that claims they have programmed a device so that it will only operate in compliance with the law, could be used in a lawsuit against the manufacturer.
Yes, I do and I'm guess you and I are part of the 1% of the population that do. But by your posting this it indicates to me you don't understand what is being discussed. The issue is, does DJI have any liability when someone that DOESN'T KNOW what all of the circles and lines mean, but is counting on DJI's highly touted Geofencing to warn/prevent them from flighting into a controlled airspace, share any liability when controlled airspace is violated? My opinion is under the right set of circumstance a lawyer could make a very reasonable argument that they do share in the liability.
AMann
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 117
Well, since it was a DJI drone, wouldn't the guy have voided any DJI culpability by swiping the warning message off the screen and taking off anyway? (This is of course assuming there was a message, he could’ve been flying without Wi-Fi connectivity, which would’ve made him also responsible for not checking first.)
Assuming there was a warning message (I don't recall that being mentioned in the article). That said how many people have reported getting a warning message or were prevented from flying when no NFZ existed in the area where they were. Is it possible that the opposed might have occurred?
I'm not trying to absolve anyone that knowing flies into controlled airspace of their liability. I do believe there could very well be a set of circumstance in which someone believing DJI Geofencing was the end all in when and where the drone can be operated, where a drone violated controlled airspace and DJI was held full or partially liability for the intrusion.
DJI’s EULA pretty much disclaims any DJI liability. That EULA mentions the user is cognizant of local regulations.
It’s a lot more difficult now to claim user stupidity in product liability cases. Most everyone has added disclaimers to their products and notes that if you don’t agree with them not to use the product. If a user does not understand how to use something, or the regulations governing that which they want to use, the responsibility to become educated is theirs, bot a seller or maker’s. If you pick up and open a book it is assumed you can read. If you can’t it’s a personal problem.
Then we have the one rule that covers everything that flies. The pilot in command is responsible.... That covers everything. Toss in careless and reckless operation of an aircraft and you can claim to be the village idiot without affecting your defense even a little bit.
It’s a lot more difficult now to claim user stupidity in product liability cases. Most everyone has added disclaimers to their products and notes that if you don’t agree with them not to use the product. If a user does not understand how to use something, or the regulations governing that which they want to use, the responsibility to become educated is theirs, bot a seller or maker’s. If you pick up and open a book it is assumed you can read. If you can’t it’s a personal problem.
Then we have the one rule that covers everything that flies. The pilot in command is responsible.... That covers everything. Toss in careless and reckless operation of an aircraft and you can claim to be the village idiot without affecting your defense even a little bit.
