Calif. tourist fined $20K for out-of-control drone that landed at airport in Las Vegas flight in 2018

[Dave Pitman]

The timing could be a user defined parameter based upon the particular task. I just grabbed 5 seconds as an example. If you're filming high speed sports would be a different setting than inspecting a bridge. The point is that a contingency could be programmed in very easily, but is currently not available.

 

[2edgesword]

Guess that's were we diverge. When he chose to fly in controlled airspace, he chose to accept full responsibility for the flight and the "DJI made me do it" defense will not fly in a civil court nor FAA administrative hearing. He intentionally chose to begin an illegal flight and is 100% accountable for the outcome. As I understand it there were no injuries or damage so don't see this going to a civil trial. When the Titanic went down, Captain Smith was held ultimately responsible (posthumously), not the builder or White Star.

The Rickover rule.

Did he "chose" to fly in controlled airspace or did he unknowingly fly into controlled airspace believing DJI 's Geofencing would warn or prevent him from flying into controlled airspace? If the former all the liability is on him. If it's the latter a very good argument can be made that DJI shares some of the liability in spite of any regulation or disclaimer that says otherwise.

 

[Mavic Mac]

He has a couple of videos posted on his Instagram of flights over Las Vegas and Los Angeles plus a video about his drone after is was confiscated.
If interested HERE is a link to them. Seems like this wasn't his venture into controlled airspace

 

[Earnest Ward]

You missed my point. Did he knowingly fly into controlled airspace or was he relying on DJI's geofencing to prevent that intrusion? I know you'll say it doesn't matter one way or another but I'm saying it does matter.

Actually, with regards to the regulations, it doesn't matter whether he "knowingly" or unknowingly flew into controlled airspace. The remote pilot-in-command (not the aircraft manufacturer or the manufacturer's app) is ALWAYS responsible for ensuring "that the small UAS operation complies with all applicable regulations" and "that the [sUAS] will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason."

 

[Earnest Ward]

He has a couple of videos posted on his Instagram of flights over Las Vegas and Los Angeles plus a video about his drone after is was confiscated.
If interested HERE is a link to them. Seems like this wasn't his venture into controlled airspace

His Dec. 20, 2018 post of the night flight over the boat parade was telling, "Annual Newport Beach Boat Parade ??⛴ flew drone 6 miles threw (sic) entire marina very beautiful." 6 miles? What do you think the odds are he holds a night BVLOS waiver?

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Did he "chose" to fly in controlled airspace or did he unknowingly fly into controlled airspace believing DJI 's Geofencing would warn or prevent him from flying into controlled airspace? If the former all the liability is on him. If it's the latter a very good argument can be made that DJI shares some of the liability in spite of any regulation or disclaimer that says otherwise.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

His Dec. 20, 2018 post of the night flight over the boat parade was telling, "Annual Newport Beach Boat Parade ??⛴ flew drone 6 miles threw (sic) entire marina very beautiful." 6 miles? What do you think the odds are he holds a night BVLOS waiver?

So he's a professional m-o-r-o-n...

 

[PatR]

His Dec. 20, 2018 post of the night flight over the boat parade was telling, "Annual Newport Beach Boat Parade [emoji568][emoji924][emoji925] flew drone 6 miles threw (sic) entire marina very beautiful." 6 miles? What do you think the odds are he holds a night BVLOS waiver?

What are the odds he flew within the SNA control zone? I know when I flew night manned scenic flights over Newport Harbor I had to be in contact with Coast Approach.

The dude chose to fly, period. Regardless of where he flew, total responsibility was on him from moment of lift off.

 

[Earnest Ward]

What are the odds he flew within the SNA control zone? I know when I flew night manned scenic flights over Newport Harbor I had to be in contact with Coast Approach.

The dude chose to fly, period. Regardless of where he flew, total responsibility was on him from moment of lift off.

As with manned flight, total responsibility is on the PIC even before lift off. Among other things, he incorrectly listed his registration number on the aircraft. The PIC is also responsible for checking the airworthiness of the aircraft prior to flight - in the case of an sUAS that would include checking for RF and EM interference (both of which would be a distinct possibility on the reinforced concrete parking lot of the Caesar's Palace.) Ignoring that, he launched and climbed (according to the report) to 450' AGL and eventually lost control of the aircraft. After the aircraft was returned to him by the FAA in April he chose not to appeal (or even respond to) the FAA letter listing his 9 violations, but instead posted the video of his illegal flight to social media.

 

[PatR]

I wasn’t aware of the incorrect registration number. If true that infers bad intent for pretty much all his flying and adds further support to a claim of failed software to be a lie.

He might have figured a false registration number would mask his identity if ever anything went wrong only to be exposed by his manufacturer registration when the aircraft self landed because the battery died.

 

[R.Perry]

There is a lawsuit (not sure of current status) where RTH failed and the aircraft ended up in controlled airspace. DJI was a party in the lawsuit with the claim that the failure of their system was responsible for the airspace violation. If I can find anything on the current status I'll post a link.

Hopefully I didn't give the impression that DJI was perfect and infallible, but I'm also very aware of the attitude of "don't take responsibility for something you can blame on someone else". Could RTH fail, sure it could, Is it possible to lose total control of a drone, I'm sure it is possible, but not probable. I now have a fair amount of experience with three DJI drones, the Inspire 2, Phantom 4, and Mavic Pro. and all three have performed very well, tomorrow may be a different story.

Many of the so called problems come from pilot mistakes, and we are all human and make mistakes, most just won't admit it.

As for the young man I just think there is probably a lot more to the story than we have been privileged to know at this point.

As for manufactures, I believe in the most part they all strive to make their products as safe as possible, and yes at times they miss a few things, that's life, and the lawyers capitalize on their human errors, and I think that is disgusting.

 

[2edgesword]

He has a couple of videos posted on his Instagram of flights over Las Vegas and Los Angeles plus a video about his drone after is was confiscated.
If interested HERE is a link to them. Seems like this wasn't his venture into controlled airspace

He strikes me as one of the clueless but can't make a judgement on what he knew and when he knew it from the videos. I have a long time friend that I recently found out flew drones. I approached him to ask about it. He told me he had a Phantom and mentioned he had been flying it at 1,000 feet to take some video. I looked at him surprised and ask "you do know the legal limit is 400'?" He was dumbfounded without a clue there was an altitude limit.

That said I think this is one of the reasons the FAA prefers to educate rather than fine.

Hopefully I didn't give the impression that DJI was perfect and infallible, but I'm also very aware of the attitude of "don't take responsibility for something you can blame on someone else". Could RTH fail, sure it could, Is it possible to lose total control of a drone, I'm sure it is possible, but not probable. I now have a fair amount of experience with three DJI drones, the Inspire 2, Phantom 4, and Mavic Pro. and all three have performed very well, tomorrow may be a different story.

Many of the so called problems come from pilot mistakes, and we are all human and make mistakes, most just won't admit it.

As for the young man I just think there is probably a lot more to the story than we have been privileged to know at this point.

As for manufactures, I believe in the most part they all strive to make their products as safe as possible, and yes at times they miss a few things, that's life, and the lawyers capitalize on their human errors, and I think that is disgusting.

I agree with much of what you said but take issue with the last sentence about lawyers capitalizing on their human error. Now I've heard plenty of stories of ambulance chancing lawyers and dirt tricks by lawyers to win a case. That said when you're up against a major corporation with very deep pockets to keep a lawsuit dragging on for years while the opposition is a working class individual with very limited resources seeking justice the individual is miles behind the eight ball.

I don't know all the circumstance behind this particular incident but those that rest on the PIC in command is ultimately responsible are themselves taking the easy path to cast all responsibility on the PIC without any consideration for the role DJI has taken in when and where an aircraft can fly.

Again, DJI promotes their geofencing as a means of avoiding excursions into controlled airspace. As a company they have taken upon themselves the authority to prevent a PIC from having full control of the aircraft at all times. If you want that power you have to take the responsibility that goes along with it and that responsibility doesn't get tossed aside by a disclaimer. If an individual has a reasonable belief that DJI geofencing prevents them from intruding into controlled airspace and that system fails DJI shares some of the responsibility for that failure. This is why I totally reject the notion that DJI should be in the business of preventing an aircraft from functioning based on their understanding of airspace restrictions. If the PIC is the ultimate authority as the regulations let them be the ones making the decisions about when and where it is legal to fly.

 

[R.Perry]

He strikes me as one of the clueless but can't make a judgement on what he knew and when he knew it from the videos. I have a long time friend that I recently found out flew drones. I approached him to ask about it. He told me he had a Phantom and mentioned he had been flying it at 1,000 feet to take some video. I looked at him surprised and ask "you do know the legal limit is 400'?" He was dumbfounded without a clue there was an altitude limit.

That said I think this is one of the reasons the FAA prefers to educate rather than fine. They realize


I agree with much of what you said but take issue with the last sentence about lawyers capitalizing on their human error. Now I've heard plenty of stories of ambulance chancing lawyers and dirt tricks by lawyers to win a case. That said when you're up against a major corporation with very deep pockets to keep a lawsuit dragging on for years while the opposition is a working class individual with very limited resources seeking justice the individual is miles behind the eight ball.

I don't know all the circumstance behind this particular incident but those that rest on the PIC in command is ultimately responsible are themselves taking the easy path to cast all responsibility on the PIC without any consideration for the role DJI has taken in when and where an aircraft can fly.

Again, DJI promotes their geofencing as a means of avoiding excursions into controlled airspace. As a company they have taken upon themselves the authority to prevent a PIC from having full control of the aircraft at all times. If you want that power you have to take the responsibility that goes along with it and that responsibility doesn't get tossed aside by a disclaimer. If an individual has a reasonable belief that DJI geofencing prevents them from intruding into controlled airspace and that system fails DJI shares some of the responsibility for that failure. This is why I totally reject the notion that DJI should be in the business of preventing an aircraft from functioning based on their understanding of airspace restrictions. If the PIC is the ultimate authority as the regulations say let them be the ones making the decisions about when and where it is legal to fly.

First let me apologize for my statement about lawyers, like any profession there are good and not so good.
If his drone had current software updates, I believe his flight would have been blocked. There is software out there that will disable geofencing, also if his drone was older and he hadn't updated the firmware, geofencing wouldn't have prevented the flight. This is speculation on my part, kind of like the arm chair quarterback.

Many of us I'm sure would love to know the "rest of the story".

 

[PatR]

There are also widely disseminated instructions available covering how to disable DJI flight restrictions. I would like to know all of his story, not just the rest of this one.

However, I think many will agree DJI has caused a lot of problems with their meddling in government affairs.

 

[R Martin]

How much lipstick are we gonna have to put on this pig?

 

[BigAl07]

How much lipstick are we gonna have to put on this pig?

^^^^ You win BEST COMMENT on the net for today!! You made my morning LOL

 

[2edgesword]

How much lipstick are we gonna have to put on this pig?

Lipstick is used to cover-up imperfections. The goaled isn't to cover them up but expose them. If DJI claims there system is in place...

"GEO displays zones of various risk levels in which flight may pose safety or security concerns and allows users to unlock them. Unlocking low-risk zones requires just a few taps or clicks, while high-risk zones require users to submit particular credentials to ensure compliance with local policies and regulations."

and that system fails I seriously doubt a disclaimer or the FAA's "PIC is ultimately responsible" absolves them from liability should something bad occur. Get a jury of peers (average person with zero to minimal knowledge of airspace regulations), have them read the promotional material put out by DJI regarding their geofencing capability (with the help of a good lawyer) and their expectation is going to be the DJI system will prevent crossing into controlled airspace.

So you can but the lipstick and eyeliner away. We want to expose the pig for what it is.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Lipstick is used to cover-up imperfections. The goaled isn't to cover them up but expose them. If DJI claims there system is in place...

"GEO displays zones of various risk levels in which flight may pose safety or security concerns and allows users to unlock them. Unlocking low-risk zones requires just a few taps or clicks, while high-risk zones require users to submit particular credentials to ensure compliance with local policies and regulations."

and that system fails I seriously doubt a disclaimer or the FAA's "PIC is ultimately responsible" absolves them from liability should something bad occur. Get a jury of peers (average person with zero to minimal knowledge of airspace regulations), have them read the promotional material put out by DJI regarding their geofencing capability (with the help of a good lawyer) and their expectation is going to be the DJI system will prevent crossing into controlled airspace.

So you can but the lipstick and eyeliner away. We want to expose the pig for what it is.

 

[PatR]

Thing is, we don’t know the geo system failed. We don’t know the drone became a renegade. We don’t know if firmware was present containing geo. We don’t know if geo was bypassed. We din’t know if the owner is telling the truth, which isn’t likely.

Of all people, I’m certainly not a DJI lover, but we do know the owner flew where and when it was not legal to do so.

 

[2edgesword]

Thing is, we don’t know the geo system failed. We don’t know the drone became a renegade. We don’t know if firmware was present containing geo. We don’t know if geo was bypassed. We din’t know if the owner is telling the truth, which isn’t likely.

Of all people, I’m certainly not a DJI lover, but we do know the owner flew where and when it was not legal to do so.

My comments went from the specifics of this incident to the general issue of DJI geofencing. Never liked it, still don't and one reason I have a Parrot Anafi in addition the Mavic Pro.