# A-- Hat drone owner/pilot

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Because the potential consequences of the drone operator’s behavior stupidly interfered with law enforcement, put peoples’ lives at risk and did damage to two vehicles. Fines are not issued relative to an offender’s income or wealth, but to the offense.
Not always true.

Do you support fining DUI drivers based on their income?
BJC
Of course I do it’s just simply not logical to do it any other way.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
See post 76. Full restitution to all parties harmed by his recklessness, probation terms to prohibit further drone ops for an extended period (likely would be statutorily limited to the max jail term he faced: 1 year).
Let me repeat my question again ; ; how big a FINE do you think is appropriate?

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Let me repeat my question again ; ; how big a FINE do you think is appropriate?
IMO, your original question was gratuitously rude and intrusive. I'll continue to ignore those parts

To start, I think the defendant wasn't charged appropriately. According to the cognizant US attorney's office, the offender was only charged with "one count of unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft." This is well short of the offense. "Unsafe" only requires that the operation was negligent. If press reports are accurate, the defendant's drone operations clearly go beyond "negligent' and were reckless. He deliberately flew the drone to where he heard and saw the helicopter. In addition to his reckless operation of the drone, he could/should have been charged with interference in the ongoing public safety activity, just as if he'd driven his car over to that pharmacy parking lot (hampering police access) and then went up to the door to "see what the commotion was about".
I'd have preferred he spend 30 days in the county lockup, pay full restitution for the damaged public and private property, and face a 5 year prohibition from operations of drone or model aircraft (control line models excepted). I fully appreciate that this is inconsistent with general sentencing trends.

Last edited:

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Not always true.
We are discussing a specific case.
Of course I do it’s just simply not logical to do it any other way.
We fundamentally disagree.

BJC

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
Of course I do it’s just simply not logical to do it any other way.
Actually it's pretty much impossible to do it by income. Legal statutes specify the crimes, their varying severities, and the appropriate punishments relative to their severities. Introducing income into the mix would make it nearly impossible to specify particular punishments in the statutes themselves, and subject the court system to an almost endless parade of defense lawyers trying to argue "need" or "damage" for their client. The court system would start running in almost endless circles like they do with inmates on death row. It takes many, many years to actually execute someone sentenced to the death penalty, almost entirely because you have lawyers endlessly arguing these very things, that the punishment and/or hardship is too severe, and income is most definitely one of those factors. You can't simply punish people according to their income though. There would no longer be equal justice under the law, and you would incentivize crimes by people in lower income classes.

Keep in mind though, that criminal statutes almost always specify a range of punishments, along with minimums, or maximums. Usually we see that written as 'up to x years in prison' and 'up to $xx in fines'. That gives the court the leeway to choose the most appropriate punishments according to the severity of the crime and the impact of the punishment. And they do in fact sometimes limit fines due to monetary hardship, but rarely on the part of the criminal. It's usually only if the hardship would cause tangible and articulable harm to their relatives, etc., but it's not commonly done because people are supposed to pay their own fines, which is as it should be. I see what you're getting at, and it's a noble gesture. A$500 fine isn't anywhere near of a deterrent to a millionaire as it is to someone making minimum wage. It's the old, 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' principle. But circumstances like that are exactly why judges are given the leeway to specify punishments at different points within the allowed range, and that's what they usually do. Keep in mind that prosecutors also have leeway in these circumstances. The FAA crime is federal, but you have to remember that the federal charge we're discussing here is only for the illegal operation of the drone. You can be sure the local DA will step in with other charges in appropriate circumstances. A charge of reckless endangerment, or other more serious offenses could be on the plate. If the drone operator damages property or injures people, or even operates in a manner that could potentially cause those things, you can be sure the local authorities will charge him with heftier crimes that carry heftier punishments.

Oh, and that noble principle of "from each according to his ability.." didn't work out so well for the Soviet Union, North Korea or any of the other countries who adopted the communist principles of Karl Marx, who is the one who actually coined that phrase.

But I'll tell you what. One of my cousins was killed by a drunk driver when she was 17. I'd have been happy to set up an appointment for you with my aunt, were she still alive, to explain why you feel the drunk driver deserved less punishment because he was poor. I'd have wanted to document that event on video. It would have been great entertainment.

Last edited:

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
You guys are funny people you don’t want to address the question I had and seem to think my question was the answer to some other question.
So to answer your unasked question of course I think People and corporations should pay full restitution for their actions. Right up to the point where it kills them.
As far as fines I think they need to be about equal pain and deterance.

Bill gates can park anywhere he wants and buy a new car if his is towed.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
I’d just about guarantee it’s through stupidity............ It’s always through stupidity!

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
I’d just about guarantee it’s through stupidity............ It’s always through stupidity!

More Stupidity

#### Appowner

##### Active Member
Well, yesterday I read where the Navy has accomplished an in-flight refueling of an F-18 Super Hornet. The tanker was a Drone.

I don't know if that should be classed as stupid or not. Certainly an aviation technological accomplishment but my concern is as the number of drones increases the greater the chance of stupid doing it's thing. The result I fear will be more regulations along the lines of who, where, when and how high a manned aircraft can fly (because we all know drones can't read). Not that I think the remote controllers of the drones will do anything intentional but they are more in video game mode than pilot mode. And there's something about having ones butt strapped to the beast that makes more intelligent decisions not only possible, but likely.

#### TrikeTrash

##### Member
>More Stupidity

Reckless drone operator? Yes. (And he should be held accountable, for flying in a restricted area.)

Did the drone crash into the nesting area? No. (Multiple sources indicate that the drone crashed into the "wetland area".)

Was the drone the cause of the abandonment. No. (It certainly didn't help and may have been the "final straw" but it wasn't the cause. But of course that wouldn't make a sensational headline.)

Selected quotes from other sites besides Gizmodo:

The increase in visitors brought an increase in dogs and bicyclists to trails, which are both prohibited.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in dogs, particularly off-leash,” Loebl told the outlet. “That’s devastating for wildlife and this is prime nesting season. The dogs chase the birds and the birds abandon their nests,” she said.
- thehill.com

Roger Lederer, a professor emeritus of biological sciences at California State University at Chico, told the Post in an email that birds “don’t abandon their nests very easily,” but an influx of visitors since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, and especially the increased presence of cyclists and off-leash dogs, have altered the reserve’s natural vibe.

“I suspect there has been continual stress put on the bird colony, and the drone crash was the last straw,” Lederer wrote.
-www.wpxi.com

With the pandemic driving more and more people to outdoor spaces, last year saw about 100,000 visitors to the Bolsa Chica reserve – up from about 60,000 the previous year, Loebl said told the newspaper.

That’s contributed not only to increased drone activity, but also to more dogs and bicycles on the trails – all of which are prohibited.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in dogs, particularly off-leash,” Loebl said. “That’s devastating for wildlife and this is prime nesting season. The dogs chase the birds and the birds abandon their nests.”

Another problem is the development of multimillion-dollar homes on the hillside at the north end of the reserve overlooking the wetlands, said Fish and Wildlife warden Nick Molsberry. While most residents respect the sensitive nature of the estuary, there are a few scofflaws, he said.

“It’s residents that sometimes feel entitled, that feel they should be able to use the land as they like,” Molsberry said. Authorities are ramping up enforcement and citing people who break the rules.
- yahoo.com

Because Bolsa Chica is an ecological reserve, there are strict rules in place to protect the habitat and the wildlife including no bikes, no dogs, and no drones. Camping and picnicking are not allowed, and officials say it’s especially crucial that visitors stay on designated trails.

But in recent months, Fish and Wildlife officials have seen an increase in violations, especially after hours – signs and fences destroyed, graffiti, trash, and plants and animals being illegally harvested or taken from the reserve. Dogs have been allowed to roam free, which officials say has a significant impact on wild birds that are breeding, nesting, and migrating.
- losangeles.cbslocal.com

About 2,000 tern eggs in California were abandoned after an illegal drone flight over their hatching area ended with a crash, spooking the ground-nesting birds.

That was one of two illegal flights on May 13 that ended with a crash in the protected Bolsa Chica wetlands west of Anaheim — the other drone only temporarily flushed another group of terns from their nests, before they returned, the Orange County Register reported.
- nypost.com

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I just clicked on this thread thinking someone had a "hat drone" and I wanted to see it. ;-p

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
I just clicked on this thread thinking someone had a "hat drone" and I wanted to see it. ;-p
Here ya go:

#### Kiwi303

##### Well-Known Member
>More Stupidity

“We’ve seen a significant increase in dogs, particularly off-leash,” Loebl said. “That’s devastating for wildlife and this is prime nesting season. The dogs chase the birds and the birds abandon their nests.”

Because Bolsa Chica is an ecological reserve, there are strict rules in place to protect the habitat and the wildlife including no bikes, no dogs, and no drones. Camping and picnicking are not allowed, and officials say it’s especially crucial that visitors stay on designated trails.

Easily fixed. a number of signs around " any dogs on reserve lands will be shot on sight."

And enforce that, rangers with scoped sniper rifles in lookouts. any dog seen becomes raw material for chinese takeout.

they'll soon have dog owners staying away. again seize and destroy any bikes on the reserve.

probably can't shoot the people off the trail, they'll just have to be charged with harassment and endangerment of threatened species.

#### TrikeTrash

##### Member
Unfortunately there’s been a lot of reporting of the “bad actors” in the drone world, I’d like to take an opportunity to show the other side. The responsible side of drone ownership and use. In the video below you’ll see a simple series of touch and goes that informs new fpv students how to align their aircraft with the runway for proper landing.

Couple of notes: with the exception of the initial walk around, every thing you’ll see is what the RC pilot sees on the ground in real time, the camera movements within the aircraft are mimicked directly to the head movements of the RC pilot on the ground. Second, even though this is clearly an RC model, the FAA has pronounced that this and all RC aircraft are forevermore drones. That said...

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
It's sad that a few people who think they're "Special" ruin a lot of things for everyone else

#### Appowner

##### Active Member
As a long time RC flyer and now the only way I can fly, it saddens me to see where the hobby is going. Were the economy really as bad as many are saying we wouldn't have so many people with way more money than brains involved in these past times.

The Mig-29 in the video is NOT a kit as one might think of. Rather it is a collection of near finished components that simply need to be assembled, radio and fan units installed, charge batteries and go fly. Models which weigh 50 plus pounds and more, much more. Models that can fly at 200 mph and more. Models as big as a 50% scale J-3 Cub (I myself am working on a 30% Piper Cherokee).