$1.9 million is a huge chunk of change for most small businesses. A Fortune 500 company could simply write a check, and call it a day.However, as HoundDog said, this fine could very well destroy the company.

On another note, Skypan apparently has a 343 waiver from the FAA. The waiver requested exemptions from several regulations, but did not request exemption from the requirements for operation in Class B airspace (e.g. ATC clearance, etc.) However, after scanning the FAA's response, I did no see any mention about staying out any particular type of airspace, as long as they never got with 5 miles of the center point of an airport. That said, they can't plead ignorance to the rules. All of their UAV pilots had to have at least a Sport Pilot's license, and all of these individuals knew (or should have known) the rules about operating in Class B airspace. It makes me wonder of the FAA will also take action against the pilot certificate(s) of the individual pilot(s).

This will be an interesting case, to say the least.

I am quite impressed with their website and images, especially the "little planets" at the bottom of this page. scan through those.
http://skypanintl.com/services.html
I seems they could have a legal operation if they would just file some flight plans.
They mention flying up to 500 ft (oops! too high) with remote aircraft and higher in actual helicopters.

Oh yes, very interesting, more so now given the waiver. Chances are they deviated from that in some way, and the FAA is able to cite examples, or so we would think.

It's going to be expensive for them one way or another. For sure!

Right, it's going to be hard for them to turn around and claim ignorance or innocence when their own site boasts about what they can do, and have done. And then show pics and vids of it. DOH!

This is an article I found on the New EAA On line news letter.

[TABLE="width: 570"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][HR][/HR][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 570"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 570, align: left"]Safety Training Available for Small UAV Fliers
Online training provider Opango teamed with Planehook Aviation Services to make available small UAV safety courses online.

"Safe and responsible sharing of the skies is what our training is all about," said Dave Hook, president of Planehook. "There's a misunderstanding that people flying drones are operating in the Wild West. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like every other flying activity here in the United States, there are rules and regulations that apply."[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


http://www.planehook.com/

One thing you are all forgetting is that the FAA is going after a company. The major issue is with "Joe Schmuckatelli" flying his quad at the local park FPV at 2500 feet. While the company knew they weren't following the rules, Joe may or may not and, if he doesn't, what happens if/when he gets caught? That's the bigger question in my book

I think the FAA put out a notice not that long ago for how local LE should proceed in cases just like you note above. I think the goal was to not overreact, rather have some discussions with that person about what they were doing, of course depending on the situation. Written warnings, and then further actions were to be taken accordingly.

I don't have a smartphone. I wonder how many quad pilots don't have smart phones. I can't stand touch screens myself.

I think most quad flyer's and FPV pilots in particular are into technology and will have smart phones. 50% of middle schooler's have smart phones afterall. I got my first smart phone a couple months ago and am having trouble figuring the dang thing out, and won't ever use 90% of what it is capable of. I agree that touch screens suck. I did download a few apps, but most of the time when you download it tells you that the phone will need access to your email and your location and your photos and everything else. It makes me feel violated.

Posted this in another thread but it fits here too given the subject matter.

http://transportation.house.gov/cale...EventID=399335

Rich Hanson speaks at 54, 1:27, 1:35, and 2:00 hour mark. It's a looong video. Get a double espresso and get comfy if you plan on watching the whole thing.

Would it be possible to have all drones to have mandated transponders?
Just a thought

OK, Now for a THIRD try, some idiots did it again!??????http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-cr...s-white-house/

Transponders put out too much power to be practical for small drones. IMO it's not really necessary. Though it is a safety concern, it is not near the same concern as if full scale aircraft were behaving the same way.

You Don't Need to Shoot Down a Drone to Destroy It Anymore

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/a17717/you-dont-need-to-shoot-down-a-drone-to-destroy-it-anymore/

Here's a video that shows the Blighter AUDS system in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=P8aZ0zWX3SA

Maybe this will help with the whole problem http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-electi...rones/35713566

This piece is pretty alarming too....and might be part of the problem as well:

Whitaker told the committee the agency receives about 100 reports per month from pilots reporting drone sightings. "One hundred a month -- that's 1,200 a year -- and so far you've cited there's been about 20 enforcement actions. That seems very low," said Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, underscoring the agency's challenge in penalizing rogue drone operators.

Read more from WFMZ.com at: http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-electi...rones/35713566
Connect with us... Facebook/69WFMZ or @69News

"One hundred a month -- that's 1,200 a year -- and so far you've cited there's been about 20 enforcement actions. That seems very low," said Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, underscoring the agency's challenge in penalizing rogue drone operators.


How are they figuring out who the 20 are. What are the enforcement actions. How did they resolve? If these folks think there are no real consequences to what they are doing, and never see any examples of it...what is going to stop them?

I'm don't know much about electronics, but the idea is having a means to know who owns the drone that might be flying where it shouldn't be.
Perhaps someone could design transponders specifically for small drones. Otherwise everyone will continue to wonder who's drone which might be the cause of the FAA to come down on drones and even RC fixed wing models.

Transponders are too powerful, that is uses too much electricity and may not do much good anyway because they are so low. The whole issue is overblown the AMA looked at all of the reports and found most of them to be bogus. It's mostly a control and power grab by the FAA. Also toy drones are not likely to cause serious damage to anything, especially a large air liner. The larger commercial drones are another matter.

Sport Pilot: Seems like everything is Bogus to you, it does not matter if it's reported to the FAA by authorized and current airline Pilots that are flying and reporting, Local Police, or the FAA, it's all Bogus reporting and none of it is true?


Most of it overblown??? and the AMA looked at all the reports, What a Crock of **** .
And it your opinion are not likely to cause serious damage to anything, especially a a large airliner?

Take a look at this:

http://www.amny.com/transit/capt-che...nes-1.10746809
Then spout off as you do................

Here is another article on the very same thing,
http://www.roboticstrends.com/articl...se_plane_crash


The web reporting articles are also false, according to YOU???

Please explain the Big Power Grab by the FAA, that is supposed to enforce Rules and Regulations, is at Fault here??? I would really like to hear this.

A transponder only needs to transmit 5 miles. If the transponder is picked up by an airport's radar, it's too close. It wouldn't take that much power either. Look how little power our controllers use to control an R/C "toy". A slightly larger battery pack would probably be all that's needed

The new system mandated by 2020 is ADS-B
Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS–B) is a cooperative surveillance technology in which an aircraft determines its position via satellite navigation and periodically broadcasts it, enabling it to be tracked.

Since most (DRONES) Quads have a GPS all they have is to broadcast the info on the proper frequency ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...0%93_broadcast

Well if they are only powerful enough to be picked up 5 miles, then it won't be picked up at all when flying low. Also what about TCAS and newer in plane avoidance systems coming?

The main idea is to try to find a means to identify the culprit who may be essentially endangering the entire hobby/sport of RC aeromodeling. Like license plates on autos and whatever is used to identify full scale aircraft, GPS could be used in quad copters, so why not have GPS software that also transmits the registered owner of the quad copter? It wouldn't matter of it's altitude, it would still possible to be able to identity it's owner. Maybe someone already has such software.

Once the offender is identified, arrested and fined, it should deter anyone else from doing something stupid. It appears that our hobby/sport in general is in trouble especially if a full size aircraft sucks up any size drone, whether it causes a crash or not.