The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announces the largest civil penalty the FAA has proposed against a UAS operator for endangering the safety of our airspace.
The FAA proposes a $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International, Inc. of Chicago. Between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated cities, violating airspace regulations and various operating rules, the FAA alleges. These operations were illegal and not without risk.
The FAA alleges that the company conducted 65 unauthorized commercial UAS flights over various locations in New York City and Chicago between March 21, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2014. The flights involved aerial photography. Of those, 43 flew in the highly restricted New York Class B airspace.
“Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations.”
SkyPan operated the 43 flights in the New York Class B airspace without receiving an air traffic control clearance to access it, the FAA alleges. Additionally, the agency alleges the aircraft was not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment.
The FAA further alleges that on all 65 flights, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration, and SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations.
SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property, the FAA alleges.
SkyPan has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555
Comments
John: huh?
I'm a little suspicious about this one. I think the FAA is targeting these guys more because they (and a couple other entities) were involved in the suit that was filed against the FAA in federal court last year. As Gary has also stated, the company is not poor by any means and has also been operating for a very long time.
To me it seems more like the FAA is more interested in bullying UAV operators into submission than actually proposing good regulations. Therefore i wouldn't mind at all if SkyPan stuck it to them.
It seems the Skypan was one of the parties that that filed a lawsuit about a year ago, challenging the FAA's interpretation of the 2012 law / rules .... LINK & LINK2
That could be, in part, a motivation for the FAA to hold them accountable to extent of the full force of the law.
I do not know what particular aircraft Skypan were using for these alleged offences but if they were like THIS one shown in the linked article or one of the ones mentioned in this PRESS brief then it is definitely not a trivial matter.
This company is not a new up-start, and they have the capacity & experience to know full well if they were in compliance at all times or not.
Just say'n
Tony: Argument by authority only is moot.
The 333 is being given to anyone that applies, a couple have already been removed because on checking the folks did not have the required paperwork. One because that applicant copied and pasted another 333 and changed the names only on the cover sheet. I wouldn't say that company was poor, one of those jobs paid $135,000 that might be why the FAA has picked such a large number.
Interesting that they now hold a Section 333 Exemption. Why would the FAA grant an 333 Exemption to a company they were going to levy a penalty against?
So much for a 333 Exemption meaning anything.
Regards,
Nathaniel ~KD2DEY
Regardless of whether the FAA has a legal case against the defendant, there are 2 clear facts.
1. The people doing this especially in the volume of operations had to be pretty well aware of what was and what was not considered reasonable at the time they were doing it and even if half of the FAAs claims are ultimately proven invalid, the other half should have given them pause.
2. The FAA is grandstanding by putting a enormous claim against a company that likely cannot possibly afford to pay it. They are doing this to simply make a giant noise of see how we can destroy your lives if you do something we don't like.
Clearly this time they didn't wan't any paltry $10,000.00 fine to underwhelm their attempts to bludgeon the public into obeying their edicts.
Don't get me wrong, this company clearly operated with flagrant disregard for safety and for the FAA and it is going to cost them, but it would also be nice to see the FAA take an even handed and reasonable approach for a change as well.
In the end it is not clear who the "example" will be made of.
Best Regards,
Gary
I surfed around their website. If I flew my R/C aircraft in those locations, at those heights, would you consider me a good citizen of the drone community? I think not.
They had no clearances, no exemptions, and were charging clients fees for doing it.
Makes it unfair for you and me. IMHO
David's comment is accurate. . . there is no evidence of an unsafe condition. What we do have is an uneducated public that sees a drone flying over NYC, and they clamor for the government to do something about you and I flying over the park on Sunday.
Cars are dangerous, yes. That is why we license all drivers after required training and testing; we certify cars have the proper safety standards when they are built, and are maintained properly by inspecting them every year.
What are we telling the unwashed public we are doing to police ourselves and our 'drones'? . . .
This is the key point of this case. Arguing for or against UAS regulations and mandate, is beside the point here.
Normally I'm against FAA policies in general, but they seem to have a real case here.
The company is very clearly a regulated entity by regulatory definition.
check out their website: http://skypanintl.com/
John, as for "no publically (sic) published regulation that was violated", . . . I assume you are not a Bar-certified lawyer? Well, neither am I, but . . .
http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next