SkyPan 1.9 Million UAS Drone Lawsuit

Caramon13

Caramon13

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
2,261
Location
Sarasota, FL
Display Name
Display name:
Romeo
From an email today:

NEW YORK – 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.
 
Caramon13 said:
From an email today:

NEW YORK – 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.
Click to expand...

Wow. This will be interesting to watch.
 
"Lawsuit"?

I don't see mention of a lawsuit in that article.
 
I don't see anything in the DPA, et al lawsuit that is anything other than little kids whining that they can't play with their toys, nothing that contradicts the FAA position of violating airspace and possible damage to people and property.

There's an aerial photo company in Colorado that often works around airports. They are excellent about working with ATC and towers to coordinate activities.
 
Wow. How did they cover up all the deaths from airplanes falling out of the sky?
 
I suspect SkyPan may have been emboldened by the last guy the FAA fined for drone ops, and they(FAA) eventually lost on appeal. I don't recall the specifics, but seems like the drone guy didn't face the wrath.
 
murphey said:
I don't see anything in the DPA, et al lawsuit that is anything other than little kids whining that they can't play with their toys, nothing that contradicts the FAA position of violating airspace and possible damage to people and property.

There's an aerial photo company in Colorado that often works around airports. They are excellent about working with ATC and towers to coordinate activities.
Click to expand...

The majority of the petitioners were commercial users of drones.
 
docmirror said:
I suspect SkyPan may have been emboldened by the last guy the FAA fined for drone ops, and they(FAA) eventually lost on appeal. I don't recall the specifics, but seems like the drone guy didn't face the wrath.
Click to expand...


Yea, but the lawyer fees sure became a defacto fine.
 
Unit74 said:
Yea, but the lawyer fees sure became a defacto fine.
Click to expand...

I was never privy to the cost(if any) of the defense of the drone bozo, or if there was an order for fee compensation after the case. You have more info than I do in this case.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you're talking about the Pirker case, the FAA lost the first round and WON on appeal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngog...hat-drones-are-aircraft-subject-to-its-rules/
Click to expand...

What was the final outcome? This link only says it was sent back to the admin law judge for trial. Did the guy just roll over? Was it appealed? I thought he was cleared, but looks like the FAA never gives up - ever.

<edit: I found the final outcome: "Aerial photographer Raphael Pirker has settled the civil penalty proceeding brought by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in 2013 concerning his flight of a styrofoam Zephyr II model aircraft (or “drone”) at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville in October 2011.

The $1,100 settlement “does not constitute an admission of any of the allegations in the case or an admission of any regulatory violation,” Pinker’s attorney Brendan Schulman said in a statement."

I'm going with a draw. If the FAA agreed to the statement of no admission of violation, then they get a few bucks, and call it a day.>
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
What was the final outcome? This link only says it was sent back to the admin law judge for trial. Did the guy just roll over? Was it appealed? I thought he was cleared, but looks like the FAA never gives up - ever.

<edit: I found the final outcome: "Aerial photographer Raphael Pirker has settled the civil penalty proceeding brought by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in 2013 concerning his flight of a styrofoam Zephyr II model aircraft (or “drone”) at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville in October 2011.

The $1,100 settlement “does not constitute an admission of any of the allegations in the case or an admission of any regulatory violation,” Pinker’s attorney Brendan Schulman said in a statement."

I'm going with a draw. If the FAA agreed to the statement of no admission of violation, then they get a few bucks, and call it a day.>
Click to expand...

The FAA got what they wanted, which was an NTSB precedent that declared small drones to be aircraft that are subject to the regulations that apply to any aircraft. My guess is that once that was established, Pirker saw that continuing to fight the case would have been an exercise in futility, and decided not to throw good money after bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top