Think the FAA got it right this time

I was intrigued by the unlikely title of the thread.

But yeah, Mikey seems to have gone out of his way to be "that guy".
 
That's a message to the others. (an excellent one imo)
But he won't pay anywhere near that.
He will pay his attorney a bunch of money, and be buying new underwear for the legal version of that meme, however.
 
Dont have time to watch the various videos, but did they use the monetization of his channel as the 'hook' to define him as a commercial operation ?

If yes, I remember us having that discussion when 'full scale pilots' had encounters with the FAA over things they posted on the internet tubes.
 
Should have provided a summary. Basically the FAA went after a drone pilot that had a bunch of YouTube videos that included a lot of reckless/illegal stuff - like in clouds, near planes, altitude>400 feet. They added up each incident and came up with a fine of over $200k. Video where the accused pilot tries to explain why it's unfair is painful to watch. But he seems like a poster child for hanging out to dry.
 
The guy is a knob, flouting with FARs and then thinking it's unfair after getting caught. Boo hoo. Poke the bear often enough, and he'll turn around and eat you.
 
Wow. On top of everything else, the guy is a class-A dirtbag. I couldn't watch his video for more than about 30 seconds.

Ignorance is expensive. Noncompliant ignorance can get really expensive.
 
Seems like drones didn’t “turn his life around”...at least not far enough.

The FAA only went after the live stream videos...apparently they decided not to make $180k not look like a bargain. ;)
 
The hammer always comes down on the nail that sticks up. Youtube users should be aware. I know it's recreation to lots of folks, and a good outlet too. But one shouldn't recreate by doing illegal things.
 
This guy is a real bozo, hard to find much sympathy for him. Though I'm not sure about charging him under 107, even if his videos are monetized, it's s question of whether making the monetized video was the purpose of the flight(s). Even with ultralights (which are strictly for non commercial purposes), pilots aren't prohibited from (for example) flying and then writing an article or book about it for which they get paid (from AC103-7).
 
Doing a flight for the purposes of flying, filming and placing on Youtube, I think would pass the sniff test. You are flying for fun, the Youtube is ancillary. I think if it appeared you were doing the flying expressly to make a monetized video the FAA might take notice. Of course, if you video yourself braking the FARS and someone alerts the FAA, they have to act.
 
steingar said:
Doing a flight for the purposes of flying, filming and placing on Youtube, I think would pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...

Agree, sounds like commercial activity. I sure hope he reported his Youtube earnings lest have more than one federal acronym up his butt!
 
Youtube would have sent him a 1099, so it's reported anyway, well assuming it's more than some tiny amount.

I think it makes sense that it was only the live videos. As one person pointed out elsewhere those we know there are no edits making his behavior look worse than it is, and as it was discussed here if you're doing a live monetized video with a drone there's really no way you can claim it was 'incidental' or 'non-commercial'
 
I'm curious...how are live videos monetized? Do they break away for commercials? Is there some banner at the bottom? Product placement? Only live videos I've ever watched on YT are church services.
 
This guy is a tool. Nothing but excuses and lies. And he's asking the people in the comments calling him out for his BS to "send him their flight logs". He says he "doesn't know the rules and that they're too hard to understand" yet that he "knows them all now".
 
Last edited:
chartbundle said:
Youtube would have sent him a 1099, so it's reported anyway, well assuming it's more than some tiny amount.

I think it makes sense that it was only the live videos. As one person pointed out elsewhere those we know there are no edits making his behavior look worse than it is, and as it was discussed here if you're doing a live monetized video with a drone there's really no way you can claim it was 'incidental' or 'non-commercial'
Click to expand...
$600 is the breakpoint for the 1099. What’s bizarre is that you won’t receive the 1099 but you still have to report the amount under $600.
 
Dana said:
This guy is a real bozo, hard to find much sympathy for him. Though I'm not sure about charging him under 107, even if his videos are monetized, it's s question of whether making the monetized video was the purpose of the flight(s). Even with ultralights (which are strictly for non commercial purposes), pilots aren't prohibited from (for example) flying and then writing an article or book about it for which they get paid (from AC103-7).
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter if the purpose of the flight is to monetize it, the fact that it IS monetized makes it a Commercial flight, requiring a Part 107 certificate. Just like Joe Private Pilot flying his buddies around in a fashion that doesn’t meet shared expense criteria and therefore gets violated under Part 135.
 
murphey said:
$600 is the breakpoint for the 1099. What’s bizarre is that you won’t receive the 1099 but you still have to report the amount under $600.
Click to expand...
I don't know why that's bizarre. You're always required to report income. Lots of people get paid in increments of less than $600 from any one customer. You want to burden everybody who pays a repair guy with having to file a 1099?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Doesn’t matter if the purpose of the flight is to monetize it, the fact that it IS monetized makes it a Commercial flight, requiring a Part 107 certificate. Just like Joe Private Pilot flying his buddies around in a fashion that doesn’t meet shared expense criteria and therefore gets violated under Part 135.
Click to expand...
135 applies to common carriage. Unless he held out to the buddies, he's just guilty of part 91 violations (which is bad enough).
 
MauleSkinner said:
Doesn’t matter if the purpose of the flight is to monetize it, the fact that it IS monetized makes it a Commercial flight, requiring a Part 107 certificate. Just like Joe Private Pilot flying his buddies around in a fashion that doesn’t meet shared expense criteria and therefore gets violated under Part 135.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to condone the fellow's behavior, but I'm not certain I agree with you. If I go out to fly for the purpose of videoing and selling my flight, I've broken the regs. For example, if I go fly, record my flight live for a pay-per-view program just for the program, I've just busted the regs. That's precisely what this guy did.

There are lots of guys who go out, do flights, and then post them on Youtube. It isn't at all clear that the purpose of their flight was to post something on YouTube. For most the video aspect is clearly ancillary to the purpose of the flight.
 
Hang 4 said:
This falls into the "just wow" category

https://dronexl.co/2020/11/26/faa-fines-philadelphia-drone-pilot-youtuber-184500/
Click to expand...
And now he's playing the victim and asking for donations to help him fight the charges. I'd rather give that money to just about anyone else, anywhere. He'll never pay the fine, because he doesn't have the money, but people who actually do have assets (like houses, savings, etc) will sit up and take note, and maybe we won't lose a forum member to a midair drone collision some day as a result.
 
I recently listened to an FAA representative explain that a Part 107 certificate is required for any drone flying that is not strictly recreational. Monetization or commercial activity is not the only factor driving the need for Part 107 certification. The fact that a video was produced and that it was shared on social media, indicates something beyond strictly recreational intent. Intent is the key factor. No exchange of money is required. It's not like the requirement for a commercial pilot's certificate in the airplane world. The fact that a video was posted on facebook furthering the visibility of the poster and creating views from the public indicates an intent on the part of the drone pilot beyond flying a drone for the fun of it. I don't necessarily agree, but that's what the FAA thinking is.
 
chartbundle said:
Youtube would have sent him a 1099, so it's reported anyway, well assuming it's more than some tiny amount.

I think it makes sense that it was only the live videos. As one person pointed out elsewhere those we know there are no edits making his behavior look worse than it is, and as it was discussed here if you're doing a live monetized video with a drone there's really no way you can claim it was 'incidental' or 'non-commercial'
Click to expand...
If you watched the second video, the one of the attorney, he explained why only the live versions and not the posted versions.
  • Other than murder, most felonies have "use by dates", once a period of time has passed, it's not possible to charge someone with the offense
  • There must be a specific time, date and location of the offense
Hence only the live version can be considered for the offense.
 
flyingron said:
I don't know why that's bizarre. You're always required to report income. Lots of people get paid in increments of less than $600 from any one customer. You want to burden everybody who pays a repair guy with having to file a 1099?
Click to expand...
The bizarre aspect, to me, is that the IRS picked an arbitrary dollar figure. One year I had interest income under $600 but didn't know exactly how much. Called the company and asked for the 1099 - they were perplexed and couldn't figure out how to do it.
 
murphey said:
The bizarre aspect, to me, is that the IRS picked an arbitrary dollar figure. One year I had interest income under $600 but didn't know exactly how much. Called the company and asked for the 1099 - they were perplexed and couldn't figure out how to do it.
Click to expand...
The threshold for a 1099-int is $10. I don't think the IRS is going after anyone for failing to report <$10.
 
I watched about 3 minutes of one of his drone videos. It was painful. The guy is incredibly annoying. I did catch a couple takeaways.

The guy is doing live streams and talking to the audience. He isn't just filming this recreational flying for himself, posting it on youtube, and making money as an ancillary function. This was 100% for profit.

The guy blatantly disregards the rules, and he knows he is breaking them. In the 3 minutes I watched, he is talking to the audience telling them how he got "17 notifications" telling him he is flying in "class A, B, and C" and flying too high. He makes some comments about how he doesn't care and he is going to do it anyhow. He deserves every bit of the punishment. I hope they settle for something like $20,000 and he never gets to touch a drone for the rest of his life.
 
murphey said:
The bizarre aspect, to me, is that the IRS picked an arbitrary dollar figure. One year I had interest income under $600 but didn't know exactly how much. Called the company and asked for the 1099 - they were perplexed and couldn't figure out how to do it.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. A 1099-INT is kicked out at $10 if you are a financial institution. It's only $600 if you pay interest as part of your trade (i.e., you pay interest on legal retainers and the like).
 
The fact the FAA fined him says he wasn't being cooperative.

I recently dealt with a local drone operator that got elevated up to the FSDO. I tired to talk to the guy, tried to educate him. The FAA tried to talk to the guy, tried to educate him, tried to work with him, you know the whole compliance philosophy we hear so much about. They really didn't want to elevate it up to taking action against him. In the end, the guy refused every olive branch that was offered, and now the FAA is looking to take action against him as well. In our case, the guy was clearly posting photos and video from within controlled airspace, at elevations clearly over 400 feet, even at night, all the while offering to sell his photos through Facebook while possessing no Part 107 certificate and not seeing any need to be compliant.

The FAA realizes there are lots of drone operators working around the fringes of being legal. They aren't out to get them all. They aren't prosecuting 12 year olds flying a $100 drone at 50 feet in their back yard. But there are some people that have gone way beyond that, are not remorseful, and believe they have done no wrong and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Narcissism doesn't even begin to describe these personalities.
 
flyingron said:
You're wrong. A 1099-INT is kicked out at $10 if you are a financial institution. It's only $600 if you pay interest as part of your trade (i.e., you pay interest on legal retainers and the like).
Click to expand...
Likely, I'm not a tax professional. But I don't know who pays interest on legal retainers other than gigantic ones.
 
The guy has no legitimate excuse. He can’t seriously even claim ignorance of the regulations (as if that is a valid defense) as every video has multiple comments pinpointing his violations. Of course, YouTube comments aren't legal advice, but it sort of limits the guy from saying "Oh Wowzers....I had NO IDEA what I was doing could have possibly been in violation of any regs!!"

The thing that rubs me raw about the drone community in general is that they can't see past their own hobby. The FAA and their Draconian laws are just trying to crush the industry because they don't want to see anyone have a little fun or freedom. I do agree that the interpretation of what constitutes a 107 activity is pretty broad, maybe too broad. But when a supposed "authority" on the regs talking about this Philly guy and actually makes this statement:
(48:52 if the jump to time stamp feature doesn’t work)
I'd rather the application be too broad than too narrow at this point.

Like a lot of folks here, I have a 107 cert as well. I don't know what the right balance is, but the disregard I see for safety and property on social media specifically is exactly why I think the FAA is going to continue to tighten enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Likely, I'm not a tax professional. But I don't know who pays interest on legal retainers other than gigantic ones.
Click to expand...
I was just giving an example when the $600 floor applies rather than the $10.
 
I left comments on that video mentioning a comment from his skyscraper video where he claimed to have a Part 107 certificate. Wouldn't you know it, the comment where he said that has been deleted from that video. Definitely not guilty though. What a tool.
 
I HOPE this guy has to pay the entire fine in full because it appears that he has learned nothing from this experience. At best, this may be a warning to other drone pilots and cause them to be more responsible with their toys.
 
I've always wondered what happens to people who get hit with really high fines like this. Assuming he has neither the assets nor the income to pay it, what then? I know there's salary garnishment but what if he's unemployed? Is there some point at which the government just has to give up trying to get blood from a turnip?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top