Allegations that flight paths of unmanned aerial systems or drones are endangering the safety of airspace, the U.S. FAA announced the largest civil penalty ever proposed against a drone operator on Tuesday.
The allegation that formed the basis of the historic penalty stated that the SkyPan International of Chicago, Illinois had operated 65 drone flights between March 2012 and December 2014 over congested airspace and heavily populated cities when it was not authorized to do so. These allegations were placed by the FAA against the drone operator.
Most of the flights as alleged by FAA, were over the cities of New York City and Chicago and at least 43 of these flights were conducted in what is known as Class B airspace. The most restrictive civilian airspace and surrounds highly congested airports like LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports in New York City is known as the Class B airspace.
Prior to entering the airspace planes planning to fly into Class B airspace requires approval from air traffic control. Certain aircraft equipment such as a transponder and two-way radio and altimeter are absolute necessity for planes flying into and operating in Class B airspace requires. Such equipments are not found on most consumer and prosumer drones operated today. While the drones did not have any of the aforesaid equipments, the operators also had not taken any prior approval for these 43 flights, alleged the FAA.
There was no response from the SkyPan authorities.
“Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous. We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations,” said a statement from FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.
SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations, alleges the FAA and on all 65 flights that the operator flew the drone, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration.
Spectacular photos and videos from high in the sky are taken by drones that are operated by SkyPan. The company websites, for example, states that the company helps real estate companies show potential clients the kind of view a high rise building would have before the property is built.
A request to the FAA for an actual copy of the civil penalty letter was not immediately responded to.
The operators of the unmanned drones are keenly awaiting the FAA’s actual allegations and whether the primary allegation was that the drone operator had not taken permission for commercial operations from the FAA which formed the basis of the $1.9 million civil penalty.
The FAA’s statement indicates that the main allegation was that the drone operations were conducted without an airworthiness certificate or other FAA approval which is almost similar to allegations of holding commercial airplane operations without FAA’s permission.
There are rumours among the drone operators that this can bring under investigations other operators as many commercial operators have continued to fly without FAA approval in part because of the lack of enforcement action by the FAA. Therefore the future action of FAA with regards to other possible similar violations is being awaited by the drone operators.
(Sources:www.forbes.com & www. npr.org)
The allegation that formed the basis of the historic penalty stated that the SkyPan International of Chicago, Illinois had operated 65 drone flights between March 2012 and December 2014 over congested airspace and heavily populated cities when it was not authorized to do so. These allegations were placed by the FAA against the drone operator.
Most of the flights as alleged by FAA, were over the cities of New York City and Chicago and at least 43 of these flights were conducted in what is known as Class B airspace. The most restrictive civilian airspace and surrounds highly congested airports like LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports in New York City is known as the Class B airspace.
Prior to entering the airspace planes planning to fly into Class B airspace requires approval from air traffic control. Certain aircraft equipment such as a transponder and two-way radio and altimeter are absolute necessity for planes flying into and operating in Class B airspace requires. Such equipments are not found on most consumer and prosumer drones operated today. While the drones did not have any of the aforesaid equipments, the operators also had not taken any prior approval for these 43 flights, alleged the FAA.
There was no response from the SkyPan authorities.
“Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous. We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations,” said a statement from FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.
SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations, alleges the FAA and on all 65 flights that the operator flew the drone, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration.
Spectacular photos and videos from high in the sky are taken by drones that are operated by SkyPan. The company websites, for example, states that the company helps real estate companies show potential clients the kind of view a high rise building would have before the property is built.
A request to the FAA for an actual copy of the civil penalty letter was not immediately responded to.
The operators of the unmanned drones are keenly awaiting the FAA’s actual allegations and whether the primary allegation was that the drone operator had not taken permission for commercial operations from the FAA which formed the basis of the $1.9 million civil penalty.
The FAA’s statement indicates that the main allegation was that the drone operations were conducted without an airworthiness certificate or other FAA approval which is almost similar to allegations of holding commercial airplane operations without FAA’s permission.
There are rumours among the drone operators that this can bring under investigations other operators as many commercial operators have continued to fly without FAA approval in part because of the lack of enforcement action by the FAA. Therefore the future action of FAA with regards to other possible similar violations is being awaited by the drone operators.
(Sources:www.forbes.com & www. npr.org)
