Maybe old news, but it was the first time I read about it.

Dutch read : https://www.dronewatch.nl/2019/1 ... uk-vliegveld-landde


English video about the incident.

gOOD FIND !!

Nebuchadnezzar Posted at 11-26 03:03
gOOD FIND !!

Good warning it is!

$20K seems a bit harsh to me.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 03:17
$20K seems a bit harsh to me.

Well....
It might have been the cause for something major to happen.

Expensive flight for sure.

ALABAMA Posted at 11-26 04:12
Expensive flight for sure.

Sure was.
I doubt if youtube ads will make up for that

Did it actually landed on a freaking taxiway? That would be hilarious if not for this man's foolishness. When one starts seeing airplane in one's viewfinder then one is in deep doo-doo.   

Maxi3D Posted at 11-26 05:44
Did it actually landed on a freaking taxiway? That would be hilarious if not for this man's foolishness. When one starts seeing airplane in one's viewfinder then one is in deep dodo.

So it shows.....

Posted in the OP's thread several days ago...

https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=153918

Hello and good day Montfrooij. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing this link and this video with us today. This is a sad event for all of us drone enthusiast.  We should always educate everyone specially ourselves to be responsible drone pilots. We should not put our self interest over the safety of people around us when operating or flying our drones. Let us all follow the rules and regulations at all time when operating or flying our drones. Thank you.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 03:29
Well....
It might have been the cause for something major to happen.

Originally he didn't respond to the letter the FAA sent him. Since he failed to respond and appeal the case, they apparently increased the amount.

Must have been terrifying to lose control and land on an airport runway. OMG. I think anybody's worst nightmare; I believe he flew the drone maybe behind one of those tall buildings and bam....lost connection.

Mark The Droner Posted at 11-26 07:41
Posted in the OP's thread several days ago...

https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=153918

Is that the guy?

DJI Stephen Posted at 11-26 07:57
Hello and good day Montfrooij. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing this link and this video with us today. This is a sad event for all of us drone enthusiast.  We should always educate everyone specially ourselves to be responsible drone pilots. We should not put our self interest over the safety of people around us when operating or flying our drones. Let us all follow the rules and regulations at all time when operating or flying our drones. Thank you.

Yeah indeed.
That is why I posted it!

SD_Pilot Posted at 11-26 09:29
Originally he didn't respond to the letter the FAA sent him. Since he failed to respond and appeal the case, they apparently increased the amount.

Which does make sense.

SD_Pilot Posted at 11-26 09:33
Must have been terrifying to lose control and land on an airport runway. OMG. I think anybody's worst nightmare; I believe he flew the drone maybe behind one of those tall buildings and bam....lost connection.

Yeah.
I keep telling those cowboys they don't always know for sure they will be in control and  should keep their distance....

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 12:30
Yeah indeed.
That is why I posted it!

Again thank you for always keeping us updated and posted on the news happening around the drone world Montfrooij. We should all keep educating every one with the do and don't in flying and operating drones. Have a safe and a happy flying always everyone.

DJI Stephen Posted at 11-26 13:31
Again thank you for always keeping us updated and posted on the news happening around the drone world Montfrooij. We should all keep educating every one with the do and don't in flying and operating drones. Have a safe and a happy flying always everyone.

Yes 100% sure!

So,  are you allowed to fly over the public and or city buildings in LA  or was he already contravening the flight by-laws to start with ?
Just asking - that's all.

Manxmann Posted at 11-27 01:09
So,  are you allowed to fly over the public and or city buildings in LA  or was he already contravening the flight by-laws to start with ?
Just asking - that's all.

My guess is that he was already, but I'm no expert in US drone laws.

Manxmann Posted at 11-27 01:09
So,  are you allowed to fly over the public and or city buildings in LA  or was he already contravening the flight by-laws to start with ?
Just asking - that's all.

The flight was in the Las Vegas area.  Most consider LA to mean Los Angeles.  

It's not abundantly clear what rules he intended to flying under - 107 or Sec 336... ?  It seems it was likely Sec 336.  He doesn't appear to have the knowledge that a 107 pilot would have.

But if he was flying under Sec 336 (Part 101) and he violates Sec 336, the flight defaults back to Part 107 due to the way Sec 336 is written.  I think that's why you see all the 107 violations listed in the FAA letter shown in the video even though he was likely a recreational pilot.  

I'm not a 107 pilot, but I'm pretty sure you're not permitted to fly over a city without a waiver.  I also don't believe a 107 pilot is permitted to fly in Class B airspace without contacting the airport or requesting authorization through FAA channels.  There's the altitude violation (we know he flew 550+ ft AGL because we know he launched from the top of an 8 story parking garage and his log showed a height of 500+ ft from launch).  He's also not permitted to fly under Part 107 without a 107 certification.  Etc., etc., etc.  It's clear there are a bunch of rules he broke.  

Obviously - those in the USA know the rules for hobbyists changed in May of this year:  https://jrupprechtlaw.com/recreational-drone-laws  But the same idea applies as before - that is, if a hobbyist breaks a recreational flight rule, even unintentionally, his entire flight defaults to Part 107, and if he is charged by FAA, he will be charged with Part 107 violations.  

Montfrooij Posted at 11-27 01:23
My guess is that he was already, but I'm no expert in US drone laws.

My thought also ;)

Mark The Droner Posted at 11-27 05:39
The flight was in the Las Vegas area.  Most consider LA to mean Los Angeles.  

It's not abundantly clear what rules he intended to flying under - 107 or Sec 336... ?  It seems it was likely Sec 336.  He doesn't appear to have the knowledge that a 107 pilot would have.

Umm,  err,  ooooh,  mmmm,   I guess that's a yes ?
You seem to be very well informed - well above my pay-grade  

Thankyou.

Manxmann Posted at 11-28 00:34
My thought also ;)

Some people....

As a resident of Las Vegas, I know there is no recreational flying around The Strip. Also as a resident of Las Vegas, this is the first I've heard of this. WHAT AN IDIOT. Unfortunately, our city brings too many (IDIOTS).

I've been on the top of many of those parking garages and a few of the taller casinos. There are spectacular views you can LEGALLY capture with a DSLR. no need to risk what he did.

However, remove all the inherent risk and stupidity, would it be worth the $20,000 had an aircraft actually landed on the runway below the sUAS on video? For the record, not in my book, but it would be cool.

Offroader Posted at 11-28 07:27
As a resident of Las Vegas, I know there is no recreational flying around The Strip. Also as a resident of Las Vegas, this is the first I've heard of this. WHAT AN IDIOT. Unfortunately, our city brings too many (IDIOTS).

I've been on the top of many of those parking garages and a few of the taller casinos. There are spectacular views you can LEGALLY capture with a DSLR. no need to risk what he did.

I totally get your point!

no respect for drone laws, typical rec flyer...idiots

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 23:23
Yes 100% sure!

That is great to know Montfrooij and thank you for your support. Have a safe and a happy flying always. .

Sick Dawg Posted at 11-29 09:05
no respect for drone laws, typical rec flyer...idiots

Idiots indeed.

The man is now contesting his fine.  He is even going as far as to suggest that his "flyaway" may have actually been a Secret Service hijack since the President was there at the time.  S-U-R-E... Article.

Dewey3 Posted at 12-2 05:34
The man is now contesting his fine.  He is even going as far as to suggest that his "flyaway" may have actually been a Secret Service hijack since the President was there at the time.  S-U-R-E... Article.

Wow, we can make a movie about this

wow that is a serious kick in the back side 20 k fine ! whilst i understand things like this happen i would have been cringing when it flew away ! but then to overfly the airport ? o no ?

mockingbird_71 Posted at 12-4 04:13
wow that is a serious kick in the back side 20 k fine ! whilst i understand things like this happen i would have been cringing when it flew away ! but then to overfly the airport ? o no ?

True.
I don't really get that.

This is a tin: D $20.000 "lowered to the wind" flying over the casino. It would be better to spend them down at an online casino (for example, leovegas, dunder, voodoodreams, casimba and many others) and get at least some possible profit, than to fly a drone where it is forbidden. Kamikaze.
Or I would buy an excellent DSLR with a good zoom and enjoy it, and the drone would fly where allowed.
This is a warning for the following kamikaze))

Levands Posted at 12-6 02:36
This is a tin: D $20.000 "lowered to the wind" flying over the casino. It would be better to spend them down at an online casino (for example, leovegas, dunder, voodoodreams, casimba and many others) and get at least some possible profit, than to fly a drone where it is forbidden. Kamikaze.
Or I would buy an excellent DSLR with a good zoom and enjoy it, and the drone would fly where allowed.
This is a warning for the following kamikaze))

100% true