JasonA
 lvl.2
United States
Offline
|
its tough getting the details but theirs a bit more to the story than whats been covered in most of the recent articles on this.
Skypan (along with a few other companies) are/were already actively suing the FAA over the lack of workable regulations.
In their Section333 request, Skypan discussed their previous use(s) of their drones. They received their exemption, but the FAA wanted more details on the flights skypan had already performed. Skypan did not respond to that request for more information, so the FAA got a court order for the flight records. Once they received the records (dates/locations/footage), they checked to see if Skypan followed the nessesary steps that would normally have been required to be operating in a Class B airspace had they had the exemption at the time (which skypan did not). As a result of this, the FAA is now fining Skypan for those activites that occurred in Class B airspace(s).
For those who dont know, Class B airspace is one of the *most* restrictive airspaces to operate normal aircraft. Everything flying in it HAS to be under the supervision and active guildelines of the ATC, no excemptions. Skypan presumably had a pilot on staff who knows the basic regs, and that is where the FAA is going to make a stinker. It could also be that the flights in question, when the footage was reviewed, showed that Skypan violated their own operating guidelines that they presented in their Section333 exemption.
So, it might be a tit-for-tat response by the FAA, but it appears that Skypan did violate some of the basic things they promised to do as Section333 exemption holders. It will be very difficult for Skypan to say it didnt know what the rules were after the section333 guidelines were published, and yet for a time its true there basically wasnt any rules to follow hence why skypan and others were suing the FAA to begin with. Its going to be interesting to see how much additional info comes out on this one.
|
|