DroneFlying
 Second Officer
Flight distance : 10774613 ft
United States
Offline
|
Griffith Posted at 2017-4-13 05:51
OK guys.... I agree that threatening prosecution is totally crude. But let's try to see things from the perspective of Inspire_Max. I don't know him or anything about him. But I'm guessing he's probably a commercial drone pilot himself and that may be his profession and sole source of income. Just like most commercial drone pilots here, he follows the letter of the law - FAA (ENAC) certification, permits and waivers - and then encounters someone grossly disregarding the laws. Severe violations, anywhere they occur, threaten enjoyment of the sport for all of us. How many times of this Forum have we criticized OP's for doing stupid things like flying in NFZ's, near other aircraft, or over crowded city areas. I can see his point at being critical of the Mavic owner, if indeed it was a deliberate flight over a restricted area.
Of course there could be many other scenarios,
I agree that threatening prosecution is totally crude.
It's beyond that point; he indicated that he has already turned it over to the police.
I'm guessing he's probably a commercial drone pilot himself
Maybe so, but he didn't say or imply that. He does seem familiar with the laws where he lives, but that's true of many recreational fliers so I wouldn't be inclined to assume it.
Severe violations, anywhere they occur, threaten enjoyment of the sport for all of us.
Since there was no injury or property damage I'd probably have to disagree with calling this a "severe violation", but I'll concede your main point.
I can see his point at being critical of the Mavic owner
I can too, but there's a big difference between criticizing someone and causing them financial harm and / or legal trouble. Which I'm guessing is what you were alluding to when you wrote:
I agree that there are kinder more rational ways to handle the situation. I would suggest locating the Mavic owner and explain his transgressions and possible consequences.
That's a very reasonable suggestion, but it apparently isn't an option any longer. And the finders-keepers situation muddies the water a bit, making it unclear whether he's doing this because he's a stickler for following the law or because he hopes to keep the Mavic he found. What we do know is that in an earlier post he wrote that it "would be better for the owner to remain unknown" -- so he certainly doesn't seem to be encouraging the owner to come forward to accept punishment.
One has to wonder if the OP would want someone else to handle it the same way he did if it was his Mavic that crashed. Personally, I doubt it very much. The Golden Rule would seem very applicable here, and it strikes me as ironic that we're having this conversation the day before Good Friday. About a drone crash in Rome, no less. |
|