11 ms·

No doubt the company did stupid shit, but the FAA can't actually fine someone for that much money (http://1.usa.gov/1QXnT3U http://1.usa.gov/1QXnT3U) or try to

by pj_mukh 11y ago

No doubt the company did stupid shit, but the FAA can't actually fine someone for that much money (http://1.usa.gov/1QXnT3U http://1.usa.gov/1QXnT3U) or try to ban youtube videos (http://bit.ly/1Bzvaki http://bit.ly/1Bzvaki). The FAA should really just focus on meeting their deadlines on figuring out sensible legislation (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2492506,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2492506,00.asp)

LesZedCB 11y ago
The first link does say "before 2003"
- pj_mukh 11y ago
  True. I wonder if that's changed. Either way, they could still go through DOJ to sue for more (https://twitter.com/dronelaws/status/651474756554858496 https://twitter.com/dronelaws/status/651474756554858496) Point being, this will just dissuade people from trying anything new in the space, when sensible legislation should be setup to stop people from trying "stupid" things in this space. The existence of sensible legislation seems to be lost in this media fervor.
- gameshot911 11y ago
  The second sentence goes on to say that the fees they can charge are higher for events happening after that date.
ceejayoz 11y ago
I wonder if those penalties are per-infraction, though.
tibbon 11y ago
It also says, "small businesses". I wonder what that means vs... non-small-businesses.
steve-howard 11y ago
>For civil penalties in excess of the dollar limitation on FAA’s assessment authority (for other than hazardous materials violations), the FAA has authority to compromise a penalty. This type of action is initiated when the FAA sends a civil penalty letter to an entity. The letter advises that the FAA believes the entity has violated a statute or regulation. The letter also states that the FAA is willing to accept a penalty of a specified amount in resolution of the matter. If I understand the process correctly, this is essentially a settlement offer. The FAA is suggesting that the company pay $1.9 million for its misdeeds; if the FAA and SkyPan can't come up with a compromise, it gets handed over to the US attorney's office.

by pj_mukh 11y ago

LesZedCB 11y ago

The first link does say "before 2003"

pj_mukh 11y ago
True. I wonder if that's changed. Either way, they could still go through DOJ to sue for more (https://twitter.com/dronelaws/status/651474756554858496 https://twitter.com/dronelaws/status/651474756554858496) Point being, this will just dissuade people from trying anything new in the space, when sensible legislation should be setup to stop people from trying "stupid" things in this space. The existence of sensible legislation seems to be lost in this media fervor.
gameshot911 11y ago
The second sentence goes on to say that the fees they can charge are higher for events happening after that date.

ceejayoz 11y ago

I wonder if those penalties are per-infraction, though.

tibbon 11y ago

It also says, "small businesses". I wonder what that means vs... non-small-businesses.

steve-howard 11y ago

>For civil penalties in excess of the dollar limitation on FAA’s assessment authority (for other than hazardous materials violations), the FAA has authority to compromise a penalty. This type of action is initiated when the FAA sends a civil penalty letter to an entity. The letter advises that the FAA believes the entity has violated a statute or regulation. The letter also states that the FAA is willing to accept a penalty of a specified amount in resolution of the matter. If I understand the process correctly, this is essentially a settlement offer. The FAA is suggesting that the company pay $1.9 million for its misdeeds; if the FAA and SkyPan can't come up with a compromise, it gets handed over to the US attorney's office.