A significant incident involving a prominent drone dealer in Florida has spotlighted the critical importance of adhering to FAA regulations. The dealer in question allegedly breached several FAA rules, resulting in the rescission of its part 137 exemption, which previously allowed it to operate drones weighing over 55 pounds. This development underscores the necessity for drone operators to be well-versed in and compliant with all regulatory requirements before engaging in drone activities or conducting instructional clinics.
According to drone law attorney Jonathan Rupprecht of Palm Beach County, Florida, the FAA identified seven violations in this case. The violations came to light after the FAA noticed an advertisement on the dealer’s website promoting drone training for a DJI-T40, a model exceeding the 55-pound threshold that demarcates small UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) from larger ones, each category governed by distinct regulations.
Adam Gittins, president of HTS Ag, provided insight into the incident and the FAA’s stern response. “The FAA conducted in-person surveillance at the event advertised online. Inspectors observed non-employees participating in drone training activities and noted the pilot flying the drone closer than 100 feet from a non-participating farmer, which is a violation,” Gittins explained.
Further compounding the dealer’s troubles, the drone in use lacked a visible registration number, and upon inquiry, it was discovered that the aircraft was not registered. Although the dealer managed to submit the registration the following day, the FAA’s subsequent visit revealed multiple paperwork deficiencies. The dealer’s failure to comply with these fundamental requirements led the FAA to revoke its part 137 exemption, prohibiting the operation of drones over 55 pounds.
Gittins, whose dealership in Harlan, Iowa, sells Autel and DJI drone products, lamented the situation, emphasizing that it could have been easily avoided. He likened the dealer’s negligence to driving a car without a driver’s license and registration. “There were a whole bunch of small things that should be fairly simple and easy to do that weren’t taken care of, which led to the FAA taking action,” he remarked.
In his experience, Gittins noted that the FAA generally aims to educate rather than penalize. “The FAA’s goal is to educate people. They don’t want to take action against people. I’ve seen them offer a tremendous amount of grace to those unaware of the rules. This is something a large company should’ve known.”
The repercussions for the dealer are severe, with the potential for criminal charges against the pilot, including up to three years in jail and fines reaching six figures. This case serves as a stark warning to all drone operators about the critical importance of maintaining proper documentation and adhering to FAA regulations. As Gittins pointed out, “The FAA is very interested in keeping the airspace safe, and they consider it a serious offense when people are not following the regulations.”
This incident is a clear reminder that compliance with FAA rules is not just a bureaucratic formality but a crucial aspect of ensuring safety and legality in drone operations.
