[jsa]

Anyone know why the Youtuber Papa Pineapples was grounded? Assume it is something by The Villages?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NO42bj2Vxc

[charlie1]

Don't know the reason but ONLY the FAA has the authority to ground him. He is a licensed remote pilot so they do have that authority. This is usually done when pilots fly in restricted zones or do not follow the Remote Pilot rules. Example, you can not fly over people/cars/etc, you must keep the drone in your site at all times, etc. I know the Villages could have their legal team stop him from giving "false" information (Papa Pineapple speculates quite often with limited facts) or maybe even trespassing if he takes off or lands in a "no Trespassing" area but they do not have the authority to stop him from flying over the area! The Villages does not and can not control the sky!

[PersonOfInterest]

Originally Posted by charlie1

Don't know the reason but ONLY the FAA has the authority to ground him. He is a licensed remote pilot so they do have that authority. This is usually done when pilots fly in restricted zones or do not follow the Remote Pilot rules. Example, you can not fly over people/cars/etc, you must keep the drone in your site at all times, etc. I know the Villages could have their legal team stop him from giving "false" information (Papa Pineapple speculates quite often with limited facts) or maybe even trespassing if he takes off or lands in a "no Trespassing" area but they do not have the authority to stop him from flying over the area! The Villages does not and can not control the sky!

In the Video he states that it is NOT the FAA.

[Ignatz]

Dang, crushed pineapple!

Hopefully it gets cleared up. I don’t watch his videos regularly anymore but it’s a shame that a seemingly harmless activity is being clamped down on.

[charlie1]

Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest

In the Video he states that it is NOT the FAA.

I do know that the Villages a couple of years ago tried to stop Don Wiley. They did this by filing a complaint with the FAA listing all the "violations" to the drone rules they "thought" he had done. Don responded to the FAA and after some time was cleared of any wrongdoing. Had he been found in violation, he could have been grounded. The FAA is the only organization that has the power to control the sky. The Village Developer could have file a lawsuit stopping his videos but not to "ground" him.

[charlie1]

Originally Posted by asianthree

First hand proof, or just the gossip at your barbershop. If one spends a little time, it’s Not the first time, long time Drone operators have been hit with legal issues from the developer.

Maybe the developers have decided to control wild guessing, rumors, or information is so inaccurate, it becomes almost comical.

I agree! I also think that Papas Pineapple is AGAIN stretching it a little when he says "He is Grounded" unless the FAA has something against him. I have seen more than once misinformation on his videos. He should not be guessing in his commentary! I would not be surprised if there was a Cease and Desist order from the developer for putting out videos about The Villages that were not totally accurate. However, the Villages cannot "GROUND" him. He has the right to FLY in any non-restricted area until the FAA pulls his unmanned aircraft license.

[HellToupee]

I did notice in a Villages construction update video a couple of weeks ago they had a sign with “construction site , no trespassing , violators may be prosecuted. drones, cameras or filming prohibited in this area”

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by HellToupee

I did notice in a Villages construction update video a couple of weeks ago they had a sign with “construction site , no trespassing , violators may be prosecuted. drones, cameras or filming prohibited in this area”

Yeah, but a sign is just that. A sign. I have a neighbor up north that doesn't like boats and jet skis near his dock and boat. He put out an official looking "No Wake Zone" buoy about 100 feet off his property. Guess what? Not a real or enforceable buoy. I do donuts on the Jetski between the buoy and his house all summer just to let him know I know it can't be enforced.

Now there are others that have a "Please No Wake within 100 feet" on their docks. I respect the request and give their property a wide berth. Why? Because they play by the rules and made a reasonable request. No Wake Zone buoy guy is just a loud mouthed bully well known in the community as a PIP. That's a retired CEO or some other "Previously Important Person." They're so used to employees or staff jumping at their every demand, they just carry that over into retired life and realize no one really cares about their previous professional status.

You can put a "No parking" sign on your lawn to try to keep people from parking along the curb in front of you house. In fact, more than once I have seen news articles or in-person people that painted the curb in front of their house red. Guess what? Totally unenforceable. If my neighbor did that, I would park there all day every day.

Now, I'm not going to go onto Villages property until they open it up to the public. If their signs are requests or put up on their private property, that is totally reasonable and I will absolutely respect them. If they are put up by people trying to privatize public lands or waters as their own, I will ignore them every time.

As for the Villages sign quoted above, they have the right to demand and seek prosecution for trespassing on their privately owned lands. They do not, however, have the legal authority to restrict filming or drone flights. I would obey the first part of the sign and totally ignore the second part of the sign if I were to have a hankering to videotape or fly a drone from a place I have a legal right to be, such as the parking lot of an open neighborhood rec center or public street.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by charlie1

I agree! I also think that Papas Pineapple is AGAIN stretching it a little when he says "He is Grounded" unless the FAA has something against him. I have seen more than once misinformation on his videos. He should not be guessing in his commentary! I would not be surprised if there was a Cease and Desist order from the developer for putting out videos about The Villages that were not totally accurate. However, the Villages cannot "GROUND" him. He has the right to FLY in any non-restricted area until the FAA pulls his unmanned aircraft license.

Agree. I stopped watching him for that reason.

[Altavia]

According to several comments on YT, this is not the only drone videographer getting letters.

[Goldwingnut]

I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. If there was merit a complaint would have been filed with the FAA or FDLE, but since it hasn't been (I am assuming) then this is little more that an attempt to intimidate. A common tactic.

The first time this happened to me I was hit with a fine for $7,100 from the FAA. It nearly put me out of business. But as had been previously said in this thread, I beat them and the charges were dropped by the FAA and the fine rescinded. They wasted a lot of money on having a lawyer file a 130+ page complaint with the FAA.

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

[jimkerr]

Originally Posted by charlie1

Don't know the reason but ONLY the FAA has the authority to ground him. He is a licensed remote pilot so they do have that authority. This is usually done when pilots fly in restricted zones or do not follow the Remote Pilot rules. Example, you can not fly over people/cars/etc, you must keep the drone in your site at all times, etc. I know the Villages could have their legal team stop him from giving "false" information (Papa Pineapple speculates quite often with limited facts) or maybe even trespassing if he takes off or lands in a "no Trespassing" area but they do not have the authority to stop him from flying over the area! The Villages does not and can not control the sky!

True but he clearly said it wasn’t the FAA.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by jimkerr

True but he clearly said it wasn’t the FAA.

Wives DO have the power to ground anyone anytime!

[azcindy]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. If there was merit a complaint would have been filed with the FAA or FDLE, but since it hasn't been (I am assuming) then this is little more that an attempt to intimidate. A common tactic.

The first time this happened to me I was hit with a fine for $7,100 from the FAA. It nearly put me out of business. But as had been previously said in this thread, I beat them and the charges were dropped by the FAA and the fine rescinded. They wasted a lot of money on having a lawyer file a 130+ page complaint with the FAA.

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

Keep fighting the good fight Don! The information and videos you provide go above and beyond and are tremondously helpful.

Cindy

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

...

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

Despite my lengthy post regarding signage and enforceability being completely deleted and the thread posts re-numbered, I agree with Don here - until FAA says something, nothing matters. Polite requests not to trespass will be heeded. Unlawful demands will not. This has everything to do with PR. In fact, with the longterm rumors regarding loofahs and STDs, etc., I am surprised that The Family hasn't engaged a very high powered PR firm to run counter-marketing a long time ago. Expensive? Yes! But so is the value of their investment and the value of protecting it.

By the way, for those interested, the crime of trespassing generally has three elements - all of which MUST be met for it to actually be a crime:

Firstly, a person must be in a place they do not have the legal right to be;
Secondly, a person in authority of said place must request/demand they leave;
Thirdly, the offending person must refuse to do so.

If I'm inside your house and, having taken nothing, you demand I leave and I do so, you have NO crime. None. Not trespassing, not burglary, not breaking and entering (same thing as burglary under Florida law), nothing. Unless you can develop evidence to indicate reasonably that I intended to take something or commit a felony inside, I cannot be arrested.

Since it is a misdemeanor, it generally has to be committed in the presence of a police officer. A private person (like the owner) can pursue a private person's arrest but be VERY careful of going down this road. The liability attached to false arrest is very high and can cost you a lot of money. Plus, do not show up for a single one of the many hearings (oft rescheduled) and the entire case is dropped.

So if I go walking down the middle of Eastport today, and no one demands I leave, there is no crime. If someone does demand it, and I leave, there is no crime. If someone does demand it, and I do not leave but eventually do so before law enforcement arrives, there is no crime (absent you signing a private person's arrest form and opening yourself up to gads of civil liability).

I would never do so - and I certainly won't advocate anyone else do so either, but the law is what the law is regardless of scare tactics and threats.