On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:41:49 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

But there is always
103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather subjective. Then I suspect
it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

If it's an FAA administrative action, the "pilot" won't be afforded
the benefit of a judge, unfortunately. And because Part 103 operators
needn't hold an airmans certificate, he wouldn't be grounded (I
wouldn't think), but the FAA could impose a fine, I suppose.

If the Sheriff files civil charges against him, it would seem that the
DA would have to prove there was a hazard. Lacking any evidence of
injury or damage, that may be difficult for the DA to prove.