A federal grand jury in Dallas has indicted a 24-year-old drone operator on four counts. Prosecutors allege that he flew into the runway exclusion zone at Dallas Love Field one night and into restricted airspace around Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) the next, and that he acted as an airman without the certificate federal law requires. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas announced the case on Oct. 8. The headline number is a maximum of eight years in prison if he is convicted on every count. The statutes involved show that the runway charge accounts for very little of that.

The indictment contains allegations only. The defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

What prosecutors allege

According to FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth, which based its report on information from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Pujan Prashantkumar Gajjar, 24, of Dallas, flew a drone into the Love Field runway exclusion zone at about 11:30 p.m. on June 26, 2025, and crossed an active runway. The following night, prosecutors say, he flew the same drone into restricted airspace around DFW. The indictment also alleges that he knowingly and willfully acted as an airman without the required airman's certificate.

FOX 4 reports that the grand jury indicted Gajjar on Sept. 16 and that federal agents arrested him on Sept. 22. He made his initial appearance that day before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver. DroneXL adds that FBI Dallas and the Federal Air Marshal Service investigated the case with help from the FAA, and that an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the office's National Security Section is prosecuting it.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould said in a statement quoted by FOX 4: "Unauthorized drone incursions into protected airport airspace jeopardizes aircraft and endangers pilots, passengers and the entire community." FBI Dallas Special Agent in Charge R. Joseph Rothrock said that operating a drone in restricted airport airspace threatens pilots and crew members as well as people on the ground.

DroneXL notes that neither the indictment nor the press release says what drone was flown. Neither source reviewed here says why Gajjar allegedly flew near the two airports.

Which statutes are involved?

According to DroneXL, the release does not name the statutes, but its wording points to them. DroneXL, which has not seen the indictment, matched that wording to the U.S. Code and describes its count-by-count breakdown as its own reading of the arithmetic, not a quote from the charging document. The penalties in the statutes themselves are verifiable.

"Runway exclusion zone": 18 U.S.C. 39B

The phrase "runway exclusion zone" comes straight from federal law. Under 18 U.S.C. 39B, "any person who, without authorization, knowingly operates an unmanned aircraft within a runway exclusion zone shall be punished as provided in subsection (c)." The statute defines the zone as a rectangular area centered on the centerline of an active runway at an airport with Class B, C or D surface airspace, extending 1 statute mile past each end of the runway and half a statute mile wide.

The base penalty is modest: a fine, up to one year in prison, or both. Penalties rise sharply only when harm results. The maximum climbs to 10 years for causing serious bodily injury or death during certain other offenses under the statute, and to any term of years or life for causing, attempting or conspiring to cause such outcomes during a runway-zone or knowing-interference offense. Nothing in the FOX 4 or DroneXL reporting suggests an injury or a collision in this case. If the Love Field count is brought under 39B, the one-year cap would apply.

Flying without a certificate: 49 U.S.C. 46306

The heavier exposure comes from aviation registration law. Under 49 U.S.C. 46306, a person who knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve as an airman without an airman's certificate authorizing that service can be fined, imprisoned for up to three years, or both. DroneXL reads the release's "acted as an airman without the required certificate" language as charges under this provision, and says the release describes the airman allegation as covering both flights. In its reading, each such count carries up to three years.

On that reading, DroneXL reaches the eight-year total this way: two airport counts at one year each and two certificate counts at three years each. The count tied to crossing an active runway at Love Field is then the lightest of the four, and most of the eight-year total comes from the certificate counts. DroneXL also notes the DFW count could instead be a one-year national defense airspace offense under 49 U.S.C. 46307 without changing the total. Without the indictment, the exact split across the four counts cannot be confirmed from the public record.

Why the certificate question matters

The certificate charge rests on how federal law treats small drone pilots. DroneXL points out that the recreational exception in 49 U.S.C. 44809 requires a hobbyist to get authorization before entering Class B airspace, the controlled airspace around major airports, and that both Dallas airports sit under Class B. An operator who does not meet the exception's conditions falls under the rules that apply to everyone else, including 14 CFR 107.12, which requires a remote pilot certificate.

On DroneXL's account, prosecutors can therefore present an unauthorized flight near a major airport as two separate violations: the airspace incursion, and flying as an uncertificated airman. The certificate theory carries the longer statutory maximum.

How this case compares

The Gajjar indictment follows several other recent federal drone prosecutions. DroneXL lists these comparisons:

  • Charlotte: a pilot named Marco Antonio Ochoa pleaded guilty on Sept. 22 to a single 39B runway-exclusion-zone count. He has no sentencing date yet.
  • Baltimore: Matthew Hebert, whose drone halted the AFC Championship game in January 2024, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor airspace violation and received one year of probation and a $500 fine.
  • Xiaodong He: pleaded guilty on Sept. 18 to the airspace count in his case. What became of his airman count is not yet in the public record.
  • Dallas Stadium: on June 27, agents traced a drone spotted over Dallas Stadium to an Arlington man, who was charged with operating without an airman's certificate in a separate matter.

DroneXL's view is that the eight-year figure is a prosecutor's ceiling, and it expects this case to end nearer the Hebert outcome than the headline number. That is the publication's opinion, not a prediction from the court record. How the Gajjar case is resolved is still unknown.

Why It Matters

For drone operators, the case shows how prosecutors are now charging airport incursions. The runway-exclusion-zone statute that Congress enacted in 2018 for this conduct carries a one-year base maximum. Pairing it with airman-certificate counts under 49 U.S.C. 46306 raises the potential exposure considerably. FBI Dallas, the Federal Air Marshal Service and a National Security Section prosecutor are involved, which suggests federal authorities are treating these flights as more than a routine FAA enforcement matter, though the sources do not say so directly.

The practical point for anyone flying near a major airport, as DroneXL frames it, is that the certificate question can carry as much legal weight as the flight path. A recreational flyer who skips the authorization step that 44809 requires loses the exception's protection. That flyer can then be charged as an uncertificated airman, which carries up to three years per count under federal law.

This also explains why the eight-year figure needs context. It is the release's stated maximum if Gajjar is convicted on all four counts, and DroneXL's arithmetic suggests it is a sum of statutory maximums, not a sentencing prediction. The count breakdown in public circulation comes from a trade publication that has not seen the indictment.

Sources