Two arrested for flying drone near NYPD helicopter

Did the drone almost hit the helicopter, or did the helicopter almost hit the drone and damage personal property? Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue. I think see and avoid is the responsibility of both people.
 
yetti said:
Did the drone almost hit the helicopter, or did the helicopter almost hit the drone and damage personal property? Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue. I think see and avoid is the responsibility of both people.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding.
Or perhaps my sarcasm detector is not functioning correctly.
 
yetti said:
Did the drone almost hit the helicopter, or did the helicopter almost hit the drone and damage personal property? Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue. I think see and avoid is the responsibility of both people.
Click to expand...

The drone is the size of a bird. The people flying it probably have little if any knowledge of the concept of see & avoid. And unlike the drones the size of a 737 used by the military, aint no on board cameras with 360 view looking for other aircraft.

Just waiting for the first accident of drone v GA airplane. Not going to be pretty.
 
I can't stand these things. I used to think they were cool, but now they just irritate me. I don't want them in the sky with us.
 
yetti said:
Did the drone almost hit the helicopter, or did the helicopter almost hit the drone and damage personal property? Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue. I think see and avoid is the responsibility of both people.
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, just replace the helicopter with a drone while we are at it.

Then drones can see and avoid other drones

:rolleyes:
 
Is there any regulation for these things? If it was over the Hudson River it would have been in the VFR corridor, but to get there it would have been flying right in the Class B for some time. Is it really legal to just fly a drone at 800 feet through Class B airspace? I'm sure the guys flying it have no idea what Class B airspace is. I wonder what kind of laws will be passed after the first drone/manned aircraft accident.
 
yetti said:
Did the drone almost hit the helicopter, or did the helicopter almost hit the drone and damage personal property? Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue. I think see and avoid is the responsibility of both people.
Click to expand...


I would believe it. Police that fly are not known for looking for other air traffic. These people were arrested just because the police happened to be flying by. Remember the glider pilot that had his freedom taken away just because the police didn't know what they were doing? Local police that over stepped their boundaries.


Don't get me wrong. I am glad that we have a police force that does the work they do. It's a tough job. They chose that job, it wasn't forced on them. But there is no excuse for police stupidity.

This is my opinion, so fire away.
 
yetti said:
Did the drone almost hit the helicopter, or did the helicopter almost hit the drone and damage personal property? Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue. I think see and avoid is the responsibility of both people.
Click to expand...
An important question to answer: which of these aircraft was actually permitted in the airspace? Unless the answer is "both" (and I'm not convinced it is), the question you raise is moot.
 
The FAA is way behind the curve on figuring this one out. What is sad is for $1200.00 you can have more automation in these little birds than a $60K cessna 172.

The FAA has an AC out for model flying. The advice is to stay under 400 feet. So can you fly a frisbee in Class B to the surface airspace? Would the planes be regulated to 1000 feet above the structures? I would have to think the prop wash would have kept this thing from ever crashing into the helicopter. It would interesting to see the video, Did they start playing chicken with each other?
 
After a bit of reading, and a bit of sleuthing it seems the two guys flying the drone may have been within the guidelines of the FAA on model aircraft flight. The Geo Wash bridge is 604 feet tall, and they were at 800 feet, one could reasonably argue that they were within the 400 foot mandate of the 'ground' as the surrounding structure is part of the landscape.

I know, it's a stretch, and maybe sophistry at it's basest, but were I their defense counsel I believe I could spin this as they were flying both within the guidelines of the FAA AC on this, and also at a safe distance from the bridge so as not to cause accident or injury in case of a malfunction, giving them time and altitude to pitch it in the Hudson. You know, like that famous Cactus pilot did a few years back.

lol - I keel myself sometimes.
 
I love the Sully reference. Like it was a single goose that brought down the airbus.
 
Thanks, it was a momentary stroke of genius.
 
In regards to VIP TFRs and others, there's a new phrase in the description of what's prohibited. First time I saw it was yesterday with the POTUS TFR in Denver:

"C. THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THIS TFR: FLIGHT TRAINING, PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, AEROBATIC FLIGHT, GLIDER OPERATIONS, SEAPLANE OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRALIGHT, HANG GLIDING, BALLOON OPERATIONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, SIGHTSEEING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL ROCKETRY, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS), AND UTILITY AND PIPELINE SURVEY OPERATIONS."
 
So is Timmy allowed to toss a frisbee or football near DIA? Give the size of the TFR around austin, there are going to lots of people in trouble who did not even know they are subject to the TFR. How many dads check the TFR site before heading out to shoot off some estes rockets with Timmy?
 
yetti said:
So is Timmy allowed to toss a frisbee or football near DIA? Give the size of the TFR around austin, there are going to lots of people in trouble who did not even know they are subject to the TFR. How many dads check the TFR site before heading out to shoot off some estes rockets with Timmy?
Click to expand...
Is this the first time Austin's had the 30nm TFR? Welcome to the club. The TFR concept didn't exist when I lived there.
 
yetti said:
The FAA is way behind the curve on figuring this one out. What is sad is for $1200.00 you can have more automation in these little birds than a $60K cessna 172.

The FAA has an AC out for model flying. The advice is to stay under 400 feet. So can you fly a frisbee in Class B to the surface airspace? Would the planes be regulated to 1000 feet above the structures? I would have to think the prop wash would have kept this thing from ever crashing into the helicopter. It would interesting to see the video, Did they start playing chicken with each other?
Click to expand...

Do you really think owners of these toys are gonna stay below 400 feet? Not a chance. They are going to fly them way above that to "get a good shot of the city". Meanwhile, people like us are flying along at 120 kts (in my case, 90 kts :redface: ), we're not gonna see it, and ATC ain't gonna see it to give us warning. Not good...
And while they may be "only" the size of a bird (more like a Canadian Goose), they certainly will do more damage, and birds often times hear and see you coming, and occasionally take evasive action. And that evasive action always makes birds more visible anyway, try picking out a hovering UAV.
As for regulation, I doubt that an operator of an UAV will care much. If they have no skin in the game, there is not much incentive to operate them safely.
 
yetti said:
Had the helicopter not been observing, then there would not have been an issue.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, yeah there might have been. The "issue" could have been all crew aboard the helicopter dead, and possibly more on the ground.
Don't you get it?
 
Yeah 400 ft is a recommendation in the FAA's AC, not regulatory. People fly above 400 ft all the time. What I find funny is that the FAA wants RC aircraft below 400 ft but yet you have Estes rockets that go a few thousand feet up. I used to have those three stage rockets that went like 3,000 ft up.

People try and make the drone thing new but we've been flying RC aircraft for decades. Only thing new is that people are strapping cameras to them now.
 
Aeric said:
Uhhh, yeah there might have been. The "issue" could have been all crew aboard the helicopter dead, and possibly more on the ground.
Don't you get it?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? The helicopter was following the around. The charges stem from the helicopter sneaking up on and then maneuvering out of its way. Sort of like a police officer backing into your car and charging you with assaulting an officer.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
you have Estes rockets that go a few thousand feet up.
Click to expand...

'Cept these things are a hell of a lot bigger and a hell of a lot harder.
And they're going to stay up there for long periods of time "checking out the city".
 
Having these guys arrested by local PD and charged with reckless endangerment is a really bad precedent to set.

By the same logic any of us could be arrested by some county cop in podunk for flying around at a legal 800' just because some police officer felt it was dangerous.
 
Lindberg said:
Did you read the article? The helicopter was following the around. The charges stem from the helicopter sneaking on stone and then maneuvering out of its way. Sort of like a police officer backing into your car and charging you with assaulting an officer.
Click to expand...

I don't know what "sneaking on stone" means. My point is that I doubt that these clowns operating the UAV have any concept of see-and-avoid, whereas see-and-avoid is a basic, essential requirement when piloting an airplane, for obvious reasons.
When they have no chance of death, or even injury, I doubt they're going to exercise much care when operating their fancy toys.
 
MassPilot said:
If it was over the Hudson River it would have been in the VFR corridor, but to get there it would have been flying right in the Class B for some time. Is it really legal to just fly a drone at 800 feet through Class B airspace?
Click to expand...

You don't have to cross through Class B airspace to get into the Hudson River SFRA...that's sort of the point of it in the first place. However, if these guys did climb to 2,000ft as NYPD alleges, they were definitely up in Class B (1300-7000ft by GWB where the incident occurred).
 
You seem to be looking for a fight, but not providing any solutions. It would appear from reading the article (if that is correct) The police were able to see it (you said they would not be able) and gave chase. "An NYPD helicopter crew spotted the drone and observed the unmanned aircraft as it circled the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge over the Harlem River about 12:20 a.m., the sources said."

By FAA definition this is a model aircraft not a UAS unless they are taking pictures to sell. If they have the video and the officer said he had to avoid and did not. It also seems like the person's 4th amend rights were violated when the cops took the other model aircraft without due process.
Since congress has ordered the FAA to not make rules against model aircraft, what is your suggestion? Given the number of these flying around, in my very short flying career I have had way more interaction with other certified aircraft than model planes. Nothing like having FF calling with their beep beep in the background and they suggest you climb "now"
​
 
Aeric said:
'Cept these things are a hell of a lot bigger and a hell of a lot harder.
And they're going to stay up there for long periods of time "checking out the city".
Click to expand...

No, they are not bigger than a model rocket. a DJI phantom (what they were flying) weighs about 2lbs and is made out of plastic and fiber.

For about 50 bucks you can get an estes rocket that weighs 1.5lbs and hits 3000 feet
 
murphey said:
The drone is the size of a bird. The people flying it probably have little if any knowledge of the concept of see & avoid. And unlike the drones the size of a 737 used by the military, aint no on board cameras with 360 view looking for other aircraft.
.
Click to expand...

The DJI Phantom has a link to the screen on the ground. A predator Drone is powered by a Rotax engine, so probably not the size of a 737 if I had to guess.

I doubt most pilots use or need a 360 degree scan.

I think there is a lot of misinformation in your post.

Now here is the crazy part of the regulations. Someone could take a 172 uncertifiy it. Add remote controls for about $1000.00 and fly it around as a model aircraft. Or build your own predator model aircraft. Keep it under 400 feet and within sight and you are ok. The remote control systems now days have a setting to limit the AGL you fly. Is it responsible, no, but legal yes.
 
yetti said:
By FAA definition this is a model aircraft not a UAS unless they are taking pictures to sell. If they have the video and the officer said he had to avoid and did not. It also seems like the person's 4th amend rights were violated when the cops took the other model aircraft without due process.
Since congress has ordered the FAA to not make rules against model aircraft, what is your suggestion? Given the number of these flying around, in my very short flying career I have had way more interaction with other certified aircraft than model planes. Nothing like having FF calling with their beep beep in the background and they suggest you climb "now"
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't care what it's called. If I hit one of these things at 110mph, it's gonna be real ugly(for me).
Secondly, you refer to a short flying career, it will be short if you hit one of these things.
Third, having FF call out a climb is EXACTLY what I alluded to earlier. They can't see these things, you'll never get that warning...get it?
The number of these things in the air is going to go up exponentially, they just started to sell...
 
It would be nice if the FAA would do some tests to see if your theory is a good one. I would suggest they would bounce off and leave a nice dent. Above 400 feet is probably not as fun to fly them.
Yes they are selling abunch of them and yes there needs to be a solution. How about the FAA turn on ADSB all the time and equip the model airplanes with a ADSB out. It would only cost about $50.00 in the model airplane world.
 
yetti said:
The DJI Phantom has a link to the screen on the ground.
Click to expand...

DJI Phantom video link is poor at best, and controllable range extends well beyond video link range.

yetti said:
A predator Drone is powered by a Rotax engine, so probably not the size of a 737 if I had to guess.
Click to expand...

But a Global Hawk is 32,000lb and has a wingspan as great as a 737. Are you trying to say drones are small?

yetti said:
I doubt most pilots use or need a 360 degree scan.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing a poor FPV video link to the quality of a pilot's proper scan for traffic?

yetti said:
Now here is the crazy part of the regulations. Someone could take a 172 uncertifiy it.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much impossible to "uncertify" a 172 except under fairly specific circumstances.

yetti said:
Add remote controls for about $1000.00 and fly it around as a model aircraft. Or build your own predator model aircraft. Keep it under 400 feet and within sight and you are ok. The remote control systems now days have a setting to limit the AGL you fly. Is it responsible, no, but legal yes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you aren't familiar with Section 336...

II. Requirements To Qualify as a Model
Aircraft Under the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012
the aircraft is limited to not more
than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational
safety program administered by a
community-based organization;
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe you can LEGALLY take a 172, "uncertify" it, add some RC gear and fly it around to your heart's content? Or are you just trolling this thread?
 
yetti said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9VXCu1pbDk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxzVHnbzXTw
Ok you got me probably not a real 172, but you could build an almost scale foam 172 RC plane and still stay under the 55lbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y-yv1r-efg&list=UUh4WtiUS-G5JgR8HLoBCzcA&feature=share&index=21

The point here is the FAA needs to catch up both with certified planes and model airplanes. Technology is cheap and the FAA is way behind and pilots safety is suffering.
Click to expand...

I know these models exist. They're flown under very specific conditions, and the builders abide by the rules. Flying them around NYC (even at 400' or below) would be outside of those rules, and would be a danger to aircraft as well as persons on the surface.

It's no surprise to anyone that the FAA is way behind, and I agree with you 100% on that. I think clarity on the model aircraft issue is needed, and quickly.
 
As the number of these Chinese quadcopters increases (they are all developed and built in China) it's only a matter of time before some sort of regulatory structure emerges. Just recently it became illegal to fly them in National Parks.

Now, being that these things are highly automated and all use GPS as a navigational reference it would be very easy to limit their functionality with the software that controls them. So right out of the box you could have a quadcopter that won't exceed 400 feet altitude and won't fly at all if it knows it's in a National Park, controlled airspace or in proximity to an airport for instance. Sure people could and would hack the software but it would be ILLEGAL to do so.

The other issue I see emerging is the liability because sooner or later, be it a mid-air collision or just one dropping out of the sky and hitting someone on the ground, somebody's going to have to take responsibility.
 
Last edited:
yetti said:
I would suggest they would bounce off and leave a nice dent.
Click to expand...

That's the wackiest thing I've read in a while. I would suggest that hitting a several pound mass of aluminum alloy structure complete with four motors, batteries and a camera at say, 120 knots, would do major, most likely crippling structural damage.
I've seen videos of birds, made of flesh, feathers and small bones, going right through windshields of Cessnas.
If you were to hit one of these with your windshield it would probably take your head off.
 
JasonM said:
I can't stand these things. I used to think they were cool, but now they just irritate me. I don't want them in the sky with us.
Click to expand...
A lot of people feel the same about small piston powered airplanes. I for one am not ready to join the naysayers who feel that anything they don't do shouldn't be allowed.

I do believe that some regulation is needed but for the most part keeping them below 400 AGL, within sight of the operator, and away from airports and manned aircraft should be sufficient.
 
Mike I said:
You don't have to cross through Class B airspace to get into the Hudson River SFRA...that's sort of the point of it in the first place. However, if these guys did climb to 2,000ft as NYPD alleges, they were definitely up in Class B (1300-7000ft by GWB where the incident occurred).
Click to expand...

They were flying it from Inwood, which I believe is where the Class B goes to the surface.
 
MassPilot said:
They were flying it from Inwood, which I believe is where the Class B goes to the surface.
Click to expand...

Ah you're right, I stand corrected.

Anecdotally, weird NYC Class B thing...WTC and Lower Manhattan, the Class B doesn't start until 1500'. One could fly across Canal St without any need for Class B clearance (excepting the congested area rules, of course).
 
yetti said:
The DJI Phantom has a link to the screen on the ground. A predator Drone is powered by a Rotax engine, so probably not the size of a 737 if I had to guess.
Click to expand...
You really need to do a bit more research before making these pronouncements.

General characteristics

  • Crew: 0 onboard (3 remote: LRE pilot; MCE pilot and sensor operator)
  • Length: 47.6 ft (14.5 m)
  • Wingspan: 130.9 ft (39.9 m)
  • Height: 15.3 ft (4.7 m)
  • Empty weight: 14,950 lb (6,781 kg)
  • Gross weight: 32,250 lb (14,628 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce F137-RR-100 turbofan engine, 7,600 lbf (34 kN) thrust
Performance

  • Cruise speed: 357 mph (310 kn; 575 km/h)
  • Range: 8,700 mi (7,560 nmi; 14,001 km)
  • Endurance: 28 hours
  • Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,288 m)
I think there is a lot of misinformation in your post.
Click to expand...

Nope, I think the misinformation is in your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top