But what if you're in a position where you can't land - i.e. over water? Recall the story about the two guys who were arrested in NY after they were taking video of the George Washington Bridge. While they were filming, an NYPD chopper noticed the Phantom and began to approach, following it as the Phantom pilot made a b-line to land at their location. When they landed, they were swarmed, and charged with felony reckless endangerment. The charges were later dropped when the cops couldn't prove the drone actually came at them. Point is, there are always two sides to any story.
Controversy continues at pipeline
- Thread starter Buk
- Start date
But what if you're in a position where you can't land - i.e. over water? Recall the story about the two guys who were arrested in NY after they were taking video of the George Washington Bridge. While they were filming, an NYPD chopper noticed the Phantom and began to approach, following it as the Phantom pilot made a b-line to land at their location. When they landed, they were swarmed, and charged with felony reckless endangerment. The charges were later dropped when the cops couldn't prove the drone actually came at them. Point is, there are always two sides to any story.
The rule actually does say the sUAS operator must "give way to any manned aircraft". Doesn't say you have to land (though that is probably preferable). Sounds like the pilot in your example was trying to give way. Seems the outcome was right if charges were dropped. A small number of irresponsible drive pilots have made it more difficult for the responsible ones.
Yes, the outcome was right, but think of the cost to these guys. And, the fact that it's not beyond .gov to lie and embellish their stories to help get rid of cameras. That's why when I read stories like those headlined by this thread, I cringe when I see people just take the 'official narrative' as gospel - without even considering the very real bias government has against citizens filming their actions.
Not worried about the cost to them. The rule applies. If you want to avoid having to give way, go fly where it's less likely to happen. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I do think that government tends to overreach a bit too much. At all levels.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
Anytime there is protest, there will be heated tempers. Best to just stay away. The drone operator should never endanger anyone or any other aircraft. He was in the wrong. Hope he gets blasted with a hefty fine. We have the right to a peaceful protest. Chasing a helicopter, police or otherwise is not okay. Foolish drone flyer. I won't call him a drone pilot, more like a drone fool.
Whether the helicopter targeted the drone or not is not the point. By faa regulations, the helicopter has the right of way. The drone operator should land the drone immediately. Also, FAA prohibits flying over crowd. The drone operator has two strikes against him.
You may argue the police abused their power. That might be true. But if you don't follow their instructions, you are at the short end of the stick.
The point is, the operator should think ahead before he put the drone up.
In the case when you fly over water and the helicopter is approaching you, you can lower your drone and hover above the water or move away from the helicopter.
Do yourself a favor and READ the link. That way your comments will be a little more on target.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2016
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 64
I disagree. You don't "land the drone immediately". You reduce altitude immediately and move away from the helicopter until the area is clear, or you return to start point. What is directly below the drone is relevant to when/where you land it.
I don't support ignoring safety guidelines or FAA regs, but there is always a little grey in between the black and white. It's called using common sense.
Correct. FAA regs in fact state that if the only way to have safety is to break the regs then you do it.
The inception, design and construction of this pipeline has polarized people involved both in and out of the court systems.
The pipeline passes within a few miles of my home. I've driven by and taken land based photos when it was too muddy for workers to be on site, but resisted the urge to fly over the project. Too many land owners who gave or had their land taken for the project already upset without nosey drones flying around. I did go up once from public property, but got rained out before getting a good view.
Even after the completion of the project, suits will be filled and trials will stretch out for years. Precedents maybe set. If the contractor was using drones to watch for vandalism, the FAA might be involved evaluating commercial use and licensure required.
The pipeline passes within a few miles of my home. I've driven by and taken land based photos when it was too muddy for workers to be on site, but resisted the urge to fly over the project. Too many land owners who gave or had their land taken for the project already upset without nosey drones flying around. I did go up once from public property, but got rained out before getting a good view.
Even after the completion of the project, suits will be filled and trials will stretch out for years. Precedents maybe set. If the contractor was using drones to watch for vandalism, the FAA might be involved evaluating commercial use and licensure required.
This was a couple of weeks ago and at night. Over a million dollars of equipment damaged....set on fire.
No... it's not that black and white. A drone operator is free to argue that they made attempts to avoid the helicopter, as required, but could not solely due to the helicopter pilot's actions. If a drone operator could show that it was the helicopter that put itself in danger, knowing of that danger, then they would very likely not be held in violation.
It's not like a police helicopter ever chased a drone and then lied about it...oh wait....
NYPD Helicopter Flew at a Drone and Never Feared Crashing, Recording Confirms
An air traffic control recording confirms that a New York Police Department helicopter flew at a drone hovering near the George Washington Bridge earlier this week—not the other way around. What's more, police had no idea what to charge the drone pilots with, and never appeared to fear a crash with the drone.
FAA has issue a TFR for the area only authorized aircraft, no news aircraft allowed.
A tweet on Peter Sach's Twitter page stated 8 drones have been shot down.
Questions about the TFR.
Flight Restrictions Over Standing Rock: Is The FAA Effectively Taking Sides In Pipeline Dispute?
Flight Restrictions Over Standing Rock: Is The FAA Effectively Taking Sides In Pipeline Dispute?
Similar threads
