Drone hits empire state building nyc

Yes, this was basically like a Syma X5C drone. The 6th floor is a FAR cry from the 40th floor. Unfortunately the media has made it out to be WAY more than it was apparently-thanks media.
 
Did anyone notice that the picture of the drone is a tiny, toy micro drone that doesn't even fall under the FAA'S guidelines?

I found this link to what sounds like what he bought going by his description-

Amazon.com: Ionic 2.4Ghz 6-Axis Remote Control Quadcopter Drone with 2.0 MP Camera (White): Toys & Games

It is probably over a half pound so it should have been registered, but only has a range of about 50 meters, so the 40th floor story seems a little odd to me.
 
Well...apparently the Syma X5C (which this looks like it is based on), ONLY weighs about 100 grams. .55 pounds is 250 grams, so this would NOT need to be registered. They are making Phantoms out of toy quads here.
 
I found this link to what sounds like what he bought going by his description-

Amazon.com: Ionic 2.4Ghz 6-Axis Remote Control Quadcopter Drone with 2.0 MP Camera (White): Toys & Games

It is probably over a half pound so it should have been registered, but only has a range of about 50 meters, so the 40th floor story seems a little odd to me.
From what I understand, when these lose signal they don't return to home. They continue with whatever the last input was when it lost signal. So if he was pressing forward (up) when he lost signal then it would just keep going up. That's what happened to my boss with his Syma before he got himself a Phantom. It just kept going up until he could no longer see it. I'm sure wind tosses these things around like crazy, too.
 
From what I understand, when these lose signal they don't return to home. They continue with whatever the last input was when it lost signal. So if he was pressing forward (up) when he lost signal then it would just keep going up. That's what happened to my boss with his Syma before he got himself a Phantom. It just kept going up until he could no longer see it. I'm sure wind tosses these things around like crazy, too.
Yep...these toys are flyaways waiting to happen if you get up too high-even for an experienced flyer. The range is pretty bad too...only about 30 meters (football field length).

Let's just put it this way...they are designed to do flips and rolls (stunts). Pretty fun though for sure! Video is horribly shaky though and there is no altitude hold.
 
Last edited:
Yep...these toys are flyaways waiting to happen if you get up too high-even for an experienced flyer. The range is pretty bad too...only about 30 meters (football field length).

Let's just put it this way...they are designed to do flips and rolls (stunts). Pretty fun though for sure! Video is horribly shaky though and there is no altitude hold.
IMO, even more stupid to attempt to fly something like this in Manhattan, than flying a Phantom in those canyons.
 
From what I understand, when these lose signal they don't return to home. They continue with whatever the last input was when it lost signal. So if he was pressing forward (up) when he lost signal then it would just keep going up. That's what happened to my boss with his Syma before he got himself a Phantom. It just kept going up until he could no longer see it. I'm sure wind tosses these things around like crazy, too.

Yup... no GPS.
 
It's not February 19, 2016 yet. That's the day you have to be registered by.
Yes .. I know that if it was bought after Dec 21, it has to be registered before first flight - but there's no way to prove when it was bought.

It was mostly a rhetorical question as I highly doubt someone willing to fly above 400 ft in downtown NYC - of all places, is going to bother registering with the FAA at any point.

This really seems like someone on a mission to get as much attention as possible... tweeting about it for crying out loud? For all we know this could be intentionally staged to try and gauge public reaction about drones or to cultivate a media conversation about the ease with which someone could pull off a sneak "drone attack" in the city.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but these days I trust very little about the drone reports that come in, especially when they haven't been credibly reported on by the press. There are just too many agencies and organizations with ulterior motives that want to see an outright ban implemented.
 
There are just too many agencies and organizations with ulterior motives that want to see an outright ban implemented.


Please post some type of information to support this.

It's complete bovine feces.

There is tons of money being and waiting to be made here and we are at the 'Kittyhawk moment' in time for UASs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Please post some type of information to support this.

It's complete bovine feces.

There is tons of money being and waiting to be made here and we are at the 'Kittyhawk moment' in time for UASs.

Type "drone ban" into Google news and you will find a full plethora of cities and counties implementing and investigating bans throughout the country. Also, because this is a disruptive technology there are traditional business operators (planes, helos, etc.) who stand to lose money from competition. Some of these groups are cited in this link Advocating For and Against Drones

The next time you challenge someone on the facts you should probably do your own research to avoid coming off like an ignorant sycophant.

ETA - Just because you and I both think that unmanned aerial systems are important emerging tech doesn't mean the majority of people will see it the same way, especially when more and more people experience being displaced by the massive growth in automation coming down the pike.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheTanger
None of those 'cons' listed in your link proposed bans.

Just responsible regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
None of those 'cons' listed in your link proposed bans.

Just responsible regulation.

Nevermind, I didn't realize you already made up your mind on the subject and refuse to do any research for yourself. This has swerved off topic anyway.
 
Right.

Let's wait a few years and see where we stand.

I'm confident I'll still be flying if I'm breathing.

Sounds like you should sell or at least halt future purchases.
 
Right.

Let's wait a few years and see where we stand.

I'm confident I'll still be flying if I'm breathing.

Sounds like you should sell or at least halt future purchases.

Thank you for Trolling.
 
Your 'link' does/did not support your extreme views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
It was mostly a rhetorical question as I highly doubt someone willing to fly above 400 ft in downtown NYC - of all places, is going to bother registering with the FAA at any point.

This really seems like someone on a mission to get as much attention as possible... tweeting about it for crying out loud? For all we know this could be intentionally staged to try and gauge public reaction about drones or to cultivate a media conversation about the ease with which someone could pull off a sneak "drone attack" in the city.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but these days I trust very little about the drone reports that come in, especially when they haven't been credibly reported on by the press. There are just too many agencies and organizations with ulterior motives that want to see an outright ban implemented.
Since this was a drone that did NOT likely require registration (under .55 lbs.-it's probably about 100 or so grams w/camera), and only went up 6 stories which is ONLY like 70-80 feet high (not 40 stories or whatever the sensationalized fake story became) I'm wondering myself how the 'facts' got so misconstrued.

Was it stupid...yes. Did he ask cops if he could, apparently-and they told him to go ahead, probably due to the size of the little thing. What I want to know is...why didn't media make a big stink about the INACCURATE facts of this whole story after they found them out? No one has heard much about THAT have they? This is why some of us think the media and government have it out for drone hobbyists...playing on people's fears.

Huffington Post "investigation":
New Jersey Man Arrested After Drone Crashes Into Empire State Building

Digital Spy "investigation":
Man crashes drone into the Empire State Building

Even Engadget - who seems to say rather definitively it was on the 40th story and crashed down to the 35th in their "report":
Cops nab man for crashing a drone into the Empire State building

VERSUS

The REAL FACTS from the New York Times a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/n...deos-script-an-arrest-for-flying-a-drone.html

Make up your own minds about whether this was "sensationalized" for maximum effect or not. Those media outlets spouting false and misleading information should update their 'facts'-but have they? No.
 
Last edited:
Your 'link' does/did not support your extreme views.

I suggested you google "drone ban" and you ignored me. If you did you would see that the town of Palm Beach has a ban on all aircraft flying below 1000 ft: Palm Beach cracks down on drones
Is that close enough to home for you? You're probably breaking local laws and don't even know it.
 
Last edited:
Dude, your links did not support the allegations you have made.

You've confused regulation with bans.

You didn't read my earlier post either, google "drone ban" and have fun.
 
You didn't read my earlier post either, google "drone ban" and have fun.
Have fun? Doing what? Chasing your rhetoric?

Googled "Drone Ban" as per your instruction. Found that drones are banned in National Parks (old news), over military installations (well yeah...) and in the Washington DC area (again, common knowledge). I also found a good number media articles threatening bans, some opinion pieces supporting bans, but certainly not a "plethora of cities and counties implementing bans throughout the country" as you had factually typed....

You can respond all you want, but your "facts" fail you so far.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31