Fox News at 3:53PM EST just featured a 2+

Werz said:
DBS said:
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NYC BRIDGE CASE

it seems the police helicopter approached the Phantom ... not the other way around
They never had to use evasive maneuvers

And they have tower transmission recordings

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/police-recording-confirms-nypd-flew-at-a-drone-never-feared-crash
NYPD: " *** We got the guys operating it on the ground. Hopefully we can get these guys collared up."
NYPD: " *** we just don’t know what kind of crime we have right now."
Translation: "This really p*sses us off, and we're going to grab these guys. We just need to think up some crime to charge them with."

I'm still curious to exactly where they were and what they were flying. If it was a V2 plus, did it have the most current (3.04) version. I am sure they would have been near some protected airspace and the flight limits would have affected them. Or I would have thought it should.
 
Cocoa, free flight is only limited to an altitude and distance that you set inside NAZA. The ground station app has a flight distance radius limit but I am sure they weren't flying way-points in this case. And if they were, they were certainly not near an airport or ground station would deny the flight plan.
 
If this even goes to trial, hopefully it results in a verdict of "not guilty". Then hopefully some sort of civil suit ensues. Not sure if something like 'malicious prosecution' would apply here, but it would certainly be entertaining to follow these two guys as they go after the real unprofessional clowns related to the 'incident'.
 
Some moron neighbor of mine called the police because we were flying them around on 4th of July, we were 350ft in the air so there is no way someones cheap firework would've even gone near our drones, we were just flying around the neighborhood like we do almost every night. The police know it's just us flying around with our toy quadcopters so they didn't even tell us what happened until later when I asked about it. They told the guy there are no laws against flying toy quadcopters around, so there's nothing they can do about it. People are so dumb to think that we are spying on people 350ft in the air in the dark with a toy DJI quadcopter lol. Riiiiiight.
 
Good thing it's the helicopter operators fault now that the news has cleared and the helicopter is the one that chased the toy quadcopter and not the other way around.


kymedic121 said:
I am a Deputy Sheriff in Kentucky and I can understand the Charge of Reckless Endangerment (In Ky its called Wanton Endangerment) Legal Definition: Circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another. Layman's terms: (A willful act that could result in serious injury or death to another.) Basically the prosecutor is charging that flying that close to helicopter could have acted as foreign object that could have struck the helicopter which possibly could have caused the helicopter to crash seriously injuring or killing those on board and those on the ground below. Yes, I know it seems a little harsh to charge them with a felony for such a bonehead and childish move but yes this could have occurred. But, with all this being said and my experience in many courtrooms on many cases I can tell you that unless they get a really hard nosed prosecutor and judge it will probably be plead down to a misdemeanor with a heavy fine, probation, community service and likely loose the right to fly their drones for a number of years. Now, if the media runs with this and the FAA catch wind of it which I am sure they have they may use these two as an example and through the proverbial book at them. Not to mention what this is going to do to public perception of these aircraft and how the law abiding hobbyist and professional photographers are going to suffer because of stupid people like these seeing how high they can get and then to antagonize the police. Yep, this is probably going to end bad. The National Transportation Safety Board sided with Drone (Quad) pilots and ruled against the FAA and prevented them implementing shoot from the hip policies and laws to govern our quads by saying that the FAA does not have the jurisdictional authority to restrict Radio Controlled Operation. This decision was also upheld by a Superior Court Judge. Now, if this kind of crap keeps happening you can rest assured the FAA will be all over this by directive from the President or Congress. Not to mention if Homeland Security decides they are bored and want something else to do they will be ready to enforce or restrict the use of these aircraft. I personally like FPV and I love its uses. But I personally see no point in flying higher than 400', furthermore I can understand flying past LOS sparingly but not several thousand feet away. What is the point? Yes, the aircraft will do it especially the Phantom versions, some will go well beyond those distances with all the mods to the antennas that can be done rather cheaply. But to launch your quad thousands of feet has no practical purpose as far as I am concerned and is no more than a "Hold my beer and watch this" moment. Several more instances like this and we will be confined to fly parks, with mandatory regulated flight training, licensing fees, ownership registration and limits of liability insurance and/or collision insurance. Its a crying shame that because of few juvenile people and there actions our country may have the most strict guidelines and restrictions on quads. Land of The Free, I think not. More like the "Land of The Legislated" Ok, I am sorry I will now climb down from my soapbox and end this rant. Please understand that the views I have expressed are solely mine and mine alone. I mean no disrespect nor am I trying to incite chaos here on the forum. Strictly one mans view........
 
w0by said:
Good thing it's the helicopter operators fault now that the news has cleared and the helicopter is the one that chased the toy quadcopter and not the other way around.

I think an FAA investigation of this incident is quite warranted now. The NYPD helicopter pilot should be placed on leave or suspended until all can determine why he/she decided to fly in an irresponsible manner and chase an innocent quadcopter that wasn't flying in violation of any rules or hurting anybody.
 
tch1972 said:
Cocoa, free flight is only limited to an altitude and distance that you set inside NAZA. The ground station app has a flight distance radius limit but I am sure they weren't flying way-points in this case. And if they were, they were certainly not near an airport or ground station would deny the flight plan.

I probably used the wrong terminology .. I meant the current 3.04 software which keeps you from flying into select airports airspace (listed as group a or b on DJI website). I was interested if they were using the new software and/or if they were inside or below one of the airspace listed.
 
I'm sure this has been posted or discussed, but I thought it would be interesting reading for those who have not read it. It was part of a safety briefing I received. Note the comment regarding flight near manned aircraft.
__________________________________________________________________________-
FAA reasserts enforcement authority over model aircraft
Agency outlines 'dos and don'ts' of model aircraft

The FAA is warning model aircraft operators not to fly with first-person-view goggles or for hire in new guidance prompted by an uptick in reports of reckless model aircraft use.

The FAA's interpretation of special rules for the operation of model aircraft gives the agency "clear" authority to take enforcement action against unsafe operators, said top Transportation Department officials.

Pilots' reports of close encounters with unmanned aircraft have increased 300 percent since an NTSB judge's ruling that many interpreted as a challenge to the FAA's authority to regulate unmanned aircraft, Jim Williams, manager of the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, told attendees at the UAS Action Summit in Grand Forks, N.D., June 25. The guidance, released for comment June 23 along with a list of "dos and don'ts" for model aircraft use, lays out what qualifies as a model aircraft and requirements for operating one.

"We want people who fly model aircraft for recreation to enjoy their hobby-but to enjoy it safely," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "At DOT, we often say that safety is a shared responsibility, so to help, we are providing additional information today to make sure model aircraft operators know exactly what's expected of them."

Hobby or recreational flying of a model aircraft doesn't require FAA approval, the agency affirmed, but operators must follow safety guidelines and may not endanger the National Airspace System. The "dos" of flying a model aircraft comprise "fly a model aircraft/UAS at the local model aircraft club," "take lessons and learn to fly safely," "contact the airport or control tower when flying within 5 miles of the airport," and "fly a model aircraft for personal enjoyment."

AOPA has long urged the FAA to develop regulations to keep pace with advancements in unmanned aircraft technology and protect manned aircraft in the National Airspace System. The association has served on government-industry committees to develop recommendations for safe integration and joined 32 other organizations in April to call on the FAA to step up its efforts for safe integration of small UAS. The FAA expects to release proposed rulemaking on unmanned aircraft of 55 pounds or less for comment by the end of 2014.

What shouldn't you do? Don't "fly near manned aircraft," "fly beyond line of sight of the operator," "fly an aircraft weighing more than 55 lbs unless it's certified by an aeromodeling community-based organization," "fly contrary to your aeromodeling community-based safety guidelines," or "fly model aircraft for payment or commercial purposes," the FAA said. Flying within line of site precludes "the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a 'first-person view' from the model," according to the interpretation.

"This notice does not prohibit model aircraft operations and it does not materially change the current advisory guidance that model aircraft have flown under for 30 years," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president for government affairs. "What it does is give the FAA 'teeth' for enforcement if a model aircraft operator is not adhering to the special rule requirements."

The FAA reauthorization law of 2012 exempts model aircraft from FAA regulations, but pilots of unmanned aircraft flying commercially can't be exempt by claiming they're operating under model aircraft rules, the FAA maintains.

"There's a lot of folks that want to stretch that definition" of model aircraft, said Williams. However, the FAA's interpretation of the reauthorization law draws a crisp line between commercial and hobby use. It lists examples of activities that are not considered recreational, including "receiving money for demonstrating aerobatics with a model aircraft," "a realtor using a model aircraft to photograph a property that he is trying to sell and using the photos in the property's real estate listing," "a person photographing a property or event and selling the photos to someone else," "delivering packages to people for a fee," and "determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of commercial farming operation."

The new statement of interpretation says the law "is clear that the FAA may take enforcement action against model aircraft operators who operate their aircraft in a manner that endangers the safety of the national airspace system."

"We have a mandate to protect the American people in the air and on the ground, and the public expects us to carry out that mission," said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

Model aircraft enthusiasts have long flown safely with guidance from a 1981 FAA advisory circular and the Academy of Model Aeronautics, but the proliferation of affordable off-the-shelf units has led to more widespread use-often without the training and support offered by an organization like the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Williams said the FAA is focused on education.

"Most people want to follow the rules," he said. "... They just don't understand. They don't know what the rules are."

Confusion over the rules for unmanned aircraft deepened this year after an NTSB appeals judge dismissed a $10,000 fine the FAA had levied on an operator for flying an unmanned aircraft for hire in 2011. The FAA appealed that decision, which stays the decision until the full board rules, and Williams underscored that the outcome of the case will not affect current operators; the special rules laid out in the 2012 FAA reauthorization now take precedence.

The FAA said it will follow up by working with its inspectors and model aircraft operators to distribute standard information to the public on the law's requirements, and by working to help law enforcement agencies understand the rules. An agency Aviation Safety Hotline website will help the public learn how and when to contact the agency about unmanned aircraft operations.

A public comment period will be open for 30 days after publication of the notice; however, the rule takes immediate effect. Williams said he expects comments and criticism from the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and the agency may make changes based on industry input. Comments may be submitted online under Docket No. FAA-2014-0396.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... craft.aspx<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NYnhcuIDKTOmNGaeYIRN3W0KTrdd44Bsfxa1GepQ38fJXgmkwHzFFC0e3JL3mHQyuyG8oNnUUouxUdLj03ZXwjOVNGUetb_2WAWHEoSGrNbfbT2MhnfWCY3PYY0t4IoB-yyqQUfYky9Wuhur3F-ZviltpJqIosYnScUfhLwudRiF2xKsQk1uXWmz-QwS7ih0YxLxLZ9SlU6a6IUUcjJZvtN_Urp1-uAS6R7pi2tmasoeRB7hhx867sMyEe7hS9XqyCBwuK0kTjqf3s7nxDFMbYic6CHxVgQYETzviTtCQBifxzK8xbPeQw==&c=yLRqKxoyPwq5MHbW4O12v08sKF65lTdda6yOXGxzglp2tJw6FD1V6g==&ch=uSDxJvz8GYiU5g5AKsdiVbVVnSnoYJaci7l1x7i1nj4MjhxpjZP2sg==>
 
As a follow on to the conversation, I did some further research as to where the pilots were when they were apprehended by the police helicopter. According to the police report the Phantom was hovering near Spuyten Duyvil Bridge which is in center of the New York Botanical Gardens in the Bronx. I am curious if someone in the park saw it and called the police.

Either way, I located the fix on the DJI restricted areas map. The black arrow is the bridge's location.



Note the bridge is not inside the restricted area.

I then located the bridge on the FAA airspace chart which shows the protected airspace for La Guardia airport. The black arrow is the location. The chart shows the protected airspace is from the surface to 7,000 ft. Had they known, they were flying inside the protected airspace, the DJI protection would not have "protected" them...



I guess the lesson here is to do a little research before you fly in areas like these.
 

Attachments

  • NYC.png
    NYC.png
    451.8 KB · Views: 325
  • NY2.png
    NY2.png
    80.6 KB · Views: 321

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,590
Members
104,977
Latest member
wkflysaphan4