News Helicopter vs Drone
- Thread starter Youngbill
- Start date
There has to be a limit. It would be unsafe for the heli to fly below the tree tops or power lines.....it would not be unsafe for a drone to do so.
The entire system has flaws and I can see why the FAA is in such a pickle and having a hard time with the "rules". Typical government organization.
I'm not sure who that was directed to, but most on this forum don't have a 333 and are not bound by its restrictions.Boom! Roastedlol
First of all I was just having fun with it (quote from "the office").... second of all, it's proof that there is an expectation that UAV's always give way to manned aircraft (at least in one place in print). I get it that it doesn't seem "fair" that you have to give up a shot to a news helicopter... but as many have mentioned is it really worth it to possibly kill someone over what you believe is your God given right to record an event?
Even the AMA knows that this kind of battle is a bad idea and has included the statement that all model aircraft should yield to manned aircraft.
I think if we HOPE to have less restrictions put on us, we need to apply some common sense rules and not endanger lives with model aircraft.
This is merely my opinion.
I am more concerned with the FAA pushing for overreaching restrictions on our hobby than whether you get to win in the fight over airspace with a news helicopter. (I realize you are speaking in the hypothetical). The more people do stuff with these drones that potentially endanger people's lives... the more likely it is that serious restrictions will befall our hobby.
If your going to try to sell video to a news agency/station, you better have a 333 and follow it completely, including being a licensed pilot.
Your not going to get great footage, then arrange a deal to sell it (unless you happen on something that the timing was perfect), chances are someone would have a relationship in place to sell any video they may come up with. If your doing that, I don't see a regular tv stations doing something without you being completely legal. Now an internet based operation, sure they have nothing to lose, but the majority of the tv stations today are owned by very, very large corporations with lots and lots of lawyers, who want to make sure everything is 'proper'
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Helo operators are cowboys. At least here in LA many operate that way. Especially LAPD. Expecting them to stay above 500ft AGL is foolish. They don't. They are only supposed to fly below 500ft when the situation requires it but they do it with such regularity that you have to expect it.
Bitching about it will do nothing. Reference my complaint to the FAA complete with N number registration that went absolutely no where. Your best bet is get video and go viral with it.
But, no matter what, you need to stay way the 'H' 'E' double hockey sticks out of the way. You will be the bad guy even if you aren't.
Bitching about it will do nothing. Reference my complaint to the FAA complete with N number registration that went absolutely no where. Your best bet is get video and go viral with it.
But, no matter what, you need to stay way the 'H' 'E' double hockey sticks out of the way. You will be the bad guy even if you aren't.
Andy- Read the entire thread.....
If the FAA can't or won't do anything to a complaint against a manned aircraft, then it proves my point that they are a JOKE. Again, typically government organization.
I'm telling you, NightCrawler. This is it. Who wants to play Jake Gyllenhaal?
I think @Youngbill is trying to say HE wants to be Jake, and sell his footage, and beat the competition...right?
I think @Youngbill is trying to say HE wants to be Jake, and sell his footage, and beat the competition...right?
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Don't hold your breath. The FAA is run by retired fly boys. Their buddies are the ones flying the helos. As far as the FAA is concerned, drones are a nuisance flown by irresponsible pimply-faced teenagers that have no respect for the rules of the road.
..
here is what you said in the first paragraph
Let's say there is a news worthy event (not a forest fire) and I'm flying my drone to get shots for the local newspaper(not for money)
Even saying its not for money, the news organization will not want an amateur and that persons liability representing them in anyway without being property licensed and insured,,now if you just happen to be at the right place at the right time, and have the only footage of an event,,then they would talk to you about your footage, but if your talking about being a regular stringer for a newspaper, they want you to be covered (in a past life, long long ago, I was a news director at a radio station)[/QUOTE]
here is what you said in the first paragraph
Let's say there is a news worthy event (not a forest fire) and I'm flying my drone to get shots for the local newspaper(not for money)
Even saying its not for money, the news organization will not want an amateur and that persons liability representing them in anyway without being property licensed and insured,,now if you just happen to be at the right place at the right time, and have the only footage of an event,,then they would talk to you about your footage, but if your talking about being a regular stringer for a newspaper, they want you to be covered (in a past life, long long ago, I was a news director at a radio station)[/QUOTE]
does anyone know why the guy was arrested? He seemed to be flying in an area with no people close by (or under him anyway)
Enorgh with the obscure movie references......some of us aren't old enough to have seen that one [emoji12]
"and the chopper clearly went out of its way to "pursue" my UAV"
Clearly you didn't read what I said. I've held a commercial pilot license since 1976, I "think" I know the rules. Unsafe aircraft operation (ANY aircraft) is a violation of FARs
91.13 — Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
A hearing will evaluate the circumstances. If a chopper pilot sees a UAV operating legally and intentionally deviates to buzz it and forces it to crash, the pilot has violated 91.13.
I am not referring to a situation where a chopper flying from point A to B accidentally flies over a UAV. Please read what I posted before posting knee jerk reactions.
Agreed. But we have to fight back in the regulatory arena when this occurs. What's good for the goose...
You don't get "arrested" for FARs violations (Oh I suppose you can if you get somebody killed) , but you can lose your license. The N number on the red chopper is clearly visible and if the dude did not file a report this just remains a cool video.
If the FAA is going to demand a license and aircraft registration to get my 333 then I am now part of the NAS and I will become a watchdog for stupid pilots (manned and unmanned A/C ) and the FAA hearing officers are going to earn their salaries. Fair is fair.
The video starts out "a beautiful day at Great Falls, until I got arrested"
I couldn't figure out why,,
The FAA right-of-way rules have been in existence for decades. In general, the least maneuverable aircraft have the Right of Way and lightweight drones are more maneuverable than any manned aircraft.
The news helicopter would likely be violating 14 CFR 91.113 - 'Right-of-way rules' if the knew the drone was there "first" because a pilot can't intentionally use his Right of Way priority to occupy previously occupied airspace. (An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.)
The news helicopter would likely be violating 14 CFR 91.113 - 'Right-of-way rules' if the knew the drone was there "first" because a pilot can't intentionally use his Right of Way priority to occupy previously occupied airspace. (An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.)
