This kind of crap keeps up and we are done...
http://nypost.com/2014/07/07/two-drones ... -over-gwb/
http://nypost.com/2014/07/07/two-drones ... -over-gwb/
NYC Morons & NYPD Helicopter
- Thread starter SilentAV8R
- Start date
SilentAV8R said:
Ha, the lawyer says they can't go over 300 feet? He might want to research first before spewing that crap. He's not helping his clients.
He might have been referring to the software limits his clients had programmed in at the time of the flight. Might be called "grasping at straws" defense.
"reckless endangerment"??? Will charges stick?
The Fox News article said the drones were never closer than 800 feet away from the copter. The police copter "had to change course" to avoid the drones. Hardly the near miss claimed in the post article. Be interesting to see if the "reckless endangerment" charges stick. Here's the wording of the statute: "A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person."
What do you think???
From the operators perspective, 800 feet is a long way. I'm not a helicopter pilot, so maybe it's different from in the air. If i were the accused, i'd argue that keeping my Phantom 800 feet away from the helicopter is being "careful", not "reckless", and especially not reckless such that there's a "grave risk" to the helicopter. Circumstances could change that analysis - for example, if the Phantom flew directly at the helicopter at a high rate of speed.
The Fox News article said the drones were never closer than 800 feet away from the copter. The police copter "had to change course" to avoid the drones. Hardly the near miss claimed in the post article. Be interesting to see if the "reckless endangerment" charges stick. Here's the wording of the statute: "A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person."
What do you think???
From the operators perspective, 800 feet is a long way. I'm not a helicopter pilot, so maybe it's different from in the air. If i were the accused, i'd argue that keeping my Phantom 800 feet away from the helicopter is being "careful", not "reckless", and especially not reckless such that there's a "grave risk" to the helicopter. Circumstances could change that analysis - for example, if the Phantom flew directly at the helicopter at a high rate of speed.
The police report says the Phantom was at 2000 feet over New York. Restricted airspace. Sure hope those guys had flytrex......
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Unless we can see the video, we won't know.
If the Phantom operator saw and then flew towards the helicopter, he deserves a felony endangerment charge. If he saw the helicopter and didn't try to avoid it, he deserves a misdemeanor endangerment. And if he flew to 800ft and operated at least partially in class B airspace, he also deserves a misdemeanor.
If the Phantom operator saw and then flew towards the helicopter, he deserves a felony endangerment charge. If he saw the helicopter and didn't try to avoid it, he deserves a misdemeanor endangerment. And if he flew to 800ft and operated at least partially in class B airspace, he also deserves a misdemeanor.
ianwood said:
If it was 800 feet in that area, they weren't breaking class B as the floor all along the Hudson appears to be 1200 AGL. It would depend, however on if they launched it from the Manhattan side or the Jersey side. Manhattan is Class B surface to 7000 AGL; on the Jersey side right at the bridge, the Class B floor is 1500 feet AGL. If they launched from Manhattan, they were in clear violation, especially if they ascended to 800 ft. Jersey, maybe not so much.
It's probably a good rule of thumb not to fly around government regulated infrastructure like bridges, highways, airports, high-rise buildings, ports, military installations, power and water installations, first responders, and railroads. Oh yeah, and fireworks displays. 
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 5
Here is the Foxnews story
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/08/drone-came-within-800-feet-chopper-nypd-says/?intcmp=latestnews
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/08/drone-came-within-800-feet-chopper-nypd-says/?intcmp=latestnews
Follow up story
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.
Two men were arrested Monday on felony reckless endangerment charges after the NYPD said the two flew their drone "very close" to a law enforcement chopper, causing the police helicopter to take evasive maneuvers. Air traffic control recordings suggest that only happened after the chopper pilot decided to chase the drone.
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.
Two men were arrested Monday on felony reckless endangerment charges after the NYPD said the two flew their drone "very close" to a law enforcement chopper, causing the police helicopter to take evasive maneuvers. Air traffic control recordings suggest that only happened after the chopper pilot decided to chase the drone.
I rather suspected that this might be the case - NYPD offended by quad and give chase then, post-event, invent "dangerous situation" to justify their actions.
DavesMotorCity said:
This story was made by the exaggerations of the police officers flying the chopper that day 9surprise!). Those two guys were just shooting footage of a bridge when they (the officers) started their BS rant by asking the tower if they showed anything on the radar, then going "whoa....that thing just went from zero to 2000 in about 2 seconds. MUST me military!" NO drone, will do zero to 2000' in 2 seconds. From the beginning, THEY were investigating the drones, knowing **** well what they were and what they might be able to make out of this story. Unfortunately, it's backfiring....but not without leaving yet another unwarranted stain on the Drone Community.
These guys are not innocent babes in the woods either. They were flying over people, structures, AND in Class B airspace, which extends to the ground. I agree, it looks like the NYPD were d!c&$, but the Phantom pilots are not blameless either.
SilentAV8R said:
Doesn't extend to the ground everywhere. Along the Hudson I think the floor is 1200 ft AGL...but ANYWHERE inside Manhattan is for sure to the ground. Especially given the events of the last 13 years.
To clarify, Class B doesn't extend to the ground always as a rule. Most Class C and Class B airspace looks like an inverted wedding cake.
BigTulsa said:
It extends to the ground all along the east side of the Hudson river up to just about the northern end of Manhattan. The floor is at 1,300 MSL over the river itself. But since they launched from the NYC side and were on Manhattan they had to be in the Class B airspace for La Guardia. And I was not saying that ALL Class B and C extends to the ground, just that where they were flying from was in the portion that did extend to the ground.
Similar threads
- Sticky
