Space Needle drone strike.

Yes. Unpaved runways and runways without a tower are not "recommended" to notify as a hobbiest.

But see even if they were paved and so, this is only a recommendation. No ones getting fined for not following a recommendation of just letting someone know. Your not asking for permission, your just recommended to notify the control tower.
 
I've only seen or read notify if within 5 miles of airport no qualifications.
Please link to the language you are referring to.
 
I've only seen or read notify if within 5 miles of airport no qualifications.
Please link to the language you are referring to.

Read the last paragraph on this page, Airspace Restrictions

It states if the airport has a tower. There's no tower at seaports/heliports/grass runways airports.
 
I guess we disagree as their is still a requirement to contact the a-port operator if no tower.

Pavement not even mentioned.
 
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Like I said in another post,I haven't even given my personal opinion on this whole event. Never said he should have called or not called. The link I posted clearly stated "if there is a tower".

What I did notice on that page is that the FAA is saying it's a requirement, where as before (in the beginning) it was suggested.
 
The bottomline is that very close to where that drone was I've sat in the restaurant for lunch and seen a seaplane and/or the Komo chopper land out the window.

It would be very hard to avoid flying fpv or even with los.

I suppose there is a column of space around the needle it would be safe to fly close. Because the planes fly several hundred feet away from the structures. But man it's scary.

Also, the needle in its own footprint is private property. It's no different than someone filming your neighbors house or building right? I don't know, but this guy is going to be made an example of. He probably had FAA number on that inspire I am sure. It's a matter of time.

One eyewitness said they saw the guy land the inspire and change the battery in Seattle Center. So it's just a matter of time before they make this guy pay for the slew of crappy drone flying in Seattle. The big wheel being one I don't think they ever caught the guy.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Like I said in another post,I haven't even given my personal opinion on this whole event. Never said he should have called or not called. The link I posted clearly stated "if there is a tower".

What I did notice on that page is that the FAA is saying it's a requirement, where as before (in the beginning) it was suggested.


Cool.

But to be fair you are seeing what you want?
Confirmation bias???

It says must contact BOTH operator and tower, if it has a tower.
You seem to say that basically no tower no need to contact Operator either?

If so, that is my disagreement.

IMO one call or documented attempt to contact/notify the operator is required at the least.
 
Cool.

But to be fair you are seeing what you want?
Confirmation bias???

It says must contact BOTH operator and tower, if it has a tower.
You seem to say that basically no tower no need to contact Operator either?

If so, that is my disagreement.

IMO one call or documented attempt to contact/notify the operator is required at the least.

Not really. I'm reading it how it is and have always went by this. I live right next to a seaport and a hospital heliport. There's no tower at either location. Besides calling the hospital, who would I call? No tower=no call, and this is per the rules. I guess everyone can look at things different.

They have to draw the line somewhere. If they stated all airports/seaports/heliports, it would be a mess. Who do you contact for a grass runway or in my case the seaport right next to me? There is nobody to contact. Now in this case there was a contact (the numbers where posted), but it wasn't required to notify because there is no control tower.

No one knows for sure if he is 107 or not which would throw out having to contact anyone.

And..... just for the record. :). Givin this guys experience (shown in the control of aircraft during flight) and location, I don't agree with his decision made to fly in that area. I would have no problem myself flying there and probably will sometime (if they don't restrict everything up there) in the future. This guy should have been a little more experienced before trying to tackle such a task.
 
107 or not, legal or not, the end result is the public and there elected officials see this as yet another case of dangerous drones and the more events like this we have the more likely we will face greater limitations. I doubt this guy was a 107 holder, don't know for sure but I seriously doubt it. But, in the end it doesn't really matter because the media and the public and the politicians will see this as 'bad drone pilot' and it all adds up. You can legally do things that wind up getting you in trouble and can have farther reaching implications -- this guy may have had the best intentions but something bad happened and that's all the public sees. Again, defense of this is brain dead...


Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMack
If this was a legal flight with permits, waivers, etc, would radio interference from the Space Needle itself (People's phones, Wi-Fi, and radio tower.) cause the Inspire to go into a RTH mode for radio interference?

If so, would DJI be partly responsible? I can see him getting nailed on the "Reckless endangerment" part as well as his inability to see the people on the tower it flew into (Insert VLOS rules violation here too.), but if the accident wasn't fully his doing and some it on DJI's RTH kicking in, then what? I could see DJI saying "His RTH height was set too low" as their excuse and toss it back onto his lap too.

Oh well, he's forked.
 
If this was a legal flight with permits, waivers, etc, would radio interference from the Space Needle itself (People's phones, Wi-Fi, and radio tower.) cause the Inspire to go into a RTH mode for radio interference?

If so, would DJI be partly responsible? I can see him getting nailed on the "Reckless endangerment" part as well as his inability to see the people on the tower it flew into (Insert VLOS rules violation here too.), but if the accident wasn't fully his doing and some it on DJI's RTH kicking in, then what? I could see DJI saying "His RTH height was set too low" as their excuse and toss it back onto his lap too.

Oh well, he's forked.
It's the pilot's responsibility for setting correct RTH altitude. It should be "common sense" to set your RTH higher than the tallest structures in your area that you plan to fly in--especially the structure you're focusing on! (Unless of course you have obstacle avoidance you don't mind testing on a famous landmark).
 
Check that. I read the text of the bill in the above link and saw no mention of any altitude minimums, just you need permission over someone else's property.

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 47.685RCW to read as follows:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to launch an unmanned aircraft in Washington state without specific federal authorization unless the unmanned aircraft is clearly and prominently labeled with the name and phone number of the unmanned aircraft's owner and operator.

(2) It is unlawful for an operator of an unmanned aircraft to, without specific federal authorization, operate the unmanned aircraft over real property lawfully owned or occupied by a person, other than a public agency, without the consent of a lawful owner or occupant of the real property.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply if the unmanned aircraft is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield, or runway and the unmanned aircraft is lawfully in the process of taking off or landing, pursuant to specific federal authorization."

No doubt the knee-jerk reaction to the Space Needle crash will add some fuel to the proposed law. If this passes, may as well give up flying anywhere in WA state other than your own property. Might pay to get a signed property release otherwise.

Drone Laws are going to get just as ridiculous as gun laws.
I can see Bloomberg and his gang of zealots jumping on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyeboysteve
Wow, so much wrong with many of the comments on this thread.

Here's my analysis but it must come with the qualification that some details remain unkown:

The FAA right now is in the process of determining, if they haven't already, whether this pilot was attempting to fly within the guidance of part 101 or 107. IMO there's a good chance the pilot doesn't even know the difference between the two.

If he was operating under 107 he could possibly have charges filed under the following:

107.19C which requires "The remote pilot in command must ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason."

107.23.a "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another"

107.39 "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is: Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft"

While I agree that technically below 700 feet the space needle is in uncontrolled airspace a few comments seem to focus on this fact without regard for the other violations present. Not quite so fast kids. 107 is a complex regulation and just because you comply with one aspect doesn't grant license to throw the rest of the rule out with the bathwater.

This brings up a tangential point that has become muddied. Notification and/or clearances required when operating near airports.

Part 101.41.E requires: "When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation."

Paraphrasing for clarity: No clearance required but BOTH airport operator and ATC must be notified.

Part 107.41 states: "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from Air Traffic Control (ATC).

Paraphrased: Within these airspaces a pilot WILL get a clearance from ONLY ATC. No need to talk to the airport operator at all.

There seems a rather odd contrast between the two requirements but the history provides some insight. When congress wrote section 336 into the FAA 2012 reauthorization they used this language. It should have been worked through the FAA to ensure it was rational as airports don't clear aircraft to operate once off the ground. That is an ATC function but the language exists so the FAA wrote it in verbatim from section 336. When 107 was proposed several commenters requested airports be given authority to deny sUAS operations in their vacinity. The FAA denied the request responding that only ATC has the authority to issue airspace clearances.

From what I can see of this flight it clearly violates several FARs regardless of the part under which the FAA determines it was operating. Many violations of the AMA's safety code so that pretty much makes a recreational flight here illegal as well. One of my biggest concerns is it demonstrated poor decision making and risk management by operating over people not involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N017RW
As a 107 pilot, this is not true.

1- 107 pilots DO NOT contact any airports for anything.

As a 107 pilot you are not to call the ATC at an airport you are to use the online portal.
I don't know where you live but I am in L.A. and this (from part 107):
"5.8.1.1 Remote PICs are prohibited from operating their small UA in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at airports, heliports, and seaplane bases."
is the FAA's nice way to let you know that if you don't call the heliports and seaplane bases within 5 miles:
KENMORE AIR HARBOR (seaplane base)
SEATTLE SEAPLANES (seaplane base)
NOT ATC
They will be fining you when you hit the space needle, as since you did not notify them you are in the area, you have violated: right-of-way provision of § 107.37(a)

2- This area is in unrestricted airspace, therefore no airspace waiver is needed for a commercial flight. .

Whenever I fly commercially,I always fill out a UAS Operating Area (UOA) at
https://www.1800wxbrief.com/

As then I can prove my due diligence if anything goes wrong (like hitting the space needle)
Almost everywhere I fly around Los Angeles I will need to call 3 or 4 possibly more heliports to notify, you can do as you please but if I were you I would call, if you are a commercial operator.

3- There is no control tower of a paved runway airport with in 5 miles, so flight as a hobbiest in this area is fine.

The waiver would be for, as I said above 107.39 Operation over people
The airspace has nothing to do with the fact that he was flying over a densely populated area, and G airspace or not if you don't have a waiver you better not fly over anybody's head whether or not you are commercial or hobby.
 
Not really. I'm reading it how it is and have always went by this. I live right next to a seaport and a hospital heliport. There's no tower at either location. Besides calling the hospital, who would I call? No tower=no call, and this is per the rules. I guess everyone can look at things different.
Check https://app.airmap.io/ and make sure heliports is turned on.
That is usually the easiest way to do it. If nobody is home leave a message, then nobody (the FAA) can say you did not notify. Someone at the hospital will direct you to the right person and you will have the call log in your phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunk and N017RW
What made the pilot fly it straight into the **** building? It didnt seem like a malfunction! Sad these types of incidents will be the down fall (no pun intended) of our fun flying days


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

washington letting him get high might have contributed.
 
As a 107 pilot you are not to call the ATC at an airport you are to use the online portal.
I don't know where you live but I am in L.A. and this (from part 107):
"5.8.1.1 Remote PICs are prohibited from operating their small UA in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at airports, heliports, and seaplane bases."
is the FAA's nice way to let you know that if you don't call the heliports and seaplane bases within 5 miles:

I think that's a rather broad interpretation. After all, calling or not does not effect whether you're potentially interfering with traffic. Am I missing something key here? I mean I could call an uncontrolled field, leave a message, then fly my drone on short final, and DEFINITELY be potentially interfering with operations. Flying closer to the Space Needle than even a manned helicopter (much less fixed-wing) would normally fly is interfering a lot less...

They will be fining you when you hit the space needle, as since you did not notify them you are in the area, you have violated: right-of-way provision of § 107.37(a)
Again, not trying to be an annoying contrarian but I fail to see how notifying an airport has anything to do with right-away provisions. A hot air balloon has right away over a fighter jet, but no one is calling the airport to decide.

Whenever I fly commercially,I always fill out a UAS Operating Area (UOA) at
https://www.1800wxbrief.com/
That's a great idea! I'm going to start doing that myself.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers