Why all this range talk?
- Thread starter Rostato
- Start date
Sean Riddle was charged with reckless endangerment and illegal navigation of an aircraft in and over the city. NYC
He hit just above the 40th floor of the ESB.
There was another who launched from a balcony I don't remember his name. Goggle may help you if you are interested.
He hit just above the 40th floor of the ESB.
There was another who launched from a balcony I don't remember his name. Goggle may help you if you are interested.
If he was within LOS of the drone and the same thing happened, how would that have changed the charges?
I'm in between critically ill patients at work and don't have time to google for you.
The only thing, the only precedent set by the infamous Pirker case is that a drone pilot can be charged with "reckless endangerment" if they fly dangerously, which included BLOS.
lol, you could have said busy at work instead of trying to pull on peoples heart strings... With that said, I would have guessed working on critically ill patients because studying for the bar exam though.........
All i'm saying is that as things sit currently, you will NEVER find someone in legal trouble purely for flying beyond line of sight. Being an idiot and endangering people while doing that is obviously something totally different and people should be held liable--- in the same was they would as if they were flying within line of sight.
I'm not defending dangerous drone flying so i'm not sure what is with all the hate.. I'm just saying it's not illegal when done safely, for example I have a house on a pretty decent sized lake. I could easily fly 3-4miles over water from my house while not endangering a soul, but I live in a bay at the end of the lake and on the side facing the end the only way for me to do would be flying BLOS. It's a quiet lake so at certain times I could be probably 2miles from the closest house-- how in the world is that less safe than if I'm at a park flying within LOS??
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2016
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 52
- Age
- 43
He must have been LOS, according to the NY Times article linked here : Not Part of Video’s Script: An Arrest for Flying a Drone, he only put the UAV high to film a simulated parachute jump. He claims he only flew as far as the 6th floor when the wind took it and bumped against the 6th floor. The UAV landed on the first terrace which according to the article, it's 5 floors up.
LOL. Oh for God's sake, not trying to pull your heartstrings or anyone elses. Get over it.
You've been here a few weeks, I've been here a bit longer and have seen some of those "idiots" that come and go on this list, and if some of them read a post that implies they can fly anyway they wish or in any environment they wish with impunity - said idiots will do so.
The result, potentially, is for more rules for the rest of us and trouble for the individual idiots.
My clarification was just that.
You can argue it all you want, but hopefully I can prevent another idiot getting the attention of the media, the public, and the FAA for doing something that under the right circumstances, could be judged as reckless.
I'll leave space for you to have the last word...
I don' know that it would. I would suspect it is easier to charge and convict an operator like the second guy who was bouncing his drone off of multiple buildings well away from LOS.
Generally speaking controlling(or not) anything out of direct sight is likely going to be considered potentially dangerous, vs LOS control especially any thing that is autonomous.
But I see your point as valid also. We see reckless drivers daily.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Well why didn't ya say ya wanted to see some shots..here's one .
I drive a red truck you can see me .
Not the one in the middle but the other side of that big field under the horizon
I'm new here, and I certainly can understand being confused about rules, guidelines and laws, because I am.
The AMA has a safety code that (apparently) members of the AMA must abide by. In the Radio Control section, they state:
"The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall:
(a) Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot."
So, this issue seems to have layers to it. If you are not a member of the AMA, you are only bound by guidelines that you should maintain VLOS, and that you could be charged with recklessness if you don't maintain VLOS, or maybe even if you do.
On the other hand, if you become a member of the AMA, you sign up for another layer of rules that you must abide by, specifically to maintain VLOS.
Whew! For a newbie like me, things can get complicated pretty quickly!
Just my two cents worth...
smp
Similar threads
- Locked
