Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[sar104]

I don’t believe motors have unique serial numbers, lot numbers maybe. I read the report as they got all names in a range and started knocking on doors. In any case, I bought mine with cash (private party NIB actually) and registered with DJI using a .mail free email account that I promptly lost the password and never logged into again. Yes, I am very serious about privacy. We only have so much control over this type of technology and I have no intention of taking the rap for a careless Chinese programmer or assembly line worker.

Actually it turns out that they do have unique serial numbers - QR codes laser-etched into the top of the motor housing under the propeller mounts. There was a discussion of this over on PP in the NTSB report thread.

 

[DroningOn]

Actually it turns out that they do have unique serial numbers - QR codes laser-etched into the top of the motor housing under the propeller mounts. There was a discussion of this over on PP in the NTSB report thread.

Oh well, even more glad I bought mine the way I did then.

The pilot in question was still stupid for talking to the feds. If he does get prosecuted (which I doubt he will) they will use his statements against him.

 

[sar104]

Here's the way I process the info. Yes I know I'm "special ed" per sar104 but here goes....

Hey - that was your self-assessment - I never said anything about it.

 

[sar104]

Oh well, even more glad I bought mine the way I did then.

The pilot in question was still stupid for talking to the feds. If he does get prosecuted (which I doubt he will) they will use his statements against him.

It will be interesting to see what happens there. If they don't try to make an example out of this case then it potentially sends a very bad message; "fly as recklessly as you like - all you risk losing is your drone".

 

[Lon Denard]

As I've indicated in another post on another thread, I am NOT indicating that the UAS operator, who was flying outside of VLOS AND in a TFR was blameless in this scenario. The pilots of the helicopter could have easily been killed and I am not trying to downplay this. However, the sensational nature of reporting of this incident bothers me as a UAS operator. (Please note I am not blaming the poster of this, they are simply showing what was written in an article.) Lets look at these points:

"This is the article I read. If you have something else, if like to see it. ......."

(The NTSB report is out and contradicts many statements in this article, see https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170922X54600&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=IA)

"It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island......."

(There was damage to the helicopter, but I personally feel that "Black Hawk down" is over the top and it wasn't over Staten Island)

" — when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood......"

(The collision occurred 2.5 miles offshore near what appears to be an abandoned island)

"The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when the drone struck the chopper........."

(The helicopter was at less than 300' agl when the collision occurred, and the collision was over two miles from the beach.)

"Under FAA guidelines, the drones should not be flown near buildings or bridges or more than 400 feet in the air............."

(I am unaware of the bridge and building restriction, and the drone was being flown at 300' agl miles away from buildings or bridges.)

“Last night, an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities.”

(Again, this reads much more sensational than "A military helicopter flying low struck a drone 2.5 miles away from any people and sustained minor damage.)

My "dream" is that at some point in the future UAS operations below 400' (and away from REASONABLY restricted areas such as airport flight paths, disaster scenes, reasonable TFR's, etc.) will be safe from collisions with manned aircraft. I know that Flyboy and others disagree with this sentiment, and I understand their opinion, but I feel that it is not unreasonable to indicate to manned aircraft that if you are flying below 500' agl in a non restricted area you may very likely encounter UAS traffic. I doubt that I will see this in my lifetime, but it is my dream.

I want to use my Mavic professionally (I am certified) and I fear that between operators behaving recklessly (as is the case above) and a general hysteria about the dangers of drones, it is going to be nearly impossible for me to use my UAS in a legal and prudent manner anywhere that I need to use it. (I am an architect and wish to do site, building, and roof photography).

Wait a minute, how was the drone pilot acting irresponsibly? Even by the Draconian standards espoused on this forum, this guy was well within the guidelines. Am I missing something else?

 

[Lon Denard]

Hey - that was your self-assessment - I never said anything about it.

Who's "squirming" now? You said I was "special" that is a well established euphemism for mentally challenged. Do you deny it?

 

[Lon Denard]

Where is the info on the pilots history? I'd like to see that.

So, based on the report, it seems that the helicopter pilot was flying at 300' agl... Barracks gossip FTW! Hahaha!

 

[sar104]

Who's "squirming" now? You said I was "special" that is a well established euphemism for mentally challenged. Do you deny it?

Ah - yes, I used that word but no, that was not what I meant by it. I was referring to your attempt to blame me for your ignorance of the NTSB report, and your assertion that it was somehow my responsibility to educate you. In other words I was using it for its actual meaning rather than the euphemism that you immediately identified with.

 

[sar104]

So, based on the report, it seems that the helicopter pilot was flying at 300' agl... Barracks gossip FTW! Hahaha!

That was perfectly legal. Unlike the Phantom pilot, he was cleared into the TFR and he was not breaking any minimums. What's your point?

 

[Lon Denard]

It will be interesting to see what happens there. If they don't try to make an example out of this case then it potentially sends a very bad message; "fly as recklessly as you like - all you risk losing is your drone".

Where is the recklessness though? If this happened at under 400', just like I said, btw, WAY off shore- I didn't know that, what is there to prosecute? Don't tell me, there's more to the story that my dumb as rocks brain doesn't know, right? Sigh.... The article said they were there for an event. Was there some other reason, other than the girls nude sunbathing on the island-which is presumably why the drone pilot was there as well?
ATTENTION- JUST JOKING! NOT PROMOTING THIS AS A FACT!!!

 

[pftarch]

Wait a minute, how was the drone pilot acting irresponsibly? Even by the Draconian standards espoused on this forum, this guy was well within the guidelines. Am I missing something else?

I wish he was legal, but he wasn't on two other fronts:

He was flying outside of VLOS (he was 2.5 miles from his Phantom)
and
There were 2 TFR's in effect where the collision took place that "banned" model aircraft flight. (Interesting that where he took off was not in one of the TFR's, but the collision site was in it. It doesn't matter because his entire flight was in the other TFR.)

The report makes those two infractions very clear.

I'm not an airspace attorney, but I feel that the helicopter was too low (including when it flew over the beach before the collision). I am disheartened that wasn't indicated in the report. If there was a security reason for him flying below 500' at the beach I don't need the specifics in the report, I just need the report to say "The helicopter pilot was below 500' at the beach because of a confidential security/military concern." If there wasn't a reason for him to be below 500' I felt that should have been indicated. The report had no problem pointing out that the Phantom pilot flew over 400' earlier in the day (which was irrelevant to the collision IMHO), yet no mention of low helicopter flight over occupied space.

I REALLY wanted this to be solely a case of a helicopter being too low, as that would take some of the heat off of UAS operations, but it simply wasn't the case. the Phantom operator wasn't even close to having situational awareness of his craft and a collision resulted from this. I'm no drone hater, but I just can't defend this situation.

 

[sar104]

Where is the recklessness though? If this happened at under 400', just like I said, btw, WAY off shore- I didn't know that, what is there to prosecute? Don't tell me, there's more to the story that my dumb as rocks brain doesn't know, right? Sigh.... The article said they were there for an event. Was there some other reason, other than the girls nude sunbathing on the island-which is presumably why the drone pilot was there as well?
ATTENTION- JUST JOKING! NOT PROMOTING THIS AS A FACT!!!

I'm not sure about how one defines "reckless" (and that's not referenced in any applicable law) but he was flying beyond VLOS (Part 101 guideline) and in a TFR (endangering the NAS). The "beyond VLOS" alone means that he no longer had the protection of Part 101 and had defaulted to falling under Part 107, at which point he was breaking at least two Part 107 regulations (laws) in the flight itself, plus the regulation requiring him to be Part 107 certified to fly under Part 107. So there is plenty of ground under which they could prosecute.

So my point was that he was clearly breaking the law and, if he is not prosecuted, it sends a message that the consequences of breaking these specific laws are not very onerous which, unfortunately, is likely to encourage this kind of flying.

 

[sar104]

I wish he was legal, but he wasn't on two other fronts:

He was flying outside of VLOS (he was 2.5 miles from his Phantom)
and
There were 2 TFR's in effect where the collision took place that "banned" model aircraft flight. (Interesting that where he took off was not in one of the TFR's, but the collision site was in it. It doesn't matter because his entire flight was in the other TFR.)

The report makes those two infractions very clear.

I'm not an airspace attorney, but I feel that the helicopter was too low (including when it flew over the beach before the collision). I am disheartened that wasn't indicated in the report. If there was a security reason for him flying below 500' at the beach I don't need the specifics in the report, I just need the report to say "The helicopter pilot was below 500' at the beach because of a confidential security/military concern." If there wasn't a reason for him to be below 500' I felt that should have been indicated. The report had no problem pointing out that the Phantom pilot flew over 400' earlier in the day (which was irrelevant to the collision IMHO), yet no mention of low helicopter flight over occupied space.

I REALLY wanted this to be solely a case of a helicopter being too low, as that would take some of the heat off of UAS operations, but it simply wasn't the case. the Phantom operator wasn't even close to having situational awareness of his craft and a collision resulted from this. I'm no drone hater, but I just can't defend this situation.

There is no regulatory requirement for the helicopter to be higher and, especially in a TFR, the pilot would have had a reasonable expectation that there would be no other traffic. You can question the wisdom of 300 ft AGL if it is not operationally necessary (as apparently in this case) but not the legality. The helicopter had right of way in that airspace.

 

[Lon Denard]

I wish he was legal, but he wasn't on two other fronts:

He was flying outside of VLOS (he was 2.5 miles from his Phantom)
and
There were 2 TFR's in effect where the collision took place that "banned" model aircraft flight. (Interesting that where he took off was not in one of the TFR's, but the collision site was in it. It doesn't matter because his entire flight was in the other TFR.)

The report makes those two infractions very clear.

I'm not an airspace attorney, but I feel that the helicopter was too low (including when it flew over the beach before the collision). I am disheartened that wasn't indicated in the report. If there was a security reason for him flying below 500' at the beach I don't need the specifics in the report, I just need the report to say "The helicopter pilot was below 500' at the beach because of a confidential security/military concern." If there wasn't a reason for him to be below 500' I felt that should have been indicated. The report had no problem pointing out that the Phantom pilot flew over 400' earlier in the day (which was irrelevant to the collision IMHO), yet no mention of low helicopter flight over occupied space.

I REALLY wanted this to be solely a case of a helicopter being too low, as that would take some of the heat off of UAS operations, but it simply wasn't the case. the Phantom operator wasn't even close to having situational awareness of his craft and a collision resulted from this. I'm no drone hater, but I just can't defend this situation.

Gotcha! Yep, there's no arguing with that. Thank you for answering my question without denigrating me in some way... Of course, I see I have a response from his Majesty as well so I won't let my self esteem rise too high.

I had heard that the pilot was flying low but it was barracks gossip with a common joke being given as the reason.

The line of sight situation is one that I struggle with. Why buy a drone with a 4 mile range just to keep it line of sight? Heck, with the Mavic, I lose LOS in a few hundred feet every time I fly.

My first consumer drone was the Parrot AR Drone 1.0. It allowed you to cycle between it's cameras. I wonder if DJI couldn't do something similar? Maybe have a situational screen with 4 lower grade camera views? Nothing fancy, just a quick peek at your surroundings, quad split with touch to expand a specific quadrant if you want. Nice for maneuvering as well. If they used fish eye lenses, you could get a 360° view.

Let's get really complicated and have them steal GoPro's Passenger App, rename it Co Pilot and that person could be tasked with watching for aircraft, birds, obstructions, etc.

 

[Lon Denard]

There is no regulatory requirement for the helicopter to be higher and, especially in a TFR, the pilot would have had a reasonable expectation that there would be no other traffic. You can question the wisdom of 300 ft AGL if it is not operationally necessary (as apparently in this case) but not the legality. The helicopter had right of way in that airspace.

Huh? I had always thought that the "reason" for drones to have a 400' ceiling was that manned aircraft had a 500' floor. Oh well, add it to the list of things I don't know.

 

[Lon Denard]

I'm not sure about how one defines "reckless" (and that's not referenced in any applicable law) but he was flying beyond VLOS (Part 101 guideline) and in a TFR (endangering the NAS). The "beyond VLOS" alone means that he no longer had the protection of Part 101 and had defaulted to falling under Part 107, at which point he was breaking at least two Part 107 regulations (laws) in the flight itself, plus the regulation requiring him to be Part 107 certified to fly under Part 107. So there is plenty of ground under which they could prosecute.

So my point was that he was clearly breaking the law and, if he is not prosecuted, it sends a message that the consequences of breaking these specific laws are not very onerous which, unfortunately, is likely to encourage this kind of flying.

Okay but whom, other than you of course, flies under VLOS 100% of the time? I lose sight of mine constantly!

 

[sar104]

Okay but whom, other than you of course, flies under VLOS 100% of the time? I lose sight of mine constantly!

Right - but there's a difference between inadvertently losing sight of it versus deliberately flying it several miles away into a busy air traffic lane.

 

[sar104]

Huh? I had always thought that the "reason" for drones to have a 400' ceiling was that manned aircraft had a 500' floor. Oh well, add it to the list of things I don't know.

No - 14 CFR 91.119 defines altitude minimums for manned aircraft:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA
​

 

[Jorn Howlid]

Given the described parameters the object is a small plane flying at half height in approx. same direction.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh anything can happen for sure. I am in no way arguing that. I just don't believe the probability matches the hysteria.

I can agree with that, unfortunately the general public and FAA have a different point of view.

Oh and the thing about New York is that there are probably more helicopters in the air there at any given moment than any other ten cities combined. Not to mention one of the most densely populated places in the world. More aircraft + more people = a skewed probability matrix not seen almost anywhere else. The fact that there has been so few incidents still tends towards the unlikely in my opinion.

And you're correct there as well. BTW I grew up not far from where this happened so i am very familiar with the area. The point there is all those airplanes and helicopters operating within that congested airspace are REGULATED, flown by certificated pilots that fly IAW procedures and regulations (at least we'd like to think so most of the time). The fact that manned aircraft are highly regulated doesn't preclude the fact that accidents can happen, but certainly risks are mitigated.

So in the middle of that matrix you throw in a Russian immigrant with little comprehension of the English language let alone US laws governing the operation of hobby sUAVs, operating a drone BVLOS during a TFR right in the middle of low altitude helicopter routes. That potential for an incident probably increased tenfold prior to the collision.

So you can blame situations as such for the hysteria and in some cases far reaching regulation of the FEDs. Again "potential."

(Stepping off soap box)