Drone CRASHED in Amusement Park - Park decided not to help out Josh

[projectarjun]

A negative experience followed by a positive outcome by the Drone community

 

[dozzn]

I watched this last night. I think it’s awful that the park won’t give him the drone back.

 

[slozukimc]

Turn the NY attractive nuiscance law against them. This is the law the NY lawyers use to sue landowners when someone trespasses and gets hurt. They claim negligence of the property owner in putting up a barrier to keep the “victim” from getting to the thing that they are attracted to. Like having a fence around a swimming pool for example.

Roseland is 40 minutes from me and is currently closed for the season so the drone is in posession of the park or a park employee. No visitors got it.

As far as the mention of State Farm. Not in NY. Checked that out and they do not offer drone insurance. However they do allow you to put it on a homeowners policy which they will drop on you if you make any claims so claim the drone and lose the insurance on your house is the norm with them.

Mike

 

[AZDave]

I don't get the outrage here. He seems like a really nice kid but he flew in a restricted area, and it was his obligation to know where it was OK for him to fly the drone. If you aren't sure it is safe and legal to fly somewhere, you shouldn't be flying there.

Now maybe the water park could have cut him some slack and given him his drone back with a warning, but I don't see how they had any obligation to do so ... and apparently the judge felt the same.

 

[maggior]

I don't get the outrage here. He seems like a really nice kid but he flew in a restricted area, and it was his obligation to know where it was OK for him to fly the drone. If you aren't sure it is safe and legal to fly somewhere, you shouldn't be flying there.

Now maybe the water park could have cut him some slack and given him his drone back with a warning, but I don't see how they had any obligation to do so ... and apparently the judge felt the same.

I kinda feel this way also, though it's not a restricted area from an FAA perspective, it's not a no-fly zone. There were no people in the park so there wasn't the issue of flying over a crowd of people.

The pilot said he had VLOS but I don't see how that was possible with how low he was flying when he hit the tree. Looking at a map of the area, the slides he was flying around would have been between himself and the drone. With no visual aid of light or anything, at 300+ meters out I think a Mavic Mini 2 would be really hard to keep VLOS.

 

[projectarjun]

Same rule goes along with state parks in some states; if you take off from public land (i.e. public roads) you can fly over state parks, it trickles down further to local jurisdiction as well

Technically, the FAA has control over the airspace, property owners don’t have much say unless rules change in the future

At the end of the day, everybody is trying to cover their behind

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Some places, finding something that belongs to others, and keeping it, is classed as theft.
Even if you don't know whose it is, it's often law to hand it in to a local authority like the police.

The water park knows whose it is and won't return it, I'd be onto the local police to politely tell them what happened.

The kid wasn't trespassing.
Seemed to be flying cautiously, not like an idiot.
(Rolling moves like that are dangerous for obstacles at any speed though.)

Park closed, no visitors, couldn't even see an employee on the ground (didn't watch ALL of it !).

Yes, was no doubt flying BVLOS, maybe the landowner could report him to FAA or something.
Would they be interested in pursuing this pilot ?
Probably not.

 

[GFields]

Sad the way the park did.

 

[Capt KO]

In hindsight, should have made apology. Explain flight not illegal but not smart either. Lesson learned. Sugar helps in these situations but lawsuit ups the anti if they felt disrespected.
Hope it gets returned. Sorry

 

[Tufargon]

Some places, finding something that belongs to others, and keeping it, is classed as theft.
Even if you don't know whose it is, it's often law to hand it in to a local authority like the police.

The water park knows whose it is and won't return it, I'd be onto the local police to politely tell them what happened.

The kid wasn't trespassing.
Seemed to be flying cautiously, not like an idiot.
(Rolling moves like that are dangerous for obstacles at any speed though.)

Park closed, no visitors, couldn't even see an employee on the ground (didn't watch ALL of it !).

Yes, was no doubt flying BVLOS, maybe the landowner could report him to FAA or something.
Would they be interested in pursuing this pilot ?
Probably not.

I'll second this.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

In hindsight, should have made apology. Explain flight not illegal but not smart either. Lesson learned. Sugar helps in these situations but lawsuit ups the anti if they felt disrespected.
Hope it gets returned. Sorry

BVLOS is legal now in the USA?

 

[snowghost]

BVLOS is legal now in the USA?

Nope.

 

[footfly]

I think if the park returns the drone, it would be positive outcome for all parties involved.

But, while FAA owns the airspace, the drone is now on the ground in private property ( I assume it is private property ). If the drone was returned, it would still be difficult to argue that it was within VLOS.

While there may be no rhyme or reason, bystanders and private companies, especially those involve servicing public customers, are still wary of drones. As an example, the recent SuperBowl in LA, there was a big drone flight restriction with heavy fines if broken. I think likely for security purposes. But, others can also argue this, that there is concern for security and safety. I think that is why the FAA generate the rules for "flights over vehicles and people".

Then, again, the park just might have wanted to play difficult, with no rhyme or reason.

 

[Riteguy]

A negative experience followed by a positive outcome by the Drone community

So much more is learned from these types of roundtables as opposed to a pilot posting his experience and having everyone trash him on the blog. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Riteguy]

I don't get the outrage here. He seems like a really nice kid but he flew in a restricted area, and it was his obligation to know where it was OK for him to fly the drone. If you aren't sure it is safe and legal to fly somewhere, you shouldn't be flying there.

Now maybe the water park could have cut him some slack and given him his drone back with a warning, but I don't see how they had any obligation to do so ... and apparently the judge felt the same.

I don't know if outrage is the right word, but again he was flying from a perfectly okay place to pilot the drone and airspace is controlled by the FAA, not the park as the park owners would have you believe. There was no question about this. The question is when he crashes, does the park have the moral obligation to return the property. Like was mentioned in the video, if a full size helicopter made an emergency landing on the property, can the park refused to return the helicopter to the rightful owner. NO! I agree the park could have (and should have) cut him some slack and returned the drone. As another person mentioned, the park was closed for the season and no one from the public was present, so we know the park grabbed the equipment and refused to give it up.

 

[thispilothere]

Kid screwed up by asking for permission. It was in a tree and probably not noticeable - and no employees were around that section - so it would be safe until night. Don't say anything, wait until night, go in and retrieve the drone. Problem solved. No one is throwing a kid in jail and the maximum fine for trespassing is $250 in NY, less than a new drone.

If you're not prepared to do that, take the L and buy another drone. The lawsuit was a b**** move.

 

[LenSavage]

Hindsight is 20-20, but:
I would have maintained VLOS.
Fly to the area with the camera up level, stop and do a slow rotation checking for obstructions - drop & repeat as necessary, then, point the camera down and find where the trees are and avoid that airspace.
Tilt the camera to bring the POI into view and fly and record the shots. It's better to get a shot from a distance and maybe do some zoom in post than to hit a tree. Think of it this way: If YOU were in the sky, you'd look all around often (rubber-neck) to be aware of your immediate surroundings.
Long story short: There's safety in altitude. No solid objects to hit and less chance that anybody will even notice.

 

[slozukimc]

Kid screwed up by asking for permission. It was in a tree and probably not noticeable - and no employees were around that section - so it would be safe until night. Don't say anything, wait until night, go in and retrieve the drone. Problem solved. No one is throwing a kid in jail and the maximum fine for trespassing is $250 in NY, less than a new drone.

If you're not prepared to do that, take the L and buy another drone. The lawsuit was a b**** move.

Not asking permission and going onto private property in the dark is how dumb people get shot where I come from.

Mike

 

[TonyPHX]

Not asking permission and going onto private property in the dark is how dumb people get shot where I come from.

Mike

Where are people shooting people first rather than giving them a trespass warning and lawful order to leave?

 

[Tufargon]

Where are people shooting people first rather than giving them a trespass warning and lawful order to leave?

Pretty stupid right? About as stupid is someone trespassing knowing they shouldn't without asking to just go there.. I ain't saying shooting them is right and I'm sure he was somewhat exagerating but neither is right.