Helo Anti-Drone warfare :)

[uhhello]

Somebody lost a bit of cash
WSL Water Patrol vs Unauthorized Drone At Jaws

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Yeah this has been circulating. Rumor has it that the helo pilot could be in a heap of ****, after apparently breaking a few federal laws.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Somebody’s an idiot.

 

[uhhello]

Yeah this has been circulating. Rumor has it that the helo pilot could be in a heap of Sh**, after apparently breaking a few federal laws.

I'm very interested to hear what possible law the helicopter could have broke

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I'm very interested to hear what possible law the helicopter could have broke

Well let’s start with the FAAs favorite

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a)Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

In an attempt to take the drone out the helo was low over the jet skis operators and maneuvering erratically in its efforts.

§91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.

The FAA has left ZERO question as to whether or not drones are aircraft.

And while on that subject:18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities and §91.113 Right-of-way rules.

No matter how you feel about the drones right to be there (and that is still in question) it was not the helo pilots job to take it out. In fact it goes completely against the prevalent perception that drones are “extremely dangerous” in close proximity to manned aircraft.

Edit: Now, whether or not the FAA takes this seriously, is anyone's guess. I am aware that it has been sent all the way to the top. That said I've had conversations with seasoned helo pilots with thousands of flight hours tell me that this is complete BS and could be a game changer in the FAAs approach to these incidents. We'll see.

I also realize many here will take the helo pilots right to take him out but, bottom line is: If the FAA wants UAS pilots to take them seriously, they need to take UAS and their increasing role in the NAS seriously. They can't just have it one way.

 

[uhhello]

The helo was more than likely filming the event or working in close with the organizers. There are so many ways to explain away the rules you quoted. If the drone operator wasn't smart enough to take the hint for about 15 minutes, he deserved to go swimming for his equipment.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

The helo was more than likely filming the event or working in close with the organizers. There are so many ways to explain away the rules you quoted. If the drone operator wasn't smart enough to take the hint for about 15 minutes, he deserved to go swimming for his equipment.

Not taking the hint is NOT a reason
for downing another aircraft.

From what I understand the Helo pilot CHOSE to come over and confront the drone.

As for how he “explains away” the rules, he no doubt will, and I would be very surprised if he faces any punitive action. That would be a totally new precedent.

Regardless of who was working the event, this kind of response was not the way to go.

At any rate this kind of reaction might be okay for many.

Sorry I just can’t agree.

 

[Pathogen]

With the availability of drones, there is less and less excuse for helicopters at all. These are primitive disgusting obnoxious aircraft and I look forward to the day they are banned outright with exception for emergency operations. This coming from a guy who supports open access to firearms!

 

[dirkclod]

 

[ac0j]

Not taking the hint is NOT a reason
for downing another aircraft.

From what I understand the Helo pilot CHOSE to come over and confront the drone.

Sorry, but I am not willing to refer to an expensive toy as an "aircraft" and expect it to have all the rights and privileges of a REAL aircraft.
If you want that, get a real aircraft and get a real pilots license.

These toys have NO business in the area of manned aircraft.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Sorry, but I am not willing to refer to an expensive toy as an "aircraft" and expect it to have all the rights and privileges of a REAL aircraft.
If you want that, get a real aircraft and get a real pilots license.

These toys have NO business in the area of manned aircraft.

So just what is YOUR definition of an aircraft?

Fortunately the FAA has already done that for us, so that opinions such as yours are irrelevant.

FYI. You are aware that these "toys" are now doing many of the jobs of your "real" aircraft right? And that many of the "toy" pilots are making more with their toys than some "real" aircraft pilots?

And did I mention, I've spoken about this incident with REAL heli pilots with thousands of hours, who call BS on this.

Just so you know, I fly and have worked on REAL, USAF aircraft in addition to UAS, and have a healthy respect for both.

 

[ac0j]

So just what is YOUR definition of an aircraft?

Fortunately the FAA has already done that for us, so that opinions such as yours are irrelevant.

FYI. You are aware that these "toys" are now doing many of the jobs of your "real" aircraft right? And that many of the "toy" pilots are making more with their toys than some "real" aircraft pilots?

And did I mention, I've spoken about this incident with REAL heli pilots with thousands of hours, who call BS on this.

Just so you know, I fly and have worked on REAL, USAF aircraft in addition to UAS, and have a healthy respect for both.

Drone stud number one. Nice to meet you! Glad you are a pro at both hobby crafts and real ones.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Drone stud number one. Nice to meet you! Glad you are a pro at both hobby crafts and real ones.

He does have a point though. It doesn't really matter if we think of them as toys or professional equipment or not. The FAA makes the definition of an aircraft quite clear. An aircraft is defined as a vehicle, capable of controlled flight through the air, either manned or unmanned. All aircrafts are subject to the same levels of basic protections. One of those the illegal downing of an aircraft. Aircraft may not be intentionally brought down by any means except by appropriate law enforcement officials. By the FAAs definition, the helicopter pilot brought down another aircraft using his own. That is by definition a violation of federal law.

Common sense though, the drone shouldn't have been there in the first place, and should have gotten the hint when people were throwing stuff at it.

 

[ac0j]

Common sense though, the drone shouldn't have been there in the first place, and should have gotten the hint when people were throwing stuff at it.

I can almost hear the drone pilot yelling "hey helicopter I was here first!, I was a pilot in the air force, I am a better pilot that you, Cant you hear my upgraded props? I can do whatever I want because the laws only apply to me if I agree with them."

Common sense isn't common knowledge , unfortunately.

 

[dirkclod]

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I can almost hear the drone pilot yelling "hey helicopter I was here first!, I was a pilot in the air force, I am a better pilot that you, Cant you hear my upgraded props? I can do whatever I want because the laws only apply to me if I agree with them."

Common sense isn't common knowledge , unfortunately.

acoj, no one is saying that the drone pilot was playing smart. I'm just saying that many think the heli pilot reacted unlawfully, kinda like road rage.

I think it was you that said, you can't pick the laws you want to follow.

 

[princeofthehouse]

if we look at it from the position of safety for a moment it is fairly clear.
drone pilot was causing a nuisance but was not a particular immediate threat to life of note.
His behaviour was improper.

However the people on jet ski's were throwing objects around and attempting to impede the functions of a aircraft (which agree or not is what drones have been defined as by the FAA), which could become uncontrolled and fly in any direction and come into contact with person or property if they had succeeded. There actions increased the risk far more significantly for harm.

You then have a pilot who should know better, bring in a much larger aircraft (compared to the drone), hover above people at a altitude well below the ability to recover or land safely in event of issue. He then proceeds' to break several rules on the operation of a aircraft and again sends another aircraft in a uncontrolled decent.

You stack the actions against one another and there is little to argue that the behaviour of the jet ski and pilot were far more questionable in regards to safety.

Now if there behaviour was in the interest of safety, even misguided that would be something however the reality is it is more likely it involved a copyright consideration, basically some company was likely barking the orders to those chaps because they had paid/sold exclusive rights to film the event.
This was most likely a business consideration.

I would hope the pilot and anyone who gave him or the jet ski's employee's orders to interfere with the drone are fined and licenses removed.

As for the drone pilot for any laws broken he should also be handled, especially if the place had been declared off limits by proper authorities.

There are legal remedy's that can be employed against someone who films your event, this sort of behaviour is questionable at best.

more data on the event would be useful.

 

[whiskeylover]

Flying a drone so close to so many people is illegal. But, flying that big *** heli so close to people is criminally negligent. I hope they're fined heavily.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The sign is interesting the linked story video post 1 . . . see cropped image attached.
So is this sort of event granted special flight permits for the helo to film etc, unimpeded ?
I'd imagine so, but that would be the critical question, as if so, the unauthorised drone message would be understandable.

The sign is a little ambiguous though, not actually mentioning special permits in place, and "It's prohibited by law to operate a drone without the required permits and licenses" could just mean FAA licence and flying by the rules etc . . . which obviously this drone flyer wasn't doing anyway, so close to people overhead.

I was expecting the comments on the link story to be quite anti drone, but it's the opposite, including this one >
"Just looked up the FAA TFR list for the past month. There where no TFRs in the vicinity of Jaws."
So it's quite possible flying there might have been all legal, but just not outside any of FAA regulations.

 

[cderoche]

acoj, no one is saying that the drone pilot was playing smart. I'm just saying that many think the heli pilot reacted unlawfully, kinda like road rage.

I think it was you that said, you can't pick the laws you want to follow.

Just wondering, just because they're doing a surfing contest, how does that give them the right to declare it a drone free zone? I thought no fly zones were put up by the federal authorities? Like when the president goes to his vacation home or something like that. Or maybe they did have one set up temporarily by the feds. The article didn't specify other than some cute signs that read "no drone zone". I can put up a sign on my street that says no bicycle zone but that doesn't make it law. I don't know.

Granted, if I went to an event and saw a bunch of signs that said no drones, I wouldn't fly there just to test the waters (pun intended).