New York City Opens Up For Drones.

[Droning on and on...]

People have been killed often in helicopter crashes, news crew too.

I agree on paper drones have posed little threat or caused too great a incident to manned aircraft, heli or fixed wing.

We've seen helis striking drones in the past, possibly fixed wing too, but so far, nil drone incidents causing death or injury, dare I say, from what we've seen here on the forum in past threads.
The risks and danger due to drones as you said above . . . if a drone is sighted near any airspace that an aircraft is moving through, airport airspace or incident airspace, then of course authorities aren't going to allow that manned heli or fixed wing into that same airspace, until confirmed clear.

You make reasonable point w.r.t. an anonymous drone in the area, but even in that circumstance I think the risk is way over-stated there too (not by you per se, by the authorities).

Let's please set that scenario aside, for the moment. I'm addressing p107 pilots working for a media operation. I don't see these pilots, or their tiny aircraft, as any threat at all in most emergency situations. Fires and other poor visibility situations, yes. Any situation where a media helicopter would be allowed media drones should be allowed.

Until there is some substantial reason to think drones are more risky than helicopters, professional drone pilots operating with a p107 cert should be trusted to clear airspace when necessary just like a helicopter pilot would.

What is the reasoning leading to these pilots being treated as untrustworthy to fly their aircraft safely?

 

[mavic3usa]

What is the reasoning leading to these pilots being treated as untrustworthy to fly their aircraft safely?

It's a control thing. Not just anybody can get a helicopter and fly it in and around the scene. It's not about safety but about just the average ordinary person being able to fly a drone about the scene and the officials having no control over them regardless of their [lack of] skills. Because it doesn't take a whole lot of skills to fly or hover a drone about the scene and even if you don't do it well, there's no real damage should they get sloppy. The reason why there is no plan in place to accommodate is because it is currently unwanted. At the bare minimum, drones are allowed to hove only between 100 and 150 AGL in the NW to NE quadrant at any scene for 30 minutes max......

 

[Droning on and on...]

It gets really frustrating when people don't bother to read the posts they're responding to

Let's please set that scenario aside, for the moment. I'm addressing p107 pilots working for a media operation. I don't see these pilots, or their tiny aircraft, as any threat at all in most emergency situations. Fires and other poor visibility situations, yes. Any situation where a media helicopter would be allowed media drones should be allowed.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

You make reasonable point w.r.t. an anonymous drone in the area, but even in that circumstance I think the risk is way over-stated there too (not by you per se, by the authorities).

I don't see these pilots, or their tiny aircraft, as any threat at all in most emergency situations. Fires and other poor visibility situations, yes.

Yes and no . . .

If a drone is operating over a scrub / wild fire, or over a highway motor vehicle accident, it's not just the physical risks of a collision, and any minor chance of some sort of damage etc . . .
It's just a fact that a manned aircraft be it fire bomber, or air ambulance heli can't enter the airspace until it's clear of a drone(s).
There have been incidents like this posted here on the forum in recent years.

A drone pilot can't know what authorities might require in the way of air support, and what direction that might be coming from.
Even someone monitoring radio transmissions is not guaranteed to pick up the right channel / broadcast responders might be using.

Any situation where a media helicopter would be allowed media drones should be allowed.

Kind of agree that should be ok.
If other news aircraft liked manned helis do traffic or accident / emergency type reporting from the air and keep their min 500' altitude, and drone news services keep their max 400' ceiling, all is good, 100' of separation.
It's only when pilots from both sides operate outside this that things can cause conflict, putting aside actual impacts, even near misses are serious in the aircraft industry.
Near misses can often be several hundred metres, or much further for two of the larger aircraft.

 

[mavic3usa]

Yes and no . . .

If a drone is operating over a scrub / wild fire, or over a highway motor vehicle accident, it's not just the physical risks of a collision, and any minor chance of some sort of damage etc . . .
It's just a fact that a manned aircraft be it fire bomber, or air ambulance heli can't enter the airspace until it's clear of a drone(s).
There have been incidents like this posted here on the forum in recent years.

A drone pilot can't know what authorities might require in the way of air support, and what direction that might be coming from.
Even someone monitoring radio transmissions is not guaranteed to pick up the right channel / broadcast responders might be using.

Are we ever going to change this thinking to something more realistic or will we forever park this concept and pretty much make sure the drone industry will never fully go anywhere? Anyone who dreams of a future role for drones can never envision such a situation where drones cannot coexist. All of this talk about airspace management and identification and control yet the bottom line remains "you can't be there!"

Because I never hear anyone ever say "This is how to make it work" which leads me to believe the following: Government does not want or care for anything other than government assets to be involved and will take every opportunity to exclude others and continue to ride that concept for as long as they can get away with it. Imagine telling the motorists they must clear the roadways and highways completely just in case we need to summon a first responder. The people will never go for that and therefore, the government found a way. It isn't perfect, lots of emergency vehicles have been lost, rerouted, delayed, crashed but it is what it is and the additional injuries and deaths have been "accepted." No one has put into place a system with drones because no one is being forced to do so and the pilots (unlike the motorist) have no pull. All you have to say it these words "You want to put someone's life at risk just so you can fly a drone?"

Real or not real, find a way. If you can't find a way, step aside and let someone else find a way for you. Unfortunately my guess is the parties involved would rather fight than find a way.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Yes and no . . .

If a drone is operating over a scrub / wild fire, or over a highway motor vehicle accident, it's not just the physical risks of a collision, and any minor chance of some sort of damage etc . . .
It's just a fact that a manned aircraft be it fire bomber, or air ambulance heli can't enter the airspace until it's clear of a drone(s).
There have been incidents like this posted here on the forum in recent years.

A drone pilot can't know what authorities might require in the way of air support, and what direction that might be coming from.
Even someone monitoring radio transmissions is not guaranteed to pick up the right channel / broadcast responders might be using.



Kind of agree that should be ok.
If other news aircraft liked manned helis do traffic or accident / emergency type reporting from the air and keep their min 500' altitude, and drone news services keep their max 400' ceiling, all is good, 100' of separation.
It's only when pilots from both sides operate outside this that things can cause conflict, putting aside actual impacts, even near misses are serious in the aircraft industry.
Near misses can often be several hundred metres, or much further for two of the larger aircraft.

Separation of air corridors does not eliminate the risk due to lack of common communications, untrained, or non-responsible pilots. Manned aircraft have control and communication through ATC so their coordination is secure. Drones even with a portable radio to monitor traffic does not ensure they are on the same frequency (for monitoring only) so they may not know of inbound manned aircraft. Those trying to monitor on the wrong freq, and those without a radio are the risk factor that needs to be dealt with. A 107 PIC/Observer could reduce this risk by having a radio, and if regs were changed where they could transmit and talk to ATC or inbound manned aircraft. However, as long as drones are sold to family's and children in stores not requiring any training or education on their safe operation, then you will never be able to eliminate the risk because every mom/pop and child will be flying without realizing when they are flying in unauthorized areas or in an unsafe manner.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Throw up all sorts of scenarios, anyone can do this to counterpoint something posted or said.
Some are talking part 107 news crews with budgets and spotters, others are talking non existent risks.

Just remember, you don't want to be the pilot whose drone is the one concerned when a heli or light plane reports a close call, or when a ground crew at an incident wave off a fire bomber or medi evac heli because the spotted a drone flying about.

I feel we should avoid saying 'but the risk in miniscule', the above is just how it will go in those cases mentioned above.

 

[LoudThunder]

press conference

At 9:05, did she really say "The NYPD did an incredible job codifying easy to understand rules that will allow everyone to participate in the use of drones without excessive burden on that ability to use drones in this city…"

 

[lookout]

At 9:05, did she really say "The NYPD did an incredible job codifying easy to understand rules that will allow everyone to participate in the use of drones without excessive burden on that ability to use drones in this city…"

View attachment 166424

They live in a different world than we do, yet are still physically present here.

 

[lookout]

Separation of air corridors does not eliminate the risk due to lack of common communications, untrained, or non-responsible pilots. Manned aircraft have control and communication through ATC so their coordination is secure. Drones even with a portable radio to monitor traffic does not ensure they are on the same frequency (for monitoring only) so they may not know of inbound manned aircraft. Those trying to monitor on the wrong freq, and those without a radio are the risk factor that needs to be dealt with. A 107 PIC/Observer could reduce this risk by having a radio, and if regs were changed where they could transmit and talk to ATC or inbound manned aircraft. However, as long as drones are sold to family's and children in stores not requiring any training or education on their safe operation, then you will never be able to eliminate the risk because every mom/pop and child will be flying without realizing when they are flying in unauthorized areas or in an unsafe manner.

The guy on the ground has limited range, so even then it's limited just like remote id.

 

[lookout]

Yes and no . . .

If a drone is operating over a scrub / wild fire, or over a highway motor vehicle accident, it's not just the physical risks of a collision, and any minor chance of some sort of damage etc . . .
It's just a fact that a manned aircraft be it fire bomber, or air ambulance heli can't enter the airspace until it's clear of a drone(s).
There have been incidents like this posted here on the forum in recent years.

A drone pilot can't know what authorities might require in the way of air support, and what direction that might be coming from.
Even someone monitoring radio transmissions is not guaranteed to pick up the right channel / broadcast responders might be using.



Kind of agree that should be ok.
If other news aircraft liked manned helis do traffic or accident / emergency type reporting from the air and keep their min 500' altitude, and drone news services keep their max 400' ceiling, all is good, 100' of separation.
It's only when pilots from both sides operate outside this that things can cause conflict, putting aside actual impacts, even near misses are serious in the aircraft industry.
Near misses can often be several hundred metres, or much further for two of the larger aircraft.

The down blast from the helicopter will cause problems for the drone below it or to the side of it.

 

[lookout]

The issue here is the police want this, not us. They are the ones who want to incorporate the airspace and steal it out from under the jurisdiction of the FAA. This is public domain and they can't just do that legally. So is my flight illegal or the theft of public domain illegal? So the problem is a conflict of interest. Major concerns here. Major breach of the public trust.

 

[lookout]

So just like New York, we will most likely take this fight, down to your local municipality. This will make the fight easier for us.

 

[lewisrassee]

View attachment 166381

Nox Vidmate VLC​

It'll be just like getting a concealed-carry permit.

 

[Mrprop365]

Lovely. What a waste of time. So glad I don't live in NYC. In Santa Cruz, CA I just turn it on and fly.....

Wish I could say the same.....

 

[LoudThunder]

Wish I could say the same....

You posted your address in your location and I googled it in Maps and then brought it up in B4UFly. Is the NYC new rules on flying drones what is stopping you. The FAA has no problem with you flying your drone are as long as you do not fly over the water (Hudson River/East River Exclusion Zone).

Do you remember the old Atari Computer Game "Frogger?" I imagine you would be much like Frogger trying to cross those 10-lanes of traffic in front of your place to get to the East River park…

The Google Satellite map shows the park is still under construction, but Street View shows it well established. As you can see in the Street view, looking towards you place, it looks like prime flying area…

 

[Mrprop365]

They claim to be opening a big section of the park soon.

 

[Droning on and on...]

They claim to be opening a big section of the park soon.

That's progress... although I don't know how much fun it will be with 300 other pilots there flying too on a Saturday

 

[Torque]

That's progress... although I don't know how much fun it will be with 300 other pilots there flying too on a Saturday

 

[Droning on and on...]

Their drone could immediately land in such a case.

This is a huge safety advantage over helicopters that gets too little notice.

A helicopter has to find a place to land (if necessary), and must fly there above obstacles.

A consumer drone, mostly what's used by news operations, can descend immediately right where it is and, if necessary, crash with little risk of relatively little harm.