2 Men Face Prison After Drones Fly In Super Bowl Airspace

[Tomk_]

All I can say is... Wow!

 

[dirkclod]

Not suggesting I’d do it! And as suggested by others there could be “nuisance laws” enacted in response -but - if someone wanted to jam up the system, without breaking laws directly, the same as a people protest that blocks roads, or chaining oneself to a tree or “carrying arms to prove a constitutional right” - all of which jam up services (and I don’t suggest a conversation about any of those individual actions, just things I’ve seen people do in frustration over the feeling their world view is being impinged on) - that’s what I’d suggest.
I’d agree these guys are just fools rather that protesters! But all the same it is interesting that drone users don’t seem to have a sense of solidarity as found in most interest groups. One thread is about “send them to gaol/jail for the term of their natural life!” The next is about how someone flew 5km beyond VLOS. The thing I would be protesting about is overly complex laws and that instead of enforcing the basic laws, such as don’t fly over crowds, or having a small area to protect an important person, a massive NFZ is put up that a) won’t stop incidents and b) impinges on the 99% who were going to do the right thing anyway. I don’t suggest that there are not reasons to shut down a large area - but it should be very, very rare and a direct threat on a massive safety level, say an airshow. Laws should always err on the side of freedom of choice (why we don’t have speed tracking and limiting devices on all cars for example- but a alcohol interlock breath tester is imposed on a repeat drink driver, or a tracking device on a criminal, rather than on everyone).
Another reason to suggest such a protest is for use in situations where people are being suppressed by tyranny (let’s NOT discuss what that is as it leads to politics people!). This method could be good to have in one’s mental “bug out bag” along with other skills and knowledge to cede confusion and disruption!

And you are from the US. Like I said trolling and you must like not it here in this forum as yore getting ready to be gone. Want to keep on .?

 

[CaptSheffield]

30 miles is about six minutes and fifteen seconds of flight time at 250 knots, the general speed limit below 10,000 ft. That's cutting it close to scramble fighters and have them intercept and disable an evildoer before he does harm.

Sure, a drone can't go that fast or far, but that's not the main threat the TFR is addressing.

Well I think it should be differentiated, because that's just ridiculous, 30 miles for a hobby drone. If you wanted to do damage you'd have a lot bigger drone and all the laws in the world wouldn't stop you. I'm disappointed the ama didn't do a lot more and more ppl didn't complain. It's a hobby,with toys. It's treated worse than idiots driving.

 

[CaptSheffield]

What most people fail to realize is that the broadcast networks are the main reason for the TFR’s around the games anyway. They don’t want anyone giving the game away for free on social media.

Public safety is only a secondary item.

I believe that more than "any intended harm".

 

[anotherlab]

Well I think it should be differentiated, because that's just ridiculous, 30 miles for a hobby drone. If you wanted to do damage you'd have a lot bigger drone and all the laws in the world wouldn't stop you. I'm disappointed the ama didn't do a lot more and more ppl didn't complain. It's a hobby,with toys. It's treated worse than idiots driving.

If you look at this as "a hobby with toys" then none of this makes any sense. Drones are aircraft, some are hobbyist equipment, some are toys, but there's more to it than that. If you operate in airspace regulated by the FAA, you have to follow their rules.

The Super Bowl is considered a VIP event and the FAA gets very aggressive over the TFR assigned to it. It sucks for anyone that wants to fly near the Super Bowl, but it is what it is. I think we can thank ISIS for this. They were strapping small explosive devices to DJI Phantoms and detonating them over soldiers and military targets. If you flew 20 DJI drones into a football stadium and blew them up all at the same time, you would do a lot of damage from a combination of explosive devices and from the panic that would ensue.

I don't buy the argument that they are trying to block someone from broadcasting the game over social media. It's literally broadcast over the air, anyone can get it. If someone wanted to rebroadcast the game, they could get the live feed from something like Youtube TV and share it back out. A TFR would be useless to block that.

 

[DoomMeister]

What davros007 said make great sense, it's not trolling. Seems like if you don't agree with the faa climbing up your butt nobody on here likes you. If it wasn't for the interesting questions I'd be out. ( Don't need to say "good",cuz that proves the point).

What @Davros007 was advocating is civil disobedience regarding our NAS. It does not just involve drone pilots and whether you are part 107 certified or recreational doesn’t make an iota of difference. We are already burdened with enough regulation. If we can’t follow that much, I’m sure they could pile on some more.

Maybe pilots of manned aircraft should ignore the TFR too. Take a few passengers up so they can get a bird’s eye view of the game. Then be joined by ultralight pilots. If they crash into the crowd only a few would be killed or injured.

My earlier comment about the TFR’s being there because of the teams and broadcast networks was in reference more to normal pro and college games than for venues like the Super Bowl or World Series. It was in reference to their exclusive rights to broadcast those events and dissemination of images of those events.

 

[dirkclod]

What @Davros007 was advocating is civil disobedience regarding our NAS. It does not just involve drone pilots and whether you are part 107 certified or recreational doesn’t make an iota of difference. We are already burdened with enough regulation. If we can’t follow that much, I’m sure they could pile on some more.

Maybe pilots of manned aircraft should ignore the TFR too. Take a few passengers up so they can get a bird’s eye view of the game. Then be joined by ultralight pilots. If they crash into the crowd only a few would be killed or injured.

My earlier comment about the TFR’s being there because of the teams and broadcast networks was in reference more to normal pro and college games than for venues like the Super Bowl or World Series. It was in reference to their exclusive rights to broadcast those events and dissemination of images of those events.

?‍

 

[Adolf]

More like ... someONE important was in that area, or there was a secret action no one wanted videocast, going on. This is most likely the answer to the WHY question of "why this area?" Obviously, if it was not due to Super Bowl helicopter News crews, then it was some other 'security' issue. What's wrong with that? When the issue is one of recording events, vs. real NAS safety ... i.e. when these restrictions are really about preventing public access to cameras ... this has a much darker side.

With ever more tight fisted restriction on free speech, no one wants an aerial camera system recording ... say ... a house-to-house gun grab, or some other non-constitutional military operation. Only the "official narrative" can be allowed under certain types of governments. Remember the sacred term (and legal excuse for most abridgments of what we used to call 'freedoms'): "National Security."

=======​

For me the biggest issue to come from the actions of these two,(unable to call them a name i would like to use,because of forum rules),is the detrimental effect it will probably have on all those people in the US who have gone to the trouble of passing their part 107,to demonstrate their commitment to flying in a safe and professional manner ,they should be prevented from ever flying again and their part 107s cancelled ,they did a disservice to us all...​

=======​

Not that the Constitution means anything any more, but the fact that ALL modern multi-copters/uas/drones are "eyes in the sky," becomes an underlying motivation for serious restrictions on little, bitty, plastic toys with cameras on them. Like a drum beat, ever more stringent restriction are being applied. From limiting flights, to mandatory location identity to user information uploaded and pilot location locks ... where is the end to this?

The best way to regulate is through promulgated events. Think that TWO people both trained, violated the FAA rules thinking that their location and identity-broadcasting UAS were not broadcasting their ID as they broke the law? I suspect this was not merely accidental stupidlty?

THINK:
How hard would it be for a regulation-hungry government agency (someone NOT the FAA, but part of DOD, for example) to register two of its agents, and then break local laws to force ever more restrictive legislation. Those who think this cannot happen, are simply ignorant of how policies are moved forward. False Flag operations have played a major role in political/military strategies since man first learned to lie. This is not "conspiracy theory" (used here in the pejorative sense) but simply historical fact!

The real skinny here is: ANY UAS is potentially an aerial surveillance platform. This makes it (by definition) a would-be strategic weapon to anyone who thinks this way (and there are many who do).

All of the safety arguments take a back seat to THIS single motivation.

Since I am editorializing, remember the FIRST big news item about these quadcopters? Remember when some errant little Phantom experienced a "fly away" ... in Washington D.C? How did this go? Someone working in/around security at the White House, who liked to fly his DJI Phantom from his apartment balcony, lost it. Do the geometry? It flew not on one of perhaps 720 different ½ vectors it might have flown on, in any particular direction. It flew the the White House!

One would argue: he must have used that location as HOME. Really? So this guy was working FOR the same government whose National Security rules he must have understood, and before he launched his Phantom over the city ... he flew it first FROM the White House lawn? Doubt this very much. And yet ... is landed there, 2 miles away?

The odds are 1 : 720 (or much more, I am granting it ½º of a 360º circle/radius it could have flown in) x the odds in terms of square feet in 2 miles distance. Those odds — AGAINST — it landing on that specific property ... were astronomically high!

Conspiracy Theory demands someone say it: "Looks like some AGENCY with a vested interested in control over UAS, HI-JACKED IT and landed it on the White House lawn. This then became the EXCUSE for the President Obama (reember, "drone-bomb Obama"?) to demand the FAA look into some regulations over these ... "drones."

Hence, this news is the next step. SHOW PILOTS how severe their punishment will be ... for flying of these little plastic spy cameras over TEMPORARY restricted spaces! Then, whenever they need — temporarily — for no one to SEE what is happening, then it's time for a 'temporary' NFZ.

History is not accidental; not most the big events. And sometimes the BIG picture is composed of much smaller ones. Tyranny is a mosaic … only revealed one tile at a time.

We now return you to our regularly regulated programming.

I have to reply to the whole post above, and agree 80% without quoting to much. Just read it again and think about similar matters. It makes sense to me, as well to what we experience world wide. Maybe Propaganda to scare the masses?

 

[DoomMeister]

I have to reply to the whole post above, and agree 80% without quoting to much. Just read it again and think about similar matters. It makes sense to me, as well to what we experience world wide. Maybe Propaganda to scare the masses?

If that were the case cell phones and cameras would have been restricted in the area. The TFR was in place to help prevent overflights in an area where there were large numbers of people gathered where there usually isn’t and flight is normally allowed.

Again the two accused pilots violated the smaller TFR’s before the large TFR on game day. Of course most anything will give a conspiracy theorist ammo for their fog machines… so why not a TFR?

 

[Adolf]

@ DoomMeister ... Ok, You have a point.

 

[DoomMeister]

@ DoomMeister ... Ok, You have a point.

Thank you.

The other point to realize is that most TFR’s affect not only sUAS air traffic, but all air traffic. Pilots of manned aircraft have to stay in constant contact via radio and maintain stated vectors and speeds and set their Transponders to a unique code assigned by air traffic control. It is a major ordeal and puts a lot of work load on the controlling ATC for the area.

 

[dirkclod]

Not just ATC’s workload DM don’t forget about the load it puts on staff here trying to watch all the threads when one is in affect.
Some is always wanting to get political we have to clean up. ?

 

[BamaBomber]

I whole heartedly agree sir.

Yep, It's the operators such as these twits that make everyone suspicious of even the ones operating within the parameters of the FAA.

 

[BamaBomber]

I can't sympathize with these guys that make things harder on all of us who enjoy the hobby.

 

[iReviewFrozenDinners]

I think we can thank ISIS for this. They were strapping small explosive devices to DJI Phantoms and detonating them over soldiers and military targets. If you flew 20 DJI drones into a football stadium and blew them up all at the same time, you would do a lot of damage from a combination of explosive devices and from the panic that would ensue.

This is such a weird angle on the argument because it implies anybody that is willing and able to strap explosives to a drone in order to blow it up at a stadium full of people would not only follow FAA regulations, but also be deterred by a TFR lol.

 

[Rich QR]

This is such a weird angle on the argument because it implies anybody that is willing and able to strap explosives to a drone in order to blow it up at a stadium full of people would not only follow FAA regulations, but also be deterred by a TFR lol.

Of course there's no overlap between the people who would respect a TFR and those who would use their drones to injure innocent people. But the point isn't for the TFR to prevent the bad guys from flying.

It makes it a lot easier to spot the evildoers when there are no law-abiding pilots flying anywhere nearby.

If there were no TFR, or one that only covered a 1 mile radius for drones, the bad guys would be able to blend in with the routine traffic to get much closer before the authorities would know that this particular drone must be stopped.

 

[DanMan32]

... and wouldn't have enough time to react and stop it.

 

[BamaBomber]

This is such a weird angle on the argument because it implies anybody that is willing and able to strap explosives to a drone in order to blow it up at a stadium full of people would not only follow FAA regulations, but also be deterred by a TFR l

 

[BamaBomber]

I knew I didn’t like those guys ?

 

[PAI1]

According to that article, they were both licensed for 107 and knew about the TFR in place. They knew better.

From the press release from the Department of Justice for the charges filed against one of the pilots, the maximum sentence would be 1 year. I can't imagine they would push for jail time, it's more likely that they would be fined.

I agree they know better..and working with the FAA my whole professional career on manned aircraft, ignorance doesn't work with the FEDS.