Drone Delays DHART Helicopter Taking Off With Seriously Injured Woman

[Jurgen]

Ok, now that we've determined the pilot was an idiot, intentionally trying to delay the patient needed medical attention and that they should be hung from the nearest tree...

What's the law say? Doesn't the drone pilot have the right to fly? Is the drone pilot responsible for staying grounded until they check with every other grounded aircraft about their future intentions? Or does the UAV have the right to operate until the Helicopter takes off and THEN the immediate duty to give way?

I routinely have Coast Guard helicopters fly over my house at a few hundred feet in unrestricted airspace. I had two F/A-18's drop in VERY low the other day out of nowhere. If I'm at 400' and they come in under me, are we still in shared airspace or do we just just blame the UAV pilot first?

The patch article doesn't have enough info to determine the facts. I appreciate everyone having their stakes and ignition sources at the ready, but couldn't any one of us unintentionally be in this situation?

 

[GFields]

What's the law say? Doesn't the drone pilot have the right to fly?

You might want to read this, FAA Targets UAS Violators for Enforcement

 

[mavic3usa]

Ok, now that we've determined the pilot was an idiot, intentionally trying to delay the patient needed medical attention and that they should be hung from the nearest tree...

What's the law say? Doesn't the drone pilot have the right to fly? Is the drone pilot responsible for staying grounded until they check with every other grounded aircraft about their future intentions? Or does the UAV have the right to operate until the Helicopter takes off and THEN the immediate duty to give way?

I routinely have Coast Guard helicopters fly over my house at a few hundred feet in unrestricted airspace. I had two F/A-18's drop in VERY low the other day out of nowhere. If I'm at 400' and they come in under me, are we still in shared airspace or do we just just blame the UAV pilot first?

The patch article doesn't have enough info to determine the facts. I appreciate everyone having their stakes and ignition sources at the ready, but couldn't any one of us unintentionally be in this situation?

You're overthinking this.

 

[rickmurray1989]

Without more information, I'm apalled at the quick jump to judgement and the willingness to call the operator selfish and hanging him out to dry.

Med fights can land and be on the ground for quite some time before patient is packaged and stabilized and ready for take off. These on the fly landing zones are often high schools, parks or other municipal land that are in unrestricted airspace.

It's entirely possible the operator had no Godly clue there was a helicopter several hundred yards away awaiting takeoff. How would they have known?

ADS-B.

 

[mobilehomer]

ADS-B.

WOW, I graduated from HHS, '72. But not all manned aircraft, even MediVac units, broadcast ADS-B.

 

[finity]

While I feel bad for the situation that was caused it seems way to easy to demonize the operator.

For those who say "ignorance is no excuse" I'd like for you to tell me all of the things you are ignorant about that might get you into trouble for not knowing them.

I bet you can't because...well...you're ignorant of them. There was a famous guy a while back who said "there are known unknowns. And there are unknowns unknowns. sometimes we just don't know what we don't know".

Contrary to some beliefs we aren't just born knowing what all the rules are.

That very well could be the case in many of these situations because there is no requirement for the drone manufacturers or sellers to provide any info on the laws governing drone ops. It's not trying to necessarily blame the manufacturer but they are in the best situation to know what someone needs to know and should have some responsibility to pass on that info to the buyer.

When I started looking into drones I had zero idea what the rules were surrounding the hobby. I just thought you bought a drone and could just go out and fly it. I was ignorant of the rules/laws. I'd bet that the vast majority of people have the same ignorance and it would be hard to blame them for not knowing what they don't know that they need to know.

the only thing that likely saved me from being "that guy" was the Youtube algorithm and my curiosity to click on the "part 107", "FAA rules", etc links in the "recommended" column. Now I'm a Part 107 certified operator and try my best to follow the rules as I know them to be.

it's too easy to vilify someone for doing something "stupid" when you know it's "stupid" but they have no idea it's "stupid".

That said, if the guy should have known better (part 107/experienced operator), knew there was a helicopter waiting to take off with an injured person on board and just didn't care then he should be mercilessly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I really hopefully doubt that someone could be that callous. But unfortunately people disappoint us sometimes.

all of the above is just MHO.

 

[Jurgen]

WOW, I graduated from HHS, '72. But not all manned aircraft, even MediVac units, broadcast ADS-B.

Is ADS-B even a requirement in Class G airspace?

The point is, this could unintentionally have been any of us.

 

[MS Coast]

Is ADS-B even a requirement in Class G airspace?

The point is, this could unintentionally have been any of us.

ADS-B is not a universal requirement. Private aircraft operating under VFR rules are not required to use it. Military aircraft often do not broadcast ADS-B.

In my area, roughly half of the aircraft I see are not broadcasting ADS-B. Those that are, are typically commercial flights at higher altitudes.

 

[BigAl07]

While I feel bad for the situation that was caused it seems way to easy to demonize the operator.

For those who say "ignorance is no excuse" I'd like for you to tell me all of the things you are ignorant about that might get you into trouble for not knowing them.

I bet you can't because...well...you're ignorant of them. There was a famous guy a while back who said "there are known unknowns. And there are unknowns unknowns. sometimes we just don't know what we don't know".

Contrary to some beliefs we aren't just born knowing what all the rules are.

That very well could be the case in many of these situations because there is no requirement for the drone manufacturers or sellers to provide any info on the laws governing drone ops. It's not trying to necessarily blame the manufacturer but they are in the best situation to know what someone needs to know and should have some responsibility to pass on that info to the buyer.

When I started looking into drones I had zero idea what the rules were surrounding the hobby. I just thought you bought a drone and could just go out and fly it. I was ignorant of the rules/laws. I'd bet that the vast majority of people have the same ignorance and it would be hard to blame them for not knowing what they don't know that they need to know.

the only thing that likely saved me from being "that guy" was the Youtube algorithm and my curiosity to click on the "part 107", "FAA rules", etc links in the "recommended" column. Now I'm a Part 107 certified operator and try my best to follow the rules as I know them to be.

it's too easy to vilify someone for doing something "stupid" when you know it's "stupid" but they have no idea it's "stupid".

That said, if the guy should have known better (part 107/experienced operator), knew there was a helicopter waiting to take off with an injured person on board and just didn't care then he should be mercilessly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I really hopefully doubt that someone could be that callous. But unfortunately people disappoint us sometimes.

all of the above is just MHO.

At what point does Common Sense (or serious lack there of) come into play?

Flying a drone around your house is one thing and stumbling upon an accident is one thing. Going to the scene of an accident, as an Industry Professional, to merely grab "up to the second imagery of the incident and post to your Social Media channel" is far from "being ignorant of the rules and regulations". No different than if he had driven his car up to the scene, blocked emergency vehicles while he stood there with his phone LIVE STREAMING the incident. ZERO difference. It's called RSPONSIBILITY and being ignorant doesn't remove us from that in the least.

He 100% deserves having the book and the whole book shelf thrown at him. We are ALL guilty by association and if we can't stop some of this terrible actions we are all going to be lumped ( aka regulated) into the same trash bin.

 

[BigAl07]

Ok, now that we've determined the pilot was an idiot, intentionally trying to delay the patient needed medical attention and that they should be hung from the nearest tree...

What's the law say? Doesn't the drone pilot have the right to fly? Is the drone pilot responsible for staying grounded until they check with every other grounded aircraft about their future intentions? Or does the UAV have the right to operate until the Helicopter takes off and THEN the immediate duty to give way?

I routinely have Coast Guard helicopters fly over my house at a few hundred feet in unrestricted airspace. I had two F/A-18's drop in VERY low the other day out of nowhere. If I'm at 400' and they come in under me, are we still in shared airspace or do we just just blame the UAV pilot first?

The patch article doesn't have enough info to determine the facts. I appreciate everyone having their stakes and ignition sources at the ready, but couldn't any one of us unintentionally be in this situation?

If you had a loved one critically injured and being loaded into the MediVac and there was a drone flying overhead in the immediate vicinity, would you instruct the Pilot of the MediVac to chance a mid-air collision and takeoff or wait until the THREAT cleared the area. It doesn't matter, the pilot would not take off with such a daunting threat in the area.


Aviation is about Risk Mitigation and taking off, knowing another aircraft, of unknown skill level or intentions, is in the immediate area is a HIGH RISK scenario. You risk the aircrew, the patient, the aircraft, and possibly lives on the ground.

Any UAS operator should STAY CLEAR of the area and let those trying to save lives DO THEIR JOBS! It's not a game and it is 100% Life & Death.

 

[GFields]

Contrary to some beliefs we aren't just born knowing what all the rules are.

I agree, but one should learn the rules and regulations for flying a drone. Years ago, drones were looked upon as "toys" but I would argue that is not the case today.

There has been much publicity broadcasted about drones and their use, and as you mentioned, YouTube is one of them. The FAA has an age requirement of 13 to register a drone. It is unfortunate that there is not much said from the drone manufacturers in the instructions one gets when purchasing a drone about proper usage, (but would that solve the problem? Many throw the instructions away and just do their own thing).

 

[GFields]

The point is, this could unintentionally have been any of us.

Are you suggesting the Drone pilot didn't/couldn't see the Med Helicopter? I find that hard to believe. I would say the contrary is a possibility: He saw the helicopter flying very low and thought he would investigate.

 

[finity]

Flying a drone around your house is one thing and stumbling upon an accident is one thing. Going to the scene of an accident, as an Industry Professional, to merely grab "up to the second imagery of the incident and post to your Social Media channel" is far from "being ignorant of the rules and regulations".

I think you might have overlooked my last sentence in that post:

That said, if the guy should have known better (part 107/experienced operator), knew there was a helicopter waiting to take off with an injured person on board and just didn't care then he should be mercilessly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Most of that post was in reply to those who were saying "ignorance is no excuse" and that he should basically be publicly executed (yes exaggeration) as an example to others.

If he was an "Industry Professional" then he falls squarely into the category of my last sentence.

Years ago, drones were looked upon as "toys" but I would argue that is not the case today.

I know that we know that but I'm very sure most others don't.

I've had many discussions with many others about drones since I've gotten into the hobby and there is not one person who knows what a TRUST certificate is or pretty much any other rule pertaining to drones. And those discussions included three people who already own drones. One of which has a few.

Remote ID? "What's that?" Controlled airspace? "That's only for airplanes." Altitude limits? "Only as high as the drone will fly."

Again that was me a couple of months before I bought mine.

I think the FAA or manufacturers are doing a disservice to people when they don't have a knowledge campaign in place to inform people of the rules.

I think it would be as easy as the FAA requiring that the manufacturers place a prominent warning on the start up screen when doing the initial setup that the user has to acknowledge that they have read.

It may not solve all the problems but it would definitely cut down on all of the "I didn't know..." issues.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think it would be as easy as the FAA requiring that the manufacturers place a prominent warning on the start up screen when doing the initial setup that the user has to acknowledge that they have read.

You mean like the big government warning labels that are applied to cigarette cartons telling people they have to acknowledge these smokes will kill you if you misuse them? You want to throw drones into that mix, huh?

 

[finity]

You want to throw drones into that mix, huh?

sure...

I don't see any reason to not put a warning there. It doesn't hurt anything (a few electrons and pixels are cheap) and if it brings a little attention to new users that "oh wow this really is more serious than I thought" it might really help.

 

[MS Coast]

You mean like the big government warning labels that are applied to cigarette cartons telling people they have to acknowledge these smokes will kill you if you misuse them? You want to throw drones into that mix, huh?

Yes. Without a doubt.

A person flying a drone may have no idea that there are regulations governing their use and no idea where to go for information on common sense operation. We, acting through our government, have an obligation to inform buyers.

What's your preference? Thousands of uninformed drone owners doing stupid things and causing problems. Isn't that why we have RID and other limitations on drone operations? Are you really harmed by a label on the box or a flyer in the box of your new drone?

Why is government "big" in trivial situations like this, but not "big" when it's building the interstate highway system or providing for our national defense or feeding hungry children in public schools?\

 

[mavic3usa]

Yes. Without a doubt.

A person flying a drone may have no idea that there are regulations governing their use and no idea where to go for information on common sense operation. We, acting through our government, have an obligation to inform buyers.

What's your preference? Thousands of uninformed drone owners doing stupid things and causing problems. Isn't that why we have RID and other limitations on drone operations? Are you really harmed by a label on the box or a flyer in the box of your new drone?

Why is government "big" in trivial situations like this, but not "big" when it's building the interstate highway system or providing for our national defense or feeding hungry children in public schools?\

What's my preference? I prefer the plan we have right now which is 0 deaths, 0 injuries, $0 damages. Can your [new] plan top that?

 

[rjwmorrell]

AFAIK, it wasn't a kid. Not that would excuse what he did. Apparently, he was posting the videos on his "professional drone pilot" Instagram account until he got called out for it on Reddit.

DJI does put information in their manuals about following safety guidelines and provides links to videos on their site.

It's really hard to make reading or viewing safety information idiot-proof as they keep coming out with new and improved idiots. It comes down to ignorance is no excuse.

Around here we just had a drone operator fined for operating a drone in the Adirondack Park. He was filming a swimmer/activist who was swimming the entire length of the Hudson River. It was an honest mistake, but he was still fined.

I swear when I got my first DJI drones last year they had leaflets included from the Australian or NZ aviation authority warning of drone misuse. Not that I am either of those countries, but that would be the sort of thing that might lead a reasonable person to make further inquiries as to what rules might apply.

But then again, licence plate tinted covers are 100% illegal where I live and they are freely sold and used by a large percentage of unsuspecting drivers. Despite repeated news articles about how they're illegal.

 

[mavic3usa]

I swear when I got my first DJI drones last year they had leaflets included from the Australian or NZ aviation authority warning of drone misuse. Not that I am either of those countries, but that would be the sort of thing that might lead a reasonable person to make further inquiries as to what rules might apply.

But then again, licence plate tinted covers are 100% illegal where I live and they are freely sold and used by a large percentage of unsuspecting drivers. Despite repeated news articles about how they're illegal.

Just so you know, I am not against these things. I don't mind if DJI want to include flyers in the box, warning labels on teh aircraft, additional pages in the user guide, they can wrap it up in tin foil and require you to take an online quiz that give you the unlock code at successful completion....if that's what DJI wants to do; fine. Their drones, their rules. I just don't want any it to be a government law requiring them to do it, for obvious reasons; that's not good for the industry....in so many ways.

 

[MS Coast]

What's my preference? I prefer the plan we have right now which is 0 deaths, 0 injuries, $0 damages. Can your [new] plan top that?

Just so you know, I am not against these things. I don't mind if DJI want to include flyers in the box, warning labels on teh aircraft, additional pages in the user guide, they can wrap it up in tin foil and require you to take an online quiz that give you the unlock code at successful completion....if that's what DJI wants to do; fine. Their drones, their rules. I just don't want any it to be a government law requiring them to do it, for obvious reasons; that's not good for the industry....in so many ways.

Zero injuries and zero damages from drones? Reality, as reflected by reports here, disagrees.

No, there have not been substantial injuries and damages by drones; we've been very lucky. But it's not reasonable to assume that will be the case as millions of additional uninformed operators come on line.

We can certainly wait until an uninformed goof flies his drone over ORD or SFO and it gets sucked into the intake of one of a departing A-300's two engines and results in a crash that kills 250 people. Or, we can be proactive about common sense, low cost education of all aircraft pilots. And we can reduce the need for more onerous drone regulations.

The automobile industry didn't want to put seatbelts in cars. Government did the right thing and made them mandatory. That didn't damage the automobile industry, and it certainly has saved a lot of lives and reduced a lot of injuries. If you find that government interference distasteful, you can protest by leaving your seatbelt unbuckled.