Drone nearly hits police officer

[MAvic_South_Oz]

It was not the best place to do a flight what ever the case.

 

[Cymruflyer]

A good clear shot, and easy to see the depth perspective of the drone in relation to the road / footpath etc.
The other officer if facing the drone clearly shows this is level with the back panniers of his bike or so, and about 45 degrees to the right front of the closer bike.
I'm sure if the officer hadn't swerved left that little bit, he could have clipped that, or could have stuck his hand out and caught it (with some typical drone prop finger surgery).
It is without doubt, over the blacktop, probably by a good 1 or 2 feet.
If that is over the footpath, it is about small car size.

Hey, I know some of these perception things can be tricky, kinda like the one of the swing, are they facing towards or away from the camera ?

(Clearly facing towards the building. LOL)

It's clearly towards the camera since you can see the bar in front of the swinger when they are at the top right of their swing, so that clearly shows the direction of the swing, then there is also the shape of the empty swing, which helps to understand the way that swing is placed.

 

[Deleted member 109934]

I don't think we need any new laws (in reference to this exact thread) but I do think what we see in this video is potentially very dangerous and this operator should be sought out and fined/penalized in some way. And part of that penalization would be PUBLICITY so that others might, just might think twice about such actions in the future.

I'd like to hear from each person who has commented on this thread:

1. Do you see what happened in this video as dangerous?
   • If no, how close do you think is too close between person on a bike and UAS?
   • If yes what do you feel like the "penalty" should be?

electric chair or alternatively life without parole... also implement Remote ID and ban all the drones from hands of general population. With exception of few selected people that work closely with gov and will benefit from national ban on drones...
What if this was 10y old kid? Parents sent to gulag and kid to organ harvesting facilities with note not to harvest brains.


No regulations on earth will stop kids from doing stupid things. Few years back I parked car in front of Brick got out with my wife, she had our 3y old daughter on her hands. Next I hear loud bang and see big dent in the side roof of my car, about 20cm from my head and 30cm from my daughters head. I had no clue what happened, stated inspecting and found golf ball 10m from the car in the bushes, some totally stupid kid shot the ball across street blindly in to Brick store parking lot. If that ball hit my daughter in the head she would have been dead on the spot.

Should we ban golf balls? Clubs? I’m pretty sure we can’t play golf in the city already... You canot fix stupid.

Pro remote ID amazon influencers will say: remote ID would show us who was flying that drone... what if that was hacked MP or self made fpv drone?

This was not licensed drone operator flying.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Ha ha, I had a feeling I shouldn't have posted that

Funny, when I first saw this on a news site (yes, sadly this is considered news these days) I too thought the person was facing the camera.
Then something clicked and I can't see it that way now.
Weird.

You're wrong, take another look and watch when the person is moving from high left to high right. There will be one point, at least, when you will see the person go from high left, down and then up to high right and at that point, you will be able to see that the top cross bar that the swing is attached to, is clearly visible in front of the swinger and that tells you exactly which way the person is swing. That being facing the camera and moving from right top furthest away, to left top, closest to the camera

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

You're wrong,

I was wrong once before, so you never know.

 

[dirkclod]

Guys this thread is starting to wonder to much and believe all have about said all that can be said.
If there isn’t anything posted that isn’t new this Will come to a close shortly.
Just a heads up.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

That's really a false equivalence. Far more people die in car accidents than in aviation accidents. Does that mean that aviation law is unnecessary? It doesn't, of course - what it means is that road safety has reached a level of regulation and risk acceptance that we deem reasonable. Drone use is still in its infancy, but increasing fast, and that balance has not yet been found.

Not at all my points it’s about peoples reactions to it. Did I use the word unnecessary? Don’t think I did.

 

[xspwhite]

That's really a false equivalence. Far more people die in car accidents than in aviation accidents.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. There reallly aren't any statistics to show one way or another. You have to consider that a lot more people travel on the ground then they do in the air. There are tons of small aviation accidents that we never even hear about. Usually only when a celebrity is involved. The ones we do hear about hundreds of people are killed at a time. Small planes as well as big jets have crashed into houses, appartment buildings, and everywhere else. Often times the big companies that own the passenger jets will pay small fines to the FAA and little settlements to families of the victims. Meanwhile they often profit off the crashes with big insurance pay outs for the loss of the aircraft.

 

[sar104]

I don't know if that's necessarily true. There reallly aren't any statistics to show one way or another. You have to consider that a lot more people travel on the ground then they do in the air. There are tons of small aviation accidents that we never even hear about. Usually only when a celebrity is involved. The ones we do hear about hundreds of people are killed at a time. Small planes as well as big jets have crashed into houses, appartment buildings, and everywhere else. Often times the big companies that own the passenger jets will pay small fines to the FAA and little settlements to families of the victims. Meanwhile they often profit off the crashes with big insurance pay outs for the loss of the aircraft.

There are plenty of statistics on general aviation accidents.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

There have been some great posts re aircraft / drone incidents in the past.
I recall finding and posting an pdf doc of supposedly Worldwide incidents, but can't find it now.
It was quite remarkable how few proven UAV / quad etc incidents there were, how many suspected incidents unproven, and other causes like balloons etc.

Wikipedia has a reasonably compiled list that gives a similar insight . . .

List of unmanned aerial vehicle-related incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not all of these are UAV / quad as we know them, ie the military drones listed.

Probably reasonably accurate, at least as far as other docs would be too, some with possible bias like the anti drone tool companies reporting suspect drone sightings / incidents / near misses as fact.

 

[Vic Moss]

The "gentleman" who was flying this drone has been contacted by the police. He will be charged. As soon as I can share more I will.

The officers involved were not amused. The one who was filming had to take evasive action. Now whether or not he would have hit the drone if he didn't is debatable, but the fact that he felt he needed to is telling of the position of the drone.

The person flying was totally irresponsible in his actions. When we're in the air, we must maintain situational awareness at all times.

I have no doubt many (if not all) of us have flown in a similar area, in a similar fashion. However, this guy's mistake was that he didn't move out of the way of the cops (or any other vehicle). It is up to each one of us to make sure we don't hinder traffic when we fly. The fact that it was a motorcycle cop is irrelevant. Other than the fact that they have video. And the cops in this area, although being VERY pro-drone, don't take stuff like this lightly. They've prosecuted people before (using local laws), and have no problem doing so again.

I can share that the use of AeroScope to catch him "can neither be confirmed or denied" at this point. You can read into that what you want. But I do know that the area he was flying in is fully covered by AeroScope 24/7.

Again, once I have more info I'll share if I can. If it does go to trial or he is charged, it will become public information anyway.

 

[wsteele]

If we are accurate in our assessment that the drone was hovering or slowly moving in the area of the sidewalk and the motorcycles are in the street I don't think it's any more danger than a person stopped or riding their bicycle slowly down the sidewalk.

You may be technically correct and objective. And it may be a toy drone operated by a child and over the sidewalk. But, politicians and government agencies many times don't care about the reality. The media publishes stories to build their circulation/viewership and this story promotes the drone hysteria. We already have in the next three years the potential for significant curtailment of recreational drone flying here in the U.S. This hysteria, even if false, will result in state governments imposing more and more laws limiting drone operations. Yes, the FAA controls the air, but they control the ground. To ignore it or state it wasn't dangerous on this forum will do nothing positive. Don't be picky (you went 50 feet too high, or you flew on a beach where there were 10 people nearby) But respond when their behavior is bad for our hobby and speak out objectively. Yes, that was dumb behavior but us responsible drone operators know the laws and follow them to the best we can to provide a safe environment

 

[BigAl07]

The "gentleman" who was flying this drone has been contacted by the police. He will be charged. As soon as I can share more I will.

The officers involved were not amused. The one who was filming had to take evasive action. Now whether or not he would have hit the drone if he didn't is debatable, but the fact that he felt he needed to is telling of the position of the drone.

The person flying was totally irresponsible in his actions. When we're in the air, we must maintain situational awareness at all times.

I have no doubt many (if not all) of us have flown in a similar area, in a similar fashion. However, this guy's mistake was that he didn't move out of the way of the cops (or any other vehicle). It is up to each one of us to make sure we don't hinder traffic when we fly. The fact that it was a
motorcycle cop is irrelevant. Other than the fact that they have video. And the cops in this area, although being VERY pro-drone, don't take stuff like this lightly. They've prosecuted people before (using local laws), and have no problem doing so again.

I can share that the use of AeroScope to catch him "can neither be confirmed or denied" at this point. You can read into that what you want. But I do know that the area he was flying in is fully covered by AeroScope 24/7.

Again, once I have more info I'll share if I can. If it does go to trial or he is charged, it will become public information anyway.

Thank you Vic.

What people don't realize is that there are a LOT more "UAS" incidents that get investigated and "actions taken" that never make any news outlets what so ever.

Keep us posted as you learn more.

 

[xspwhite]

I think what it boils down to is that a remote vehicle especially a drone should never be operated on a sidewalk or public roadway.

If someone doesn't have the space in their yard if they want to fly low altitudes for some reason, then they should do it at a local AMA field.

 

[Vic Moss]

I think what it boils down to is that a remote vehicle especially a drone should never be operated on a sidewalk or public roadway.

If someone doesn't have the space in their yard if they want to fly low altitudes for some reason, then they should do it at a local AMA field.

I don't thing so.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly over and near both sidewalks and public roadways, I do both frequently. It's virtually impossible not to if you're flying in an urban environment. And no one should be forced to fly at an AMA field. Not only does it cost money, many do not like drones.

If there isn't room in someone's yard, fly at a park or a school. I just got back from flying at a school.

Your absolute statement about "a drone should never be operated on a sidewalk or public roadway" isn't a practical solution. Situational awareness is the answer.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Sorry had left but on iMac now and yes from this one I just took it looks like the other officer is looking at it.
Now I am seeing this on a big screen.
View attachment 93292

Sorry but I am lacking nothing other than patience
To be honest it might just be in a hover but the way I see it it if not in the road right at it.
Really nothing to discuss about it though as it is there and enough so to make the officer swerve .
Maybe he did just because it surprised him I don't know

You may be technically correct and objective. And it may be a toy drone operated by a child and over the sidewalk. But, politicians and government agencies many times don't care about the reality. The media publishes stories to build their circulation/viewership and this story promotes the drone hysteria. We already have in the next three years the potential for significant curtailment of recreational drone flying here in the U.S. This hysteria, even if false, will result in state governments imposing more and more laws limiting drone operations. Yes, the FAA controls the air, but they control the ground. To ignore it or state it wasn't dangerous on this forum will do nothing positive. Don't be picky (you went 50 feet too high, or you flew on a beach where there were 10 people nearby) But respond when their behavior is bad for our hobby and speak out objectively. Yes, that was dumb behavior but us responsible drone operators know the laws and follow them to the best we can to provide a safe environment

I agree that we should all follow the law unless the law makes no sense. In those cases you violate the law but be willing to deal with the consequences if caught.

As for this incident in my opinion the drone didn’t pose a danger to the officers, was hovering or flying over the sidewalk, no more a danger than a person walking down the street. People can create all sorts of what if scenarios or have differences of opinion about what defines “too close”. Some folks won’t be satisfied unless all drones are banned. The challenge is creating regulations that address legitimate public safety concerns and allow the maximum amount of freedom for those that want to fly versus an attempt to prevent every imaginable negative scenario regardless of how far fetched it may be.

 

[EricJT]

I agree that we should all follow the law unless the law makes no sense. In those cases you violate the law but be willing to deal with the consequences if caught.

As for this incident in my opinion the drone didn’t pose a danger to the officers, was hovering or flying over the sidewalk, no more a danger than a person walking down the street. People can create all sorts of what if scenarios or have differences of opinion about what defines “too close”. Some folks won’t be satisfied unless all drones are banned. The challenge is creating regulations that address legitimate public safety concerns and allow the maximum amount of freedom for those that want to fly versus an attempt to prevent every imaginable negative scenario regardless of how far fetched it may be.

What are the US laws regarding flying a drone near people and buildings (i.e. what distance must be maintained)?

 

[dirkclod]

I agree that we should all follow the law unless the law makes no sense. In those cases you violate the law but be willing to deal with the consequences if caught.

As for this incident in my opinion the drone didn’t pose a danger to the officers, was hovering or flying over the sidewalk, no more a danger than a person walking down the street. People can create all sorts of what if scenarios or have differences of opinion about what defines “too close”. Some folks won’t be satisfied unless all drones are banned. The challenge is creating regulations that address legitimate public safety concerns and allow the maximum amount of freedom for those that want to fly versus an attempt to prevent every imaginable negative scenario regardless of how far fetched it may be.

Well we can agree to disagree but as for what i said

To be honest it might just be in a hover but the way I see it it if not in the road right at it.
Really nothing to discuss about it though as it is there and enough so to make the officer swerve .
Maybe he did just because it surprised him I don't know

i stand by.
Now this back and forth about that is starting to get stale.
I am about to say all this thread is and you know what I do when that happens so All should keep
that in mind going forth with this.

 

[Mike6158]

It looked to me like it was hovering and they rode past it.

 

[Rudiger]

Sorry had left but on iMac now and yes from this one I just took it looks like the other officer is looking at it.
Now I am seeing this on a big screen.
View attachment 93292

As a drone pilot and motorcyclist, I have some thoughts.
The drone looks to be just higher than the mirrors, but below the top of the windshield. The officer on the left is riding with his visor open (common at low speed) but we don't know about the officer on the right. Motorcycle windshields are typically not tall enough to block your view so you look over them not through them. This combination of factors means the officer definitely could have been injured if he hit the drone. It does look like he moves to the left to avoid the drone, even if it was stationary and not directly in his path. If I see a deer on the shoulder of the road, I still slow down and move over even if it is not directly in front of me, just it case it moves.
Bottom line from the drone pilot standpoint, this guy was wrong. The FAA regulations don't say "fly as close as you want to people as long as you don't hit them"
If I was riding my bike and came that close to a drone I would be pissed, and I would have every right to be.