Welcome Mavic Pilot!
Jump in and join our free DJI Mavic community today!
Sign up

Drone vs. Police Helicopter in my own hometown

PhantomFandom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
228
Reaction score
299
This is not to be antagonistic at all I am genuinely asking, I thought the “recommended” hight is 400ft for hobbiest but not a law, but for 107 comercial it is law, right? Also like to add personally anything over 200ft or so for me Im not interested in capturing so i am in NO WAY condoning or looking for an excuse for just... negligence
No that was with the old regulations where the FAA actually had no authority to regulate hobbyists. With the new re-authorization act of 2018, the FAA now has authority and does regulate even hobbyists. The 400 foot altitude limit does indeed apply to all hobbyist/recreational pilots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Live LA

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,494
Age
52
Loc
Sandy, UT
My mavic starts at 4800' asl maybe I should stop flying from my back patio. The story seems slightly embellished and possibly false. We shall see in the near future.
Usually I would say the same thing but in the case they recovered a drone after following it. In prior situations involving helicopter pilots, one went on record that he saw a drone something like a half mile from his location. He must have some really good eyesight. The drone was flying legally in that situation.
 

Jeffm912

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
165
Reaction score
176
Loc
Missoula, MT
Usually I would say the same thing but in the case they recovered a drone after following it. In prior situations involving helicopter pilots, one went on record that he saw a drone something like a half mile from his location. He must have some really good eyesight. The drone was flying legally in that situation.
You may be correct. Just waiting for an update that sounds plausable with evidence and not pictures with one of their personal drones on the ground for a photo opportunity. People are strange no matter their career of choice. I question any possible explanation until it is proven one way or another. News outlets, law enforcement, and government don't have the alure of believability they did in the past, even if only slight.

Jeff
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Bill 1969

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
7,452
Reaction score
7,720
Loc
Los Alamos, NM
This is not to be antagonistic at all I am genuinely asking, I thought the “recommended” hight is 400ft for hobbiest but not a law, but for 107 comercial it is law, right? Also like to add personally anything over 200ft or so for me Im not interested in capturing so i am in NO WAY condoning or looking for an excuse for just... negligence
The rules changed as a result of Section 336 being repealed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Live LA

silverdragon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
385
Reaction score
195
Age
57
If the pilot had the cahonies to fly the drone like he did he should of had the cahonies to initiate a RTH....
 

crystal-pete

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
632
Reaction score
458
Loc
Brisbane, Australia
If the pilot had the cahonies to fly the drone like he did he should of had the cahonies to initiate a RTH....
There has been speculation that the drone operator did, in fact, initiate an RTH. Don't know why that makes a difference - it most probably won't be a mitigating factor in the court case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
2,041
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
This is not to be antagonistic at all I am genuinely asking, I thought the “recommended” hight is 400ft for hobbiest but not a law, but for 107 comercial it is law, right? Also like to add personally anything over 200ft or so for me Im not interested in capturing so i am in NO WAY condoning or looking for an excuse for just... negligence
@Live LA this is not aimed at you in the least.... but your statement screams FAILURE (at least IMHO) on behalf of the FAA. At almost 2 months in for someone who is involved in the Drone/sUAS community to not have been exposed to the new rules & regulations is a failure of the "System". To make matters worse, these new rules have been talked about for a few months prior to going LIVE (some are still in the process actually). I feel like the FAA needs to majorly up their game and get up to speed on making sure every single sUAS (or would-be) sUAS operator is exposed to the new rules.

@Live LA here's a good primer to get you up to speed on these. Once again my comments are not aimed directly at you in the least. You only know what you know and it's up to the FAA to take every route possible to make sure everyone is on the same page.

 
  • Like
Reactions: JSKCKNIT

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
2,041
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
There has been speculation that the drone operator did, in fact, initiate an RTH. Don't know why that makes a difference - it most probably won't be a mitigating factor in the court case.
I think @silverdragon just meant that, unlike some others have suggested in this very thread, if you're Man Enough to do the dead then you should also be Man Enough to OWN IT. So many others have suggested "ditched it in the pond/lake and go the other way".....
 

larryc43230

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
176
Reaction score
129
Age
69
Loc
Columbus, Ohio
If the pilot had the cahonies to fly the drone like he did he should of had the cahonies to initiate a RTH....
My theory (and it's only a theory) is that the drone pilot did exactly that: He had launched the drone from the school playground, and the drone returned to its launch point. In the meantime, according to eyewitness accounts, the drone pilot was seen running in the other direction.

Larry
 

crystal-pete

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
632
Reaction score
458
Loc
Brisbane, Australia
I agree with BigAl107's comment in regard to "failure of the system".

I have previously posted about how the sport of hang-gliding was a total basket case back in the early days when pilots were unregistered/unlicensed and their aircraft were lacking all of the safety features inherent in the design of modern gliders.

The Department of Transport (pre CASA) came down hard and threatened to ban the sport unless we worked out a way to self govern that was acceptable to them. The Hang Gliding Association of Australia (HGFA) was established and then State hang gliding associations were set up and became members of the HGFA.

All pilots have to pass theory and practical exams in order to acquire a license to legally fly their hang gliders anywhere in Australia. All of the regulations are published in the official handbook with any amendments sent via mail to all registered members. There is also a bi-monthly magazine published by the HGFA (now online) that is sent to all registered pilots and a portion of the annual membership fee goes towards a personal accident insurance policy (AUD$ 20 million).

Many will scoff at this in terms of where the recreational drone flying community is headed but if we keep having these incidents then the airspace regulators will have no option but to up the ante.
 
Last edited:

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,494
Age
52
Loc
Sandy, UT
@Live LA this is not aimed at you in the least.... but your statement screams FAILURE (at least IMHO) on behalf of the FAA. At almost 2 months in for someone who is involved in the Drone/sUAS community to not have been exposed to the new rules & regulations is a failure of the "System". To make matters worse, these new rules have been talked about for a few months prior to going LIVE (some are still in the process actually). I feel like the FAA needs to majorly up their game and get up to speed on making sure every single sUAS (or would-be) sUAS operator is exposed to the new rules.
Even season people here can't agree on what all of the rules are and how they apply. Heck, the FAA can't even complete the rules before they put them into effect. Yes, the FAA is 100% to blame.
 

crystal-pete

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
632
Reaction score
458
Loc
Brisbane, Australia
Even season people here can't agree on what all of the rules are and how they apply. Heck, the FAA can't even complete the rules before they put them into effect. Yes, the FAA is 100% to blame.
The FAA is 100% to blame? So when an idiot drone operator deliberately and blatantly ignores regulations that are clearly published on the FAA website, the FAA is to blame? For example, there is now absolutely no ambiguity when it comes to the 400 feet rule.

I would suggest that a lot has been clarified since the FAA Reauthorization Act repealed Section 336. How will the FAA make sure that all drone operators are made aware of the new regulations? There are simple solutions that could be implemented but, of course, that would cause a big backlash from the "it's all about me" and the "why should I lift a finger" members of the drone community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,494
Age
52
Loc
Sandy, UT
The FAA is 100% to blame? So when an idiot drone operator deliberately and blatantly ignores regulations that are clearly published on the FAA website, the FAA is to blame? For example, there is now absolutely no ambiguity when it comes to the 400 feet rule.
Want to know why there was confusing about the 400' "rule"? it is because the FAA lied to people and said that you could not fly about 400' legally. However, the parts of the law that are clear is not part of the issue. Truth is, there was no issue that a change in the law was going to solve and it did not need to be changed. But it was changed anyway. The FAA has been anything but clear on the change. You can pick and choose certain things but I'm speaking about the new laws in general.

TI would suggest that a lot has been clarified since the FAA Reauthorization Act repealed Section 336. How will the FAA make sure that all drone operators are made aware of the new regulations? There are simple solutions that could be implemented but, of course, that would cause a big backlash from the "it's all about me" and the "why should I lift a finger" members of the drone community.
Where is this test that we need to pass in order to be legal under the new laws? Where is access to LAANC so that we can fly legally? What is a CBO and how can they be approved by the FAA? Keep in mind... the FAA _created_ these things. So they certainly had the ability and time to allow people to comply with their new rules.

I was going to say "without looking" but you are in Australia so feel free to search the FAA website and let me just ask you two questions; 1) right now, what do you need to do in order to fly within 5 miles of a Class C airport and 2) same question but once the FAA has everything active in the new law. Also, let me know how long it took to get those two answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch5richards

crystal-pete

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
632
Reaction score
458
Loc
Brisbane, Australia
I was going to say "without looking" but you are in Australia so feel free to search the FAA website and let me just ask you two questions; 1) right now, what do you need to do in order to fly within 5 miles of a Class C airport and 2) same question but once the FAA has everything active in the new law. Also, let me know how long it took to get those two answers.
Fair point but let me suggest that the vast majority of drone pilots, recreational or otherwise, simply do what they have to do, like doing the necessary research in order to make sure that they are not breaking any laws or FAA regulations when operating their drones. It might take them more than 5 minutes to find the information but they don't whine about it, they just do it.

Access to LAANC for recreational pilots is on the doorstep but is it really too much to ask for recreational pilots to refrain from flying within 5 miles of an airport until such time that LAANC is fully implemented?

Unfortunately, the minority who just want to whine about "FAA not doing this" or "FAA not doing that" will always get more airtime because that is simply how this world works.
 

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,494
Age
52
Loc
Sandy, UT
Fair point but let me suggest that the vast majority of drone pilots, recreational or otherwise, simply do what they have to do, like doing the necessary research in order to make sure that they are not breaking any laws or FAA regulations when operating their drones. It might take them more than 5 minutes to find the information but they don't whine about it, they just do it.
I think many will spend a good part of the day to learn what they need to do. I think as more and more pointless rules are put into place more and more people will choose to ignore those rules. I think a good portion of people will get a drone and not even take the time it does to learn all of the rules. Keep in mind... it is not even just the FAA rules... it is a CBO's rules as well (why... no one knows).

Access to LAANC for recreational pilots is on the doorstep but is it really too much to ask for recreational pilots to refrain from flying within 5 miles of an airport until such time that LAANC is fully implemented? 5 miles of any airport? Or just certain ones?
 

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
7,452
Reaction score
7,720
Loc
Los Alamos, NM
Want to know why there was confusing about the 400' "rule"? it is because the FAA lied to people and said that you could not fly about 400' legally. However, the parts of the law that are clear is not part of the issue. Truth is, there was no issue that a change in the law was going to solve and it did not need to be changed. But it was changed anyway. The FAA has been anything but clear on the change. You can pick and choose certain things but I'm speaking about the new laws in general.
What about the current law do you find confusing?
Where is this test that we need to pass in order to be legal under the new laws? Where is access to LAANC so that we can fly legally? What is a CBO and how can they be approved by the FAA? Keep in mind... the FAA _created_ these things. So they certainly had the ability and time to allow people to comply with their new rules.
Congress created those things. Congress defined CBO and gave the FAA 180 days from enactment to publish the acceptance criteria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhantomFandom

tcope

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,494
Age
52
Loc
Sandy, UT
What about the current law do you find confusing?
it is not what I personally find confusing. I know you know all about those _long_ threads discussing the new laws. If if were so easy and clear, those threads would be been a _lot_ shorter. I think there were several where even at the end, people did not agree what was right or wrong. Point is not what is right... point is, even people who spend time here (in the belly of the beast) are confused.


Congress created those things. Congress defined CBO and gave the FAA 180 days from enactment to publish the acceptance criteria.
Here is the question I still have about that. Was Congress and the FAA not capable of creating laws that would make airspace more safe? Why the need to then need CBO's to create more rules that are required to be followed? That is, were the laws created by the government not good enough? In addition... how is anyone going to ever enforce that rule? Seriously.... it is a joke.
 

dwolfe002

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
229
Reaction score
111
Age
62
Loc
Gloucester, NC
There has been speculation that the drone operator did, in fact, initiate an RTH. Don't know why that makes a difference - it most probably won't be a mitigating factor in the court case.
The RTH will be called a preplanned getaway for the crime showing intent.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
65,710
Messages
764,012
Members
92,871
Latest member
ajkm