Drone vs. Police Helicopter in my own hometown

[Cloudhopper]

So what was the guy supposed to do in a case like this, where he’s flying a drone and a helicopter suddenly shows up in the same space? Immediately landing would likely put the drone out of radio sight. It’s kind of possible he was running to the drone’s location, and the thing performed an automatic return to home while he was running to it.

 

[deleted member 877]

So what was the guy supposed to do in a case like this, where he’s flying a drone and a helicopter suddenly shows up in the same space? Immediately landing would likely put the drone out of radio sight. It’s kind of possible he was running to the drone’s location, and the thing performed an automatic return to home while he was running to it.

Q. So what was the guy supposed to do in a case like this, where he’s flying a drone and a helicopter suddenly shows up in the same space?

A. Don't be flying at twice the legal height and then don't go following the helicopter !!!

 

[Cloudhopper]

Q. So what was the guy supposed to do in a case like this, where he’s flying a drone and a helicopter suddenly shows up in the same space?

A. Don't be flying at twice the legal height and then don't go following the helicopter !!!

This is pure speculation and extremely unlikely. A normal person would be in a state of complete panic after finding themselves in this situation.

It's far more likely they dropped the drone to ground level and it did an auto RTH that was misconstrued as following the heli at a lower level.

 

[deleted member 877]

This is pure speculation and extremely unlikely. A normal person would be in a state of complete panic after finding themselves in this situation.

It's far more likely they dropped the drone to ground level and it did an auto RTH that was misconstrued as following the heli at a lower level.

The POLICE helicopter pilot reported sighting the drone at 800 feet and that the drone followed the helicopter - there can be absolutely no doubt that the court will accept the police's testimony. Furthermore, there were witnesses on the ground who saw the alleged culprit fleeing the scene. There is no part of this incident that mitigates the foolhardy actions of the drone operator. Did you even read the article?

Why is that pure speculation? Why are you so keen to make excuses for the drone pilot? The idiot is clearly not a "normal" person. He didn't "find himself in this situation" - he created the situation !!

 

[sar104]

This is pure speculation and extremely unlikely. A normal person would be in a state of complete panic after finding themselves in this situation.

It's far more likely they dropped the drone to ground level and it did an auto RTH that was misconstrued as following the heli at a lower level.

That's just hilarious. You dismiss the actual report of the incident, made by the personnel who saw the drone, followed it and recovered it, as pure speculation. Then you propose your own entirely fictional version of what happened, not just without any evidence but actually contrary to the existing evidence, and assert that it is far more likely.

 

[Racin8de]

Boy if this clown is stupid enough to play chicken with a Law Enforcement Helo while having it registered then he needs to be permantely grounded. If he registered the drone which he apparently has, then he definitely knows basic drone rules. Max altitude, No fly zones and I bet also that school is also a no fly zone... Whoever it was is just an idiot drone cowboy who is definitely making everything about drones bad....

 

[Cloudhopper]

That's just hilarious. You dismiss the actual report of the incident, made by the personnel who saw the drone, followed it and recovered it, as pure speculation. Then you propose your own entirely fictional version of what happened, not just without any evidence but actually contrary to the existing evidence, and assert that it is far more likely.

The point is that there is no evidence of intent. Just because the heli and the drone both landed in the school, doesn't mean the drone was following the heli. The fact that the school was a suitable landing spot for the heli may be total coincidence. Other reports of the same story in different media just state the heli did an emergency landing in the school, and [sensibly] omit police speculation that the drone was actively following the heli.

 

[sar104]

The point is that there is no evidence of intent. Just because the heli and the drone both landed in the school, doesn't mean the drone was following the heli. The fact that the school was a suitable landing spot for the heli may be total coincidence. Other reports of the same story in different media just state the heli did an emergency landing in the school, and [sensibly] omit police speculation that the drone was actively following the heli.

You need to go back and read the report again, because it says that the helicopter followed the drone back to the school. That's why they both landed there.

 

[deleted member 877]

The point is that there is no evidence of intent. Just because the heli and the drone both landed in the school, doesn't mean the drone was following the heli. The fact that the school was a suitable landing spot for the heli may be total coincidence. Other reports of the same story in different media just state the heli did an emergency landing in the school, and [sensibly] omit police speculation that the drone was actively following the heli.

Why do you keep referring to "police speculation" ??! The court will deem it to be "police eyewitness evidence" and that is all that matters. Again please go and actually read the article posted in the first entry on this thread.

And the incident is not really related to the done and helicopter landings or where they landed - it's what happened before that is relevant. Drone flying at 800 feet and then following the helicopter.

 

[AMann]

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.

A lot of drone pilots here say they still have VLOS when they fly at least 1/2 mile out...

 

[sar104]

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.

There are long threads discussing all kinds of things simply because people cannot be bothered to make even a cursory attempt to read - long threads do not themselves imply that there is anything wrong with the laws. It's not very useful to accuse the laws of being confusing and then refuse to say what about those laws is confusing.

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.

The FAA did not craft the law - they are simply stuck with implementing it. The CBO stuff dates from the 2012 law that prevented the FAA from regulating recreational flight - it was the alternative that the model aircraft lobby sold to Congress. Why they chose to stick with it when they repealed 336 is anyone's guess.

 

[BigAl07]

So what was the guy supposed to do in a case like this, where he’s flying a drone and a helicopter suddenly shows up in the same space? Immediately landing would likely put the drone out of radio sight. It’s kind of possible he was running to the drone’s location, and the thing performed an automatic return to home while he was running to it.

This guy, and you and me and every other sUAS operator in the USA are required by Law to See & Avoid. That pretty black and white IMHO. It's our ultimate responsibility, if we want to play in the National Airspace System, to follow that one basic rule regardless of anything else we "wish" to do. If you can't determine your proximity to an approaching aircraft you do whatever you can (including ditching the sUAS for a total loss) to avoid manned aircraft... PERIOD!

To even suggest he was running to the aircraft's position while the aircraft is also in a RTH mode heavily insinuates that he couldn't see/determine what was happening with his aircraft and he wasn't able to stay in control of his aircraft. That in and of itself would be reckless behavior IMHO. And it also makes for a good comical explanation which is pretty "Out There" to say the least.

If, and I stress if, the facts are as reported this operator has no need for any type of sUAS and I sincerely hope they make an example out of him in a big way. This would be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate what enforcement can look like if you don't obey the LAWS and make every attempt to remain clear of any manned aircraft.

Here's looking forward to local, state, and Federal charges, fines and confinement for this operator IF the reports are accurate.

 

[tcope]

There are long threads discussing all kinds of things simply because people cannot be bothered to make even a cursory attempt to read - long threads do not themselves imply that there is anything wrong with the laws. It's not very useful to accuse the laws of being confusing and then refuse to say what about those laws is confusing.

It's not that they don't read.... if they did not, they would not have been in the thread, would not have read through the long thread and would not have the "knowledge" to add anything. Those long conversations went back and forth with people educated on the subject.

​

The FAA did not craft the law - they are simply stuck with implementing it.

Yes, they did craft the law... along with a lot of drone manufactures and drone groups. They all had input. Yes, Congress approved and passed the law but it _was_ crafted by many other people, including the FAA. Of course the FAA had a huge input on the law.

​

The CBO stuff dates from the 2012 law that prevented the FAA from regulating recreational flight - it was the alternative that the model aircraft lobby sold to Congress. Why they chose to stick with it when they repealed 336 is anyone's guess.

It was in there so they just left it in there? It did not make sense from the start... it certainly makes less sense now. My _guess_ is that it is a way to pander to clubs like the AMA. That and it allows any club to make more restrictions (they can't make less) which does not hurt the FAA. So to go back to the initial quote of this post... there are not only the FAA (incomplete and confusing) rules but also CBO rules where everyone needs to choose one and then follow those rules as well.

IMHO, what should have been done was they should have simply come up with one set of rules for hobby and commercial flight. They are so close as it is. Lets face facts, the actual flight of the drone is exactly the same for both groups so the "danger" is the same. The DMV has commercial licenses and personal licenses with different requirements because the risk is greatly different. Not so with drones.

 

[sar104]

It's not that they don't read.... if they did not, they would not have been in the thread, would not have read through the long thread and would not have the "knowledge" to add anything. Those long conversations went back and forth with people educated on the subject.


Yes, they did craft the law... along with a lot of drone manufactures and drone groups. They all had input. Yes, Congress approved and passed the law but it _was_ crafted by many other people, including the FAA. Of course the FAA had a huge input on the law.

Do you have a reference that documents the FAA involvement, or are you just guessing?

It was in there so they just left it in there? It did not make sense from the start... it certainly makes less sense now. My _guess_ is that it is a way to pander to clubs like the AMA. That and it allows any club to make more restrictions (they can't make less) which does not hurt the FAA. So to go back to the initial quote of this post... there are not only the FAA (incomplete and confusing) rules but also CBO rules where everyone needs to choose one and then follow those rules as well.

Now you are definitely guessing.

IMHO, what should have been done was they should have simply come up with one set of rules for hobby and commercial flight. They are so close as it is. Lets face facts, the actual flight of the drone is exactly the same for both groups so the "danger" is the same. The DMV has commercial licenses and personal licenses with different requirements because the risk is greatly different. Not so with drones.

The rules may look close to you, but they are not. Part 107 permits a lot of stuff that recreational pilots are not going to do - operations under various waivers, operations in controlled airspace beyond simple LAANC authorizations etc.. So sure - it could be one set of rules but then everyone is taking the Part 107 test. That's what you want?

 

[tcope]

Do you have a reference that documents the FAA involvement, or are you just guessing?

I watched and monitored the process. All of the info I mentioned can be confirmed with some limited Internet searching. You think the FAA, who is the sole organization charged with administering airspace was not involved in the law used to make airspace safe?

​

Now you are definitely guessing.

Yes. That is why I made that clear when I added the word "guess" and underlined it.

​

The rules may look close to you, but they are not. Part 107 permits a lot of stuff that recreational pilots are not going to do - operations under various waivers, operations in controlled airspace beyond simple LAANC authorizations etc.. So sure - it could be one set of rules but then everyone is taking the Part 107 test. That's what you want?

What I propose is that commercial requirements could be greatly reduced, hobby requirements could be slightly increased and some additional rules could be added when more restrictive flights are needed. I'd venture to say that 99.9% of all drone flights are your typical flight in the park on a weekend. So only involve additional requirements when those .1% flights are involved.

For example, I fly for fun on the park. The person next to me doing the same thing is in the business of selling his/her photos. That person is required to do a _whole_ lot more and even has different restrictions just because he/she makes a buck off a photo? It is the same exposure and risk. If a person wants to fly in an area that is higher risk, only then require them to meet a higher standard. The risk has _nothing_ to do with making a dollar... it only has to do with the actual flight. So, it should be easy to govern 99.9% of all flights under one roof.

The problem is that the system started off kind of broken. It was then made worse by adding things here and there. They then had the ability to start all over and fix everything but they chose to simply take what was in place and twist it until they felt it met some artificial need. In other words, they started off wanting to push a square peg through a round hole and they just got a hammer big enough to make it work.

My 2 cents. Sorry for getting OT.

What I'd really like to know is how the police treated the drone in this situation when they found it (i.e. they were supposed to let it just sit there in the field untouched until they found and confirmed who the owner was. Yeah, I'm sure that really happened) and did they ever use the registry to locate the person.

 

[sar104]

I watched and monitored the process. All of the info I mentioned can be confirmed with some limited Internet searching. You think the FAA, who is the sole organization charged with administering airspace was not involved in the law used to make airspace safe?

So no, you don't have a reference?

What I propose is that commercial requirements could be greatly reduced, hobby requirements could be slightly increased and some additional rules could be added when more restrictive flights are needed. I'd venture to say that 99.9% of all drone flights are your typical flight in the park on a weekend. So only involve additional requirements when those .1% flights are involved.

For example, I fly for fun on the park. The person next to me doing the same thing is in the business of selling his/her photos. That person is required to do a _whole_ lot more and even has different restrictions just because he/she makes a buck off a photo? It is the same exposure and risk. If a person wants to fly in an area that is higher risk, only then require them to meet a higher standard. The risk has _nothing_ to do with making a dollar... it only has to do with the actual flight. So, it should be easy to govern 99.9% of all flights under one roof.

The problem is that the system started off kind of broken. It was then made worse by adding things here and there. They then had the ability to start all over and fix everything but they chose to simply take what was in place and twist it until they felt it met some artificial need. In other words, they started off wanting to push a square peg through a round hole and they just got a hammer big enough to make it work.

Of course - so you want to relax Part 107 requirements to look like the recreational requirements, but still allow the same non-recreational operations. No matter that the required training and testing wouldn't even mention those operations. And nice work cherry-picking a specific case where the non-recreational pilot is doing exactly the same flight as the recreational pilot to try to argue that they only need the same regulation and certification - that was really clever. When you attempt to defend these kinds of ridiculous positions I have a hard time figuring out if you are serious.

 

[tcope]

So no, you don't have a reference?

Are you asking because you don't think the FAA has a hand in a law that would help to make airspace safe or because you just want to waste my time finding the information and feeding it to you? That is, I'm not here to do your research but I will support my claims if someone disputes them. You can feel free to start with search on

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). ARC was formed by the FAA to gather their input. That input was given to the FAA who then gave it to Congress to form the bill.

​

Of course - so you want to relax Part 107 requirements to look like the recreational requirements, but still allow the same non-recreational operations.

No, that is not at all what I said. I stated they could reduce 107 requirements and increase hobby requirements.

​

No matter that the required training and testing wouldn't even mention those operations. And nice work cherry-picking a specific case where the non-recreational pilot is doing exactly the same flight as the recreational pilot to try to argue that they only need the same regulation and certification - that was really clever. When you attempt to defend these kinds of ridiculous positions I have a hard time figuring out if you are serious.

So you don't think a vast majority of flights are simple flights that don't place the flight in a much higher risk area, such as those that require special authorization under part 107? I'm not "cherry picking", I'm giving an example of what almost all flights would be like. They are non-high risk flights.

But again, this is simply what _I_ think could have been done when they revamped the entire law/system. I won't pretend to have all of the answers.

 

[sar104]

Are you asking because you don't think the FAA has a hand in a law that would help to make airspace safe or because you just want to waste my time finding the information and feeding it to you? That is, I'm not here to do your research but I will support my claims if someone disputes them. You can feel free to start with search on
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). ARC was formed by the FAA to gather their input. That input was given to the FAA who then gave it to Congress to form the bill.

Yes - I'm disputing your assertion. The sUAS ARC made a lot of recommendations, most of which were followed with regard to civil sUAS operations. Their recommendations regarding recreational sUAS were not followed - they proposed distinguishing sUAS from model aircraft.

No, that is not at all what I said. I stated they could reduce 107 requirements and increase hobby requirements.

To be precise, you said "greatly reduced" and "slightly increased".

So you don't think a vast majority of flights are simple flights that don't place the flight in a much higher risk area, such as those that require special authorization under part 107? I'm not "cherry picking", I'm giving an example of what almost all flights would be like. They are non-high risk flights.

I'm not sure about the balance of numbers but that's not relevant - the certification has to include all kinds of flights, not just the simplest, least hazardous ones.

But again, this is simply what _I_ think could have been done when they revamped the entire law/system. I won't pretend to have all of the answers.

The sUAS ARC had no input into the 2018 changes - it transmitted its recommendations in 2009 and the order creating it was cancelled in 2013.

 

[Live LA]

@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.

Overview of current hobbyist FAA rules (updated 7/23/19)

As of 5/17/19, here's a complete list of rules hobbyists must follow when flying outdoors in the US: Register your drone with the FAA Mark your registration number on the exterior of the drone (decals available here) Fly a drone under 55 lbs Fly only for hobby or recreation Follow the safety...

mavicpilots.com

Really appreciate it, dont really feel like an attack at all, its true, I do fly on occasion, not as much as Id like, however your right, if I did not ask or look on this site I havent seen or had any form of notification. I do realize owning a drone is a personal responsibility and it is my job to do my due dilligence to find out and obey the law (in my opinion the laws set forth are pretty easy to abide by) annnd my heart feels like its going to explode when I get around 300ft high and 1000ft out ?however i do feel like some of the posts I do read about the previous and new regs, there are some clear cuts but also seems like people are pretty confident in the grey area.
Either way glad my ignorant question can bring about a teaching moment ??

 

[Live LA]

Are you asking because you don't think the FAA has a hand in a law that would help to make airspace safe or because you just want to waste my time finding the information and feeding it to you? That is, I'm not here to do your research but I will support my claims if someone disputes them. You can feel free to start with search on
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). ARC was formed by the FAA to gather their input. That input was given to the FAA who then gave it to Congress to form the bill.


No, that is not at all what I said. I stated they could reduce 107 requirements and increase hobby requirements.


So you don't think a vast majority of flights are simple flights that don't place the flight in a much higher risk area, such as those that require special authorization under part 107? I'm not "cherry picking", I'm giving an example of what almost all flights would be like. They are non-high risk flights.

But again, this is simply what _I_ think could have been done when they revamped the entire law/system. I won't pretend to have all of the answers.

gotta be real other than the fact that you collect money for real estate photos (so I can understand why they want their hands in it) Buuut they are very rarely difficult or dangerous (Im am speaking in general)