Helo Anti-Drone warfare :)

[davegtigard]

I spend a lot of time in Hawaii and have photographed surfers so I'm not talking about the law here I'm talking about reality. This situation is a commercial surfing meet. Conceptually it is no different than an NFL football game. No one in their right mind would fly a drone over a football game so why would you think it OK to put up a drone when a commercial sporting event is going on especially one that involves helicopters and probably drones as well. Many surfing competitions now use drones to photograph the surfing. If you put a drone up in the middle of a big surfing competitions I can assure you nothing good will happen.
If the event organizers (who are spending serious money) put up signs asking you not to fly you have to be some kind of ******* to pretend it is OK for you to fly. This is probably the same guy who now wonders why real laws are being enacted to legally restrict flying drones.
We have saying in Hawaii "Respect the locals"

 

[Jwelz]

If you own or lease a venue, you may sell tickets to an event you host and restrict the rights of ticket purchasers. For example, you may not record a movie during a screening at a movie theater and there may be restrictions on audio/video recordings at a concert. The NFL football example is not germane since flying a drone in that scenario likely violates a number of laws.

The question is whether, in the absence of an event, it was lawful to fly a drone where it was being flown and in the manner and proximity to people as was the case. If not, what lawful measures may be taken to stop the drone. Probably none exist other than penalizing the operator after the fact.

If the drone was lawfully operated had the event not been taking place but over a similar collection of people, did the event organizers lease or own the rights to the airspace. That is a completely different question as to whether they owned some kind of 'copyright' that entitled them to licencing any footage taken. Any footage and profiting from it can only be determined after the fact.

Any remedies the organizers might have been allowed to pursue could adequately be obtained after the event. They did not require the dangerous and unlawful escalation of risk evidenced in the video. I doubt that the manner of operation of the helicopter was lawful whether or not the drone operator was or wasn't within his rights.

They would be better served by having security personnel follow the drone by boat and/or motorcycle and relying on law enforcement to secure the identity of the operator.

 

[qbert]

The situation is real simple. Both pilots of both air vehicles were in the wrong. The drone pilot for being in an area where he was endangering an aircraft in addition to persons on the ground , and the helicopter pilot for intentionally maneuvering to bring dowe the drone, again endangering an aircraft in addition to persons on the ground. It's really as simple as that if the law was to be followed.

 

[qbert]

If you own or lease a venue, you may sell tickets to an event you host and restrict the rights of ticket purchasers. For example, you may not record a movie during a screening at a movie theater and there may be restrictions on audio/video recordings at a concert. The NFL football example is not germane since flying a drone in that scenario likely violates a number of laws.

The question is whether, in the absence of an event, it was lawful to fly a drone where it was being flown and in the manner and proximity to people as was the case. If not, what lawful measures may be taken to stop the drone. Probably none exist other than penalizing the operator after the fact.

If the drone was lawfully operated had the event not been taking place but over a similar collection of people, did the event organizers lease or own the rights to the airspace. That is a completely different question as to whether they owned some kind of 'copyright' that entitled them to licencing any footage taken. Any footage and profiting from it can only be determined after the fact.

Any remedies the organizers might have been allowed to pursue could adequately be obtained after the event. They did not require the dangerous and unlawful escalation of risk evidenced in the video. I doubt that the manner of operation of the helicopter was lawful whether or not the drone operator was or wasn't within his rights.

They would be better served by having security personnel follow the drone by boat and/or motorcycle and relying on law enforcement to secure the identity of the operator.

It's really simple to get a NOTAM, "NOtice To AirMen", which then restricts the airspace to a specific use.

 

[Riteguy]

He does have a point though. It doesn't really matter if we think of them as toys or professional equipment or not. The FAA makes the definition of an aircraft quite clear. An aircraft is defined as a vehicle, capable of controlled flight through the air, either manned or unmanned. All aircrafts are subject to the same levels of basic protections. One of those the illegal downing of an aircraft. Aircraft may not be intentionally brought down by any means except by appropriate law enforcement officials. By the FAAs definition, the helicopter pilot brought down another aircraft using his own. That is by definition a violation of federal law.

Common sense though, the drone shouldn't have been there in the first place, and should have gotten the hint when people were throwing stuff at it.

Based on your last comment, who is it that decides who has the right to be in that area? Is this a public beach? Did the helicopter have the right to operate at that altitude with people immediately underneath him? Does size of aircraft dictate who has priority over similar airspace? Do people in the water have the right to down a drone because of proximity? Is the drone pilot required to leave the airspace once a larger aircraft moves in?

 

[Hollow Dog]

If the no drone sign does NOT state specific authority to restrict its just a BS sign.
My sign says Ladies must remove their tops.

 

[qbert]

Based on your last comment, who is it that decides who has the right to be in that area? Is this a public beach? Did the helicopter have the right to operate at that altitude with people immediately underneath him? Does size of aircraft dictate who has priority over similar airspace? Do people in the water have the right to down a drone because of proximity? Is the drone pilot required to leave the airspace once a larger aircraft moves in?

If a NOTAM is issued then only persons with permission from the person or group issuing the NOTAM can legally be with in the NOTAM boundaries. Pilots can get special permission as I suspect was done in this case, to fly and film lower than the regular limits. That being said, The helicopter pilot committed an offense when he maneuvered his helicopter over to force the quadcopter down unless he a sworn in officer of the law and had jurisdiction in that area. He however also committed several grey area offenses in doing so even if he was a law officer.

 

[qbert]

In any case the drone was in the wrong also as he was also endangering both aircraft in the air and people and property on the ground.

BTW. unless it's been changed, since 2002, all sporting events are considered restricted airspace with a 3 mile exclusion, meaning that unless the quadcopter had specific authority he was flying illegally period.

 

[Jwelz]

Was the event an Indy car race? Here's an excerpt from the rules relating to stadiums with large seating capacities:

Sporting Event
Temporary Flight Restriction
FDC NOTAM 4/3621

Pursuant to 14 CFR section 99.7, special security instructions, commencing one hour before the scheduled time of the event until one hour after the end of the event. All aircraft operations; including parachute jumping, unmanned aircraft and remote controlled aircraft, are prohibited within a 3NMR up to and including 3000ft AGL of any stadium having a seating capacity of 30,000 or more people where either a regular or post season Major
League Baseball, National Football League, or NCAA division one football game is
occurring. This NOTAM also applies to Nascar Sprint Cup, Indy Car, and Champ Series races excluding qualifying and pre-race events.

 

[RBacio]

It's really simple to get a NOTAM, "NOtice To AirMen", which then restricts the airspace to a specific use.

I doubt that it is simple to NOTAM a public beach.

 

[Fitzsy]

So just what is YOUR definition of an aircraft?

Fortunately the FAA has already done that for us, so that opinions such as yours are irrelevant.

FYI. You are aware that these "toys" are now doing many of the jobs of your "real" aircraft right? And that many of the "toy" pilots are making more with their toys than some "real" aircraft pilots?

And did I mention, I've spoken about this incident with REAL heli pilots with thousands of hours, who call BS on this.

Just so you know, I fly and have worked on REAL, USAF aircraft in addition to UAS, and have a healthy respect for both.

 

[Fitzsy]

Been reading some of these posts. Wondered if this forum has a link to FAA rules governing Drone flight. Have been a Part 103 pilot for many years. And before drones. Always worried about them. Have decided to start flying drones too. First one coming Friday. Could Bob answer he seams very versed. I know I could find them. On the web. Know that I agree that was very dangerous, the helo pilot, Looks bad for the community too.

 

[cderoche]

Been reading some of these posts. Wondered if this forum has a link to FAA rules governing Drone flight. Have been a Part 103 pilot for many years. And before drones. Always worried about them. Have decided to start flying drones too. First one coming Friday. Could Bob answer he seams very versed. I know I could find them. On the web. Know that I agree that was very dangerous, the helo pilot, Looks bad for the community too.

FAA's website has lots of info. They basically give you guidelines, since 2012 they basically said they don't regulate hobbyists. Commercial operators are a different story, and require part 107 license. I can even get my $5 registration fee back if I want. All the stuff you hear from the drone police - can't fly over 400 feet, etc. are guidelines. You can go higher than that (in the USA) however, heed this, anything you do that causes a crash or damage to someone or something they can still come after you for reckless operation or a number of other laws that generally cover these things. In other words don't go flying 1500 feet up a mile from the airport in the flight path of 747's and not expect to have problems. Fly with common sense, if it seems dangerous or stupid it probably is.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems