Horrible Tragedy...Media on Q w/ bad press for drones

DDS · Jan 27, 2020

Bad enough 1 story..Media tries to link every negative drone headline in existence

So many drones and aircraft swarmed the site of Kobe Bryant's helicopter crash that the FAA was forced to close the airspace

The restriction is in effect until the end of the month to prevent aircraft from entering the airspace, a rare occurrence for crashes.

www.businessinsider.com

Solution

Ban All Consumer Drones in the great State of CA....(Joking although not so far fetched)

MAvic_South_Oz · Jan 27, 2020

"Federal Aviation Administration issued an airspace restriction for 5 nautical miles in every direction from the crash site, effectively closing the airspace above Calabasas, California."
Standard procedure at such incidents, even motor vehicle accidents.

"While it’s unclear how many drones were operating in the area . . ." says it all really.
Ironically, I bet at least some (of any) drones in the area would have been news drones, or paparazzi style 'news' gatherers.

A very tragic crash, felt around the World, even to non basketball fans.

sar104 · Jan 27, 2020

MAvic_South_Oz said:
"Federal Aviation Administration issued an airspace restriction for 5 nautical miles in every direction from the crash site, effectively closing the airspace above Calabasas, California."
Standard procedure at such incidents, even motor vehicle accidents.

"While it’s unclear how many drones were operating in the area . . ." says it all really.
Ironically, I bet at least some (of any) drones in the area would have been news drones, or paparazzi style 'news' gatherers.

A very tragic crash, felt around the World, even to non basketball fans.

Quite likely most of them were on official business. A TFR would be standard practice for this situation whether or not there were drones, so to that extent the article is wrong in its implication that somehow it was the presence of drones that led to it. And drones are likely to be among the aircraft subsequently authorized to operate in the TFR.

fuzzball · Jan 28, 2020

BigAl07 · Jan 28, 2020

It's interesting (and sad too) how that article used the word DRONE 25x. That's just sensationalizing and trying to get more clicks witha BUZZ word.

SkyDogII · Jan 29, 2020

The crash site is in a NFZ on a daily basis.... Its part of a wilderness area/State recreation area and you can't fly there anyway.

Muddiver · Jan 29, 2020

Once again the press get a little information about something they know nothing about and run with it because they want to "sell" the article. That just hurts the rest of us who fly drones.

@SkyDogII You are correct. That area is normally a restricted airspace. If the press had done their research, they would have known this

sar104 · Jan 29, 2020

Muddiver said:
Once again the press get a little information about something they know nothing about and run with it because they want to "sell" the article. That just hurts the rest of us who fly drones.

@SkyDogII You are correct. That area is normally a restricted airspace. If the press had done their research, they would have known this

Unless the statement attributed to the FAA, that there were a "significant number of aircraft, including drones, operating over the accident site.", was incorrect, then the fact that it is wilderness and prohibits sUAS operations without authorization is irrelevant to the implementation of the TFR and so that part of the report was accurate.

Skywatcher2001 · Jan 29, 2020

I'm pretty sure every drone there was authorized like @sar104 said. I've seen footage on the news here locally that was DEFINITELY from a drone. The writer of the article tried to stay pro drones but my guess is his 'editor' made him turn to the dark side . . .

DDS · Jan 29, 2020

Skywatcher2001 said:
I'm pretty sure every drone there was authorized like @sar104 said. I've seen footage on the news here locally that was DEFINITELY from a drone. The writer of the article tried to stay pro drones but my guess is his 'editor' made him turn to the dark side . . .

Skywatcher2001 · Jan 29, 2020

djidroneservice said:
View attachment 92513

Thanks DJI DS . . . . I needed a laugh this week.

fuzzball · Jan 29, 2020

SkyDogII said:
The crash site is in a NFZ on a daily basis.... Its part of a wilderness area/State recreation area and you can't fly there anyway.

Looks to me like the temporary zone extends out beyond the normal no fly zone in some areas. Hard to tell until after the temporary is gone. Then we can compare the two pictures...

dougiefresh27 · Feb 1, 2020

The crash, as are all, a horrible thing. But if pilots, drone pilots, follow the rules this shouldn't be an issue. We are supposed to NOT fly near emergencies, people, vehicles...
That is one place the Remote ID would be a good thing. But I'm not a fan of all the other proposals.

MAvic_South_Oz · Feb 1, 2020

I guess remote ID is needed, to enable authorities to find people flying over such incidents, and events like your superbowl and other such.
Trouble is do they use it to receive automatic notices of minor infringements like a little over max alt briefly, or launching from a public park (local city authority) etc, and fine drone pilots.
If a system was so autonomous, then this would be very tempting to cash strapped govcos.

One day motor vehicles will be fitted with mandatory GPS, monitored for 'our safety', and fines will be issued if you go over some arbitrary speed limit by a few km/hr.
Probably same will happen with droning.

Thomas B · Feb 1, 2020

MAvic_South_Oz said:
I guess remote ID is needed, to enable authorities to find people flying over such incidents, and events like your superbowl and other such.
Trouble is do they use it to receive automatic notices of minor infringements like a little over max alt briefly, or launching from a public park (local city authority) etc, and fine drone pilots.
If a system was so autonomous, then this would be very tempting to cash strapped govcos.

One day motor vehicles will be fitted with mandatory GPS, monitored for 'our safety', and fines will be issued if you go over some arbitrary speed limit by a few km/hr.
Probably same will happen with droning.

Hope not. Right to meet your acuser is constitutional. This, in fact, was the downfall leading to the elimination of photoradar in Arizona.... now back to drones....

SkyDogII · Feb 23, 2020

The ntsb used drones on this site. Specifically to try and duplicate the dead pilots flight path. This pilot was cited for doing the same thing years ago. This guy missed the mountain by 30 feet. That’s what they were trying to duplicate.

CactusJackSlade · Feb 24, 2020

SkyDogII said:
The ntsb used drones on this site. Specifically to try and duplicate the dead pilots flight path. This pilot was cited for doing the same thing years ago. This guy missed the mountain by 30 feet. That’s what they were trying to duplicate.

Do you have more info on this? I'd like to read more?

SkyDogII · Feb 24, 2020

No but if you do a search you can see some of the videos. I’ll try to post one.

One last thing. The cars don’t need to be monitored for speed infractions. They have a more restrictive plan in mind. They want to charge you time of use in certain areas of large cites like Los Angeles Once the box knows your in The area you get charged. This is also the plan to reduce traffic and save the planet from climate change. What a bunch of crap.