DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Man arrested for flying drone over deadly Mansfield ATV crash

If you fly toward or launch to see some kind of emergency situation you should be held accountable. It's common sense to avoid these areas. If I'm all already up and happen upon an emergency operation in progress, I'd quickly leave the area and return to home ASAP. It might be a good idea to notify the agency in charge and explain you didn't know about the emergency and tell them you have landed your drone. Maybe even offer up any video that was running as you retreated if they need it. Not too sure about what this guy did but even popping up from your back yard to snoop around an emergency operation is a very stupid move IMO.
 
Good info. Also, if anyone has a job to take pictures and video of a "Bank", get a lot of authorization first from whoever hired you or you will have to come back or worse when people on the ground have no idea why.
 
I feel like there -should- be a difference between “popping up in your backyard” (on your own property!) versus flying into a zone.

I know the FAA controls every inch of airspace in the US, from ground to space. But my actual backyard, below 400’ AGL, VLOS, watching for and yielding to manned aircraft? That seems like it should be okay.

Was he truly over his own property?
 
These are generally good suggestions to follow, but the law which was linked to above, does not appear to prohibit flight near an emergency, or near a scene where an emergency was earlier:

Here is the actual text of the law concerning hobby flights:


You should not fly near the scene of an emergency without permission, but doing so in a way that does not interfere with responders does not appear to be unlawful.

If someone can cite the federal law that prohibits this activity I would appreciate it.

It is inappropriate to arrest someone who isn’t suspected of breaking a law.
Not correct. As previously noted, here is the text of the current law.
  1. Never fly near emergencies such as any type of accident response, law enforcement activities, firefighting, or hurricane recovery efforts.
The operator was breaking the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted member 877
I feel like there -should- be a difference between “popping up in your backyard” (on your own property!) versus flying into a zone.

I know the FAA controls every inch of airspace in the US, from ground to space. But my actual backyard, below 400’ AGL, VLOS, watching for and yielding to manned aircraft? That seems like it should be okay.

Was he truly over his own property?

If your backyard is in an NFZ then you must not fly your drone there - PERIOD. Thinking that it "seems like it should be Okay" is up to you but it doesn't justify breaking the law.
 
I feel like there -should- be a difference between “popping up in your backyard” (on your own property!) versus flying into a zone.

I know the FAA controls every inch of airspace in the US, from ground to space. But my actual backyard, below 400’ AGL, VLOS, watching for and yielding to manned aircraft? That seems like it should be okay.

And how does he know an aerial asset hasn't been requested which means hed be in the way? The fact hes in the air at all can mean those being called off.
Theres also nothing to guarantee he'd stay over his own yard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted member 877
Arrested for obstructing official business seems like an overreach to me. Was his actions humane? Probably not. But unless there was a NOTAM closing the airspace above the crash site or the drone was directly interfering with the ability to work the scene, I’d say the gentleman didn’t break any laws (without me knowing any local or state laws obviously). Last I checked, being an inhuman moron was not illegal.
Good points. It is an issue of ethics and morals, something globally lacking. Is a quadcopter, with it's capable camera, becoming a flying mobile / cell phone allowing access to social media to report on every facet of our lives and others?
There seems a need driving some people to record and distribute everything, particularly a tragic incident, without a second thought. Can you legislate for moral bankruptcy?
 
Its about likes.
Post some photos of a gorey accident and you'll get the ego boost that comes with 100s of views and likes. Its as shallow as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Fat Controller
In the UK it is illegal to fly a drone over any serious incident that may require medical assistance because it would interfere with, and restrict, the effectiveness of emergency services such as medivac.
It's a matter of common sense.
Whilst I agree that it’s common sense, I can’t agree that it is a definitive offence, primarily because of the use of “may” as opposed to “will” .
Is that just your interpretation of the “guidance” or are you quoting from a specific order that has recently been published.
I don’t have an axe to grind and not having a pop at you, as I always adhere to guidelines.
But if anything new is published I would like to see it, as I never want to fly illegally.
 
From a UK perspective at least, ultimately its not an aviation law, its a standard interfering with an accident terrestrial laws.

You wont ever get black and white - it comes down to common sense and the acid test is if it came to court, could you justify your actions to a judge. If you dont with all good conscience think you could justify your flight to a judge then dont do it. Accident or not.

This is true of all land based actions as well, its rare to get black and white rules, its all about justifying yourself in the event it goes wrong.

Ultimately any accident may require emergency service response, may require air evacuation and so on. As a civilian you have no idea what assets are needed or have been requested so ultimately stay away if you know its there and the services are on scene. So you have no way of knowing if your presence is causing potential problems or not, so get out of there.

If you happen to be flying and you spot an accident or see one happen, by all means alert the emergency services - you wont get into trouble from that because its justifiable. If you're flying and you notice one that the emergency services are around then simply stay away and leave the area. Preserve the logs if you want to be extra careful. Again thats justifiable.

In a big, grown up adult world its all about being able to make responsible decisions and justify those to others if needed. Nobody is going to tell you exactly what you can and cant do.

For example a lot of UK aviation (and drone therefore) legislation states you must be satisfied the flight can be safely made. They wont tell you how to do that, wont give you a yes or no BUT its your responsibility to justify that to a 3rd party if required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MavicFlyer
If your backyard is in an NFZ then you must not fly your drone there - PERIOD. Thinking that it "seems like it should be Okay" is up to you but it doesn't justify breaking the law.

I know plenty of people who have an NFZ/TFR for a backyard. I get it. But maybe they need to put some common-sense laws in place for property owners?

I know there are extremes, both in height and size. You can have a property that’s 1000 acres and you’re allowed to fly your sUAS up to 400’ AGL. So that’s a lot of area. So I get that.

But I live on a suburban plot, 120’x60’, 20 miles from the city. Farmland. My house is 20-30’ tall. I am surrounded by 40-50’ trees. Across the road are 100’ high tension wires. I feel like they should take those things into account when saying you can’t fly in an area.

Example: why should I not be allowed to take off literally in my own backyard? They should have to ask ME to be within the bubble of my house structure, tall trees.

I’m not saying I should be allowed to violate a NFZ/TFR above those lines but some of these rules lack common-sense, and give property owners ZERO rights to their own property above ground.

That’s the part I contest.

How high was the guy flying? Was he actually over his property? Was he getting too close to the police sUAV? Were there actually other aircraft in the area? Did he fail to yield? Did he give the officials back talk? Was he given directions? Did he comply?

Again...own backyard (if true), should give you a little leeway.

But I’m thinking my own backyard, 60’ x 30’.

Maybe we need to establish property owner air rights now? Below 200’ or whatever?
 
I feel like there -should- be a difference between “popping up in your backyard” (on your own property!) versus flying into a zone.

I know the FAA controls every inch of airspace in the US, from ground to space. But my actual backyard, below 400’ AGL, VLOS, watching for and yielding to manned aircraft? That seems like it should be okay.
CC
I agree. I live well outside any NFZs in a suburban area surrounded by 75 foot maple trees. Any manned aircraft flying below 75 feet are going to have more to worry about than my Mavic. The closest place for a helicopter to land without clipping the rotors on trees is about a mile a way in the middle school football field.

This is one of the reasons I don't do much flying at home. Once you get above the canopy you quickly lose VLOS unless you fly straight up. The only time I fly at home is after a firmware update or after I do a calibration. I much prefer to fly at my sister-in-laws where there is wide open spaces, Class G airspace for miles in all directions and the closest house is over a mile away.
 
I’m not saying I should be allowed to violate a NFZ/TFR above those lines but some of these rules lack common-sense, and give property owners ZERO rights to their own property above ground.

Because they have no guarantee the drone will remain that low or over that tiny area. Someone may fly it higher "to take a peek". Or "just a bit outside the garden". That could be deliberate or by accident.
They also have no guarantee a malfunction of the drone wont cause it to violate altitude or horizontal restrictions and cause a problem with existing traffic.

We're not dealing with trained pilots here (operator is a better term) and we're certainly not dealing with an "aircraft" that meets even basic aviation safety standards regarding control, redundant systems, emergency responses and so on.
 
Not correct. As previously noted, here is the text of the current law.
  1. Never fly near emergencies such as any type of accident response, law enforcement activities, firefighting, or hurricane recovery efforts.
The operator was breaking the law.

It's important to distinguish suggestions and guidelines from actual law. That statement doesn't appear in any current law - it's from the FAA guidelines on recreational use of UAVs.

 
CC
I agree. I live well outside any NFZs in a suburban area surrounded by 75 foot maple trees. Any manned aircraft flying below 75 feet are going to have more to worry about than my Mavic. The closest place for a helicopter to land without clipping the rotors on trees is about a mile a way in the middle school football field.

This is one of the reasons I don't do much flying at home. Once you get above the canopy you quickly lose VLOS unless you fly straight up. The only time I fly at home is after a firmware update or after I do a calibration. I much prefer to fly at my sister-in-laws where there is wide open spaces, Class G airspace for miles in all directions and the closest house is over a mile away.

Conversely, I’m doing one of those “take the same shot every day from 300’ AGL, and see how it differs over the course of a year” projects. Literally my own backyard. Every day.

So, as a photographer, I follow all the rules/laws of flying a sUAV, because I like to be in compliance. I watch for aircraft. I yield when I need to. (Haven’t had to yet.) I only fly during the official day. My aircraft is registered. I plan on getting my Part 107, and if the recreational user test comes out before that, I’ll take it.

But I still think there should be a law that protects a legal bubble above-ground. We’ll see how this all works out.

In most respects, I see where the FAA is doing a great job managing the national airspace in the U.S.

In other respects, they’re a tyrant, especially when it comes to property rights. If I own a 30-story skyscraper, I should be able to fly around that tower with impunity. Aircraft should know the height of my tower and always fly over it. Right?

Anyway...it’s Sunday. Time to go fly my Mavic Air before it gets too hot.
 
I know plenty of people who have an NFZ/TFR for a backyard. I get it. But maybe they need to put some common-sense laws in place for property owners?

I know there are extremes, both in height and size. You can have a property that’s 1000 acres and you’re allowed to fly your sUAS up to 400’ AGL. So that’s a lot of area. So I get that.

But I live on a suburban plot, 120’x60’, 20 miles from the city. Farmland. My house is 20-30’ tall. I am surrounded by 40-50’ trees. Across the road are 100’ high tension wires. I feel like they should take those things into account when saying you can’t fly in an area.

Example: why should I not be allowed to take off literally in my own backyard? They should have to ask ME to be within the bubble of my house structure, tall trees.

I’m not saying I should be allowed to violate a NFZ/TFR above those lines but some of these rules lack common-sense, and give property owners ZERO rights to their own property above ground.

That’s the part I contest.

How high was the guy flying? Was he actually over his property? Was he getting too close to the police sUAV? Were there actually other aircraft in the area? Did he fail to yield? Did he give the officials back talk? Was he given directions? Did he comply?

Again...own backyard (if true), should give you a little leeway.

But I’m thinking my own backyard, 60’ x 30’.

Maybe we need to establish property owner air rights now? Below 200’ or whatever?

With regard to TFRs those are all vague and difficult questions to answer. That's why there is a simple law in place, and why pilots of manned aircraft don't have the leeway to say "yes, I was flying in the TFR but I wasn't really very near the actual event that it was created to protect".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarand
With regard to TFRs those are all vague and difficult questions to answer. That's why there is a simple law in place, and why pilots of manned aircraft don't have the leeway to say "yes, I was flying in the TFR but I wasn't really very near the actual event that it was created to protect".

One of the reasons why I like this forum so much is, you learn a lot if you read all the legitimate information offered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
I tend to agree. I find Law Enforcement Officers, who have a job to do, as reasonable people. I don't know the facts, but I can imagine he would have first been requested to not fly in the area in light of the ongoing emergency and how he responded to that request may have caused a negative response from Law Enforcement. I would love to know more of those facts.
 
Cops stay out of our space. We are there promoting organ transplants, shipments, etc. What of they dont stop. It just some high school kid whose a cop.
 
It's important to distinguish suggestions and guidelines from actual law. That statement doesn't appear in any current law - it's from the FAA guidelines on recreational use of UAVs.

I generally try to read rather than respond to forum comments and I personally respect anything you write. You are probably the most valuable member of the forum.

Perhaps I was a little strong to say he violated the law. However, laws give the authorization and direction to the FAA to issue regulations and guidelines for the national airspace that have the authority of law.

My point continues to be we are our own worst enemy. The press and politicians will continue to use isolated instances of questionable behavior of a few individuals against all of us. It’s great to declare one has a right to the air above your property even if it’s in a NFZ. Or that the system should be somehow be modified to accommodate you. Hopefully, implementation of LAANC will provide some relief to those who wat to fly in parts of NFZs. But, unless we do a better job self policing to the existing rules and guidelines we (In the USA at least) will continue to have more and more restrictions put on our hobby. We’re not guns. Our Constitution will not protect us.

And again SAR104, thanks for all the great work you do for this forum.
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,584
Messages
1,554,091
Members
159,586
Latest member
maniac2000