Miami News Station Chopper Encounters Drone!

[Ragnar]

Another claim. Still no proof.

Why would I say if it wasn't true....I've known Ralph Rayburn for over 25 years....WSVN photographer....he and I used to fly together....the pilot (Joe Mancino) I've known for over 15 years....

 

[Ragnar]

What we do know is at some point the chopper was going 140MPH at 100' altitude over South Florida. I know this really happens from experience since it has blown over my house at that speed and altitude in the past.

No! Unless you live next to an airport....I've known the pilot for over 15 years...he never flies at 100'....except on takeoff and landing!!

 

[JackL]

Yes they go below 800'....usually at the request of ATC....I'll ask him if he followed the drone...to find its location.

I hope the drone operator shows up since it is unclear if any laws were actually being broken here. For all we know the drone was operating legally when the chopper showed up and the operator promptly left the area when it did to keep it that way. This reporting is standard WSVN click bait, imo, I assume they hate drones and don't want any competition from private citizens.

 

[Starz]

Defense of the pilot is fine and I commend you for standing up for your friend.
Still a claim without supported proof.

 

[tlswift58]

News handled it well, but what would we equate this to in real life ?

At some point the FAA has to decide on a Penalty system
that is with in reason to the Crime being committed.

At this point they seem to be winging it for every unfortunate event.

I would like to see a $$$ fine for first warning.
Second warning a Fine and a 1 Year Suspension
Third warning Fine , Suspension and Jail time.

My only way to negotiate this in my mind is to compare it to a DUI driving on the wrong side of the Highway.
DUI clients get a lot of chances before they are even stopped .

What do most think the Penalty should be for 400 ft above and basically Drunk in the sky ??
By {DRUNK } I mean clueless and unaware .


Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain / Snow

I have issue with the over 400 ft part. While this happened in "flatland" Miami, FL, where there should be a 400 ft max, when you live like where I do in mountains and such - 400 ft limit makes it hard to fly in locations where YOU the pilot are standing / flying at one altitude (lower) and the item you want to drone is 600+ ft up a mountain. If I or any drone pilot stayed at under 400 ft AGL - we'd never get close to the shot we're after. So, to capture that 600 ft mountain top, we have to increase our AGL to make it there and typically DO NOT fly the DRONE 400 ft above the mountain we are ascending.

That is the "fallacy" with flying a drone and it simply starts from the location you the pilot are - not the drone itself. With GPS and all the systems these drones have today - there should be some way for the "system" as a whole to understand at what altitude the drone is at - not where the operator is standing. Then, for sure - having a 400 ft max would be possible.

In a scenario like in Miami - what if the drone pilot was on top of a 20 story condo / hi-rise. That puts them already at approx 225-250 feet above street / ground level and if they flew max 400 ft - then they'd be flying "technically" at approx 600+ feet above the ground. Did they break the law / rules by doing so? Some would argue yes, as it's based on ground level; while in truly technical terms - they would not if they stayed at the take-off / launch altitude where they may be located.

 

[Tomk_]

Sorry. No technicality there. 400 ft AGL is 400 ft AGL recardless of elevation of takeoff point.

 

[Mike Mas]

Definitely a new pilot (although this is no excuse) with those stupid legs on (note rubber feet on rear legs and slots in front).
View attachment 124012

10,000 usd fine and confiscation of all the drone equipment for first offense.
They could have caused a catastrophic accident.

Hey I use those "Stupid" rubber feet, I'm not a new pilot . . . . .

 

[Peterson]

My first thought is Florida is surrounded on three sides with ocean which means a whole lot of seagulls. My MP2 weighs less then 2 pounds give or take and an average seagull ways the same or more depending on where you live. So going 140 miles an hour and hitting a drone is bad but so is hitting a seagull. The drone pilot was an idiot and there is no defense but do not make it out that you escaped with your life when you face seagulls every day. Pretty sure the bubble shield can take a bird hit at that speed. Reminds me of the soccer player that falls to the ground to get a penalty called. To me if you make one part of the story over the top what else did you enhance? Just the facts mam just the facts.

 

[Michigan_PI]

What I saw in the video is the drone yielding the airspace and departing as soon as the helicopter was noticed. How is that stupid or careless?

 

[Arnold LeVine]

The location referenced is within the 300 ft auto authorization zone of Tamiami airport per Airmap.
According to the Helo pilot, the drone spotted the helo, and left the area, AS WE ARE supposed to do.
as to the actual altitude, it remains to be seen, the attachment from FlightAware is interesting, but at anything above 300 ft, we have a violation. Just as a matter of interest, if I was flying to get a view of a car driving into a business, I sure as (Mod Removed Language)wouldn't be flying at 800 ft, couldn't see a thing! I'd be more like 100 ft, trying to get close, but avoiding tall structures. Looking at google maps, I dont see a single structure that looks taller than 3 stories.

 

[Badgersurfer]

I am in the UK and when I listen to these sad US BS news channel (just the same with the BBC) reporters it makes me weep. They are making headlines out the the usual unsubstantiated dross they concoct and unfortunately the majority take notice. Let's hope the FAA have a little more integrity and treat their waffle with the contempt it deserves. They are once again condemning drones with not tangible proof and even try to reinforce their BS by quoting the UK Heathrow escapade which also amounted to circumspection with no proof. Of course all these news channels probably fear the day all their fuel guzzling ECO unfriendly choppers currently roaring around the skies will be grounded and replaced by a new breed of youngsters turning up with their eco friendly drones and posting the news LIVE on social media video channels along with a true representation of the circumstances including onscreen telemetry. I have to say though that if all these presenters are made redundant the biggest impact will be on the share value of toupee, wig and makeup companies as will fall into the abyss...

 

[danny_2020]

Wow, that's super dangerous...

 

[MavRik]

When human life is at stake and the drone operator has flagrant disregard for the rules, i.e. chopper was at an elevation of 800 feet and so was the drone and drone was within a 3 mile radius of local airport with no permission requested and received, the drone pilot would be totally responsible. This is why there are rules, it's to keep people and property safe. Situations like this are the cause of the rest of us drone pilots that follow the rules to potentially have more restrictions placed on us because of a few bad apples. It is still under investigation I understand, but it appears more than just a fine would not be appropriate in this situation.

 

[DoomMeister]

Did the chopper go below 800'? Yes. Doesn't appear to have ever reached 800'. Did it chase the drone?? Maybe...View attachment 124017

Well this clearly shows that the helicopter was not hovering at 800 ft and was actually at 400 feet when it went into a hover at the location and started shooting video footage of the drone. While the drone operator should have cleared the area with the approach of the helicopter, it is quite obvious the chopper was not at 800 feet AGL and had never reached that altitude during the entire flight. Maybe there is some more explaining to be done by the 7 News crew.

Don't get me wrong! I am not condoning the drone pilot hanging around after the helicopter came on scene, but from the FlightAware data it appears the drone was never at 800 feet AGL. The area is in Class D airspace with a 400 foot ceiling in the sUAS Facilities Map. This means the drone flight may have been perfectly legal up until the helicopter entered the immediate airspace.

If you want to see the flight records for this aircraft, you can find them here N21CL Flight Tracking and History 19-Feb-2021 (KHWO-KHWO) - FlightAware

 

[Michigan_PI]

When human life is at stake and the drone operator has flagrant disregard for the rules, i.e. chopper was at an elevation of 800 feet and so was the drone and drone was within a 3 mile radius of local airport with no permission requested and received, the drone pilot would be totally responsible. This is why there are rules, it's to keep people and property safe. Situations like this are the cause of the rest of us drone pilots that follow the rules to potentially have more restrictions placed on us because of a few bad apples. It is still investigated I understand, but it appears more than just a fine would not be appropriate in this situation.

You are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions, but in your assumed scenario you are correct. The problem I have is that a LOT of assumptions are being made here and none of them have any real data that can back them up. The helicopter crew "claims" the drone was operating at 800' which at this point, is an unsubstantiated claim and after hearing the camera operator's testimony for the "story", I tend to lean toward him embellishing the story for ratings, that's what the news does.
What we do know as fact is that a news helicopter spotted a drone in the area and the drone vacated immediately. Exactly what the drone operator was supposed to do. Everything else is merely conjecture.

So if you all want to burn this guy at the stake as some sort of sacrifice, don't be hypocritical about it and get out of the hobby.

Just look at all of the fame and notoriety these two guys got out of this, then question motive. You'd think they spotted Bigfoot.

 

[B52-D]

I have issue with the over 400 ft part. While this happened in "flatland" Miami, FL, where there should be a 400 ft max, when you live like where I do in mountains and such - 400 ft limit makes it hard to fly in locations where YOU the pilot are standing / flying at one altitude (lower) and the item you want to drone is 600+ ft up a mountain. If I or any drone pilot stayed at under 400 ft AGL - we'd never get close to the shot we're after. So, to capture that 600 ft mountain top, we have to increase our AGL to make it there and typically DO NOT fly the DRONE 400 ft above the mountain we are ascending.

That is the "fallacy" with flying a drone and it simply starts from the location you the pilot are - not the drone itself. With GPS and all the systems these drones have today - there should be some way for the "system" as a whole to understand at what altitude the drone is at - not where the operator is standing. Then, for sure - having a 400 ft max would be possible.

In a scenario like in Miami - what if the drone pilot was on top of a 20 story condo / hi-rise. That puts them already at approx 225-250 feet above street / ground level and if they flew max 400 ft - then they'd be flying "technically" at approx 600+ feet above the ground. Did they break the law / rules by doing so? Some would argue yes, as it's based on ground level; while in truly technical terms - they would not if they stayed at the take-off / launch altitude where they may be located.

AGL is AGL aboveGROUNDlevel

 

[MavRik]

You are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions, but in your assumed scenario you are correct. The problem I have is that a LOT of assumptions are being made here and none of them have any real data that can back them up. The helicopter crew "claims" the drone was operating at 800' which at this point, is an unsubstantiated claim and after hearing the camera operator's testimony for the "story", I tend to lean toward him embellishing the story for ratings, that's what the news does.
What we do know as fact is that a news helicopter spotted a drone in the area and the drone vacated immediately. Exactly what the drone operator was supposed to do. Everything else is merely conjecture.

So if you all want to burn this guy at the stake as some sort of sacrifice, don't be hypocritical about it and get out of the hobby.

Just look at all of the fame and notoriety these two guys got out of this, then question motive. You'd think they spotted Bigfoot.

I agree, assumptions on my part as I mentioned in the post. If it is true he was in a 3 mile radius of the airport and flying above 400 feet (AGL) if found to be true, then he/she is clearly in the wrong here. Thank goodness all ended well. Safety and following rules is my point.

 

[Michigan_PI]

I agree, assumptions on my part as I mentioned in the post. If it is true he was in a 3 mile radius of the airport and flying above 400 feet (AGL) if found to be true, then he/she is clearly in the wrong here. Thank goodness all ended well. Safety and following rules is my point.

Always safety first and following the rules helps to maintain that.
My issue was the way in which it was presented, leading people to believe it was fact, even though evidence presented shows the news chopper was at 400' feet at the time, even though the crew stated they were at 800'. The crew either blatantly or unknowingly presented false conditions as fact. This is where all of it goes sideways and gives us law biding, rule following, safety conscious hobbyists a black eye.
Did the drone operator break any laws or rules? Probably not, in fact, all evidence suggests he did the proper thing by yielding the airspace as soon as he noticed the chopper was in some proximity (and we really don't even know how close it actually was). I'm really having issues with the statements given by the news crew.

 

[MavRik]

Always safety first and following the rules helps to maintain that.
My issue was the way in which it was presented, leading people to believe it was fact, even though evidence presented shows the news chopper was at 400' feet at the time, even though the crew stated they were at 800'. The crew either blatantly or unknowingly presented false conditions as fact. This is where all of it goes sideways and gives us law biding, rule following, safety conscious hobbyists a black eye.
Did the drone operator break any laws or rules? Probably not, in fact, all evidence suggests he did the proper thing by yielding the airspace as soon as he noticed the chopper was in some proximity (and we really don't even know how close it actually was). I'm really having issues with the statements given by the news crew.

Agree and once the results of the investigation are released, a better judgment of this incident can be made by everyone. Safety first is paramount.

 

[Davros007]

News handled it well, but what would we equate this to in real life ?

At some point the FAA has to decide on a Penalty system
that is with in reason to the Crime being committed.

At this point they seem to be winging it for every unfortunate event.

I would like to see a $$$ fine for first warning.
Second warning a Fine and a 1 Year Suspension
Third warning Fine , Suspension and Jail time.

My only way to negotiate this in my mind is to compare it to a DUI driving on the wrong side of the Highway.
DUI clients get a lot of chances before they are even stopped .

What do most think the Penalty should be for 400 ft above and basically Drunk in the sky ??
By {DRUNK } I mean clueless and unaware .


Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain / Snow

So succinct- couldn’t put it better myself! Simple laws with simple responses like road rules, that don’t take up courts time or end up with a father in gaol for flying his kids new toy in the wrong place. Open to change and modification but based on science and the intention of the person involved. But that would be sensible!