Oh Boy... some one is in trouble...

[Pietros]

I wouldn't be so quick to reply negatively. With the information presented, I would be hard pressed to rule for the prosecution, if I was on a jury. Not enough evidence to show the defendant was flying illegally. If he can even begin to show he was truly trying to leave the area, there would be no valid reason for the charges and the case would be dropped. Of course, we haven't seen all the evidence, so we all will have to wait for the trial. I suspect the charges will be dropped, rather than spend the money on a trial that is of little consequence in the scheme of things. (I seriously doubt a small drone could bring down a helicopter. I have seen rotor strikes on geese that did no damage, and a flying goose is much larger (and heavier) than a hobby drone. In Vietnam, Huey pilots often had to 'chop' their way through trees and high brush in order to land, with little hinderance to flying up and out of the LZ)

Anywho......let's just wait for the trial and see what happens.

I used to work with a Navy helo pilot who talked about the DIY LZ in his Vietnam tours. Those UH1H were built like a brick dunny though.

 

[cgmaxed]

There's a clue here to the dumb drone operator, quote "....in the early hours of the morning ...."

What on earth was he doing flying at that time ????

Early morning gives shots of the best sunrises. Not everyone sleeps past dawn.

 

[Hughes820]

What an idiot!! Thx buddy for wrecking it for everyone!!! Smh

Hollywood Man Arrested For Crashing Drone Into LAPD Chopper

Authorities say it's the first criminal case in the nation in which a person has been charged with unsafely operating a drone.

losangeles.cbslocal.com

Noooooo! What an idiot!!

 

[DanMan32]

His biggest mistake was flying up to check out the scene and in less than ideal flight conditions (low light)

What's missing from the account though is how high was the copter and how fast was it moving? I realize we have to give way to manned aircraft but if a manned aircraft, even a copter is below 500 ft and moving quickly, he bears some of the responsibility.

Pedestrians, particularly blind ones have right of way on the roadways, but if they just walk right into the road without checking for traffic, he bears the responsibility of being hit. The driver of the vehicle is not charged.

As for the model flown, newscasts often show stock footage not directly related to the event.

 

[maelstrom]

but if a manned aircraft, even a copter is below 500 ft and moving quickly, he bears some of the responsibility.

No, he doesn’t - drones must always give way to manned aircraft! There are perfectly legitimate reasons for helicopters to fly below 500ft (being a police helicopter is definitely one of them). Spotting a drone in full daylight is difficult enough but would be almost impossible in the early hours of the morning.

 

[Thomas B]

No, he doesn’t - drones must always give way to manned aircraft! There are perfectly legitimate reasons for helicopters to fly below 500ft (being a police helicopter is definitely one of them). Spotting a drone in full daylight is difficult enough but would be almost impossible in the early hours of the morning.

The reason I use Firehouse ARC XLs for nav lights. Certified to 3.5 miles visibility... but honestly solid for maybe a mile. Best seen in low light conditions of late evening, night, or press rise dawn.

 

[maelstrom]

The reason I use Firehouse ARC XLs for nav lights. Certified to 3.5 miles visibility... but honestly solid for maybe a mile. Best seen in low light conditions of late evening, night, or press rise dawn.

The problem with lights like that is that, although you may be able to see them, it’s very difficult for the manned aircraft to work out what it‘s looking at and how far away it is - it it a drone close by or something much larger (a full size aircraft) a long way away? Most real pilots wouldn’t expect to see a drone with lights at night so would probably identify it wrongly, especially if they are just single-colour strobes.

 

[Repaid1]

The problem with lights like that is that, although you may be able to see them, it’s very difficult for the manned aircraft to work out what it‘s looking at and how far away it is - it it a drone close by or something much larger (a full size aircraft) a long way away? Most real pilots wouldn’t expect to see a drone with lights at night so would probably identify it wrongly, especially if they are just single-colour strobes.

Distance yes, but flight path or at matching altitude and/or hovering not so much. But all is moot as you know the "kid" didn't have strobes (presumably) and the nav lights on Mavics are a joke at more than 1000 ft. He had every right to be where he was, he did not however have the right to impede a full size aircraft. Everything else is speculation given data available.

 

[itsneedtokno]

The problem with lights like that is that, although you may be able to see them, it’s very difficult for the manned aircraft to work out what it‘s looking at and how far away it is - it it a drone close by or something much larger (a full size aircraft) a long way away? Most real pilots wouldn’t expect to see a drone with lights at night so would probably identify it wrongly, especially if they are just single-colour strobes.

Most real pilots see a blinky thing in the sky and change their flight path. It usually denotes an object in the sky, which pilots tend to want to avoid. ?

 

[maelstrom]

Most real pilots see a blinky thing in the sky and change their flight path. It usually denotes an object in the sky, which pilots tend to want to avoid. ?

Most real pilots try to avoid changing their flight path if they can avoid it. If pilots changed path every time they saw a “blinky thing in the sky”, they’d probably never get anywhere at night in populated areas. That’s the problem with a drone that has a strobe on it. You wouldn’t necessarily see it as something flying and unless it’s moving across your field of view, there’s just no easy way to even attempt to work out your distance from it.

 

[itsneedtokno]

Most real pilots try to avoid changing their flight path if they can avoid it. If pilots changed path every time they saw a “blinky thing in the sky”, they’d probably never get anywhere at night in populated areas. That’s the problem with a drone that has a strobe on it. You wouldn’t necessarily see it as something flying and unless it’s moving across your field of view, there’s just no easy way to even attempt to work out your distance from it.

You are correct about flight paths. Flight plans are made for a reason.

I was just saying that for preservation of life, pilots would tend to avoid a strobe of any type.

I am not saying any of what that guy did is the right thing to do, I'm just saying that strobes have their place. A pilot, although they wouldn't necessarily want to, would avoid a midair strobe. If the pilot thinks to themselves, "what's that thing blinking?", I highly doubt they would fly closer to find out.

Not trying to start "sheet"... Having a great Sunday, hope you are too. I'm just posting from the point of, strobes are not pointless. (Not that you said they were either)

 

[dronerdave]

Lots of speculation here as the article was very vague. The only thing stated was:
he admitted that on the morning of the incident, he had heard approaching sirens and decided to fly the drone “to see what was going on,”
If in fact this is true (news articles are often overly exaggerated), he's dumb that he even attempted to go see what was going on at an emergency operation and dumber that he admitted to doing so. Lights have nothing to do with it. The helicopter pilot seeing or not seeing the drone generally has nothing to do with it. Even if the drone operator was within VLOS, he might be in trouble by admitting he was heading toward and disrupted an emergency operation.

 

[DanMan32]

No, he doesn’t - drones must always give way to manned aircraft! There are perfectly legitimate reasons for helicopters to fly below 500ft (being a police helicopter is definitely one of them). Spotting a drone in full daylight is difficult enough but would be almost impossible in the early hours of the morning.

Legally that's true, but there's a practicality to it too, much like I described with blind pedestrians. If a plane/copter flies at 200ft altitude at cruising speed, a drone operator may have a hard time assessing the situation and getting out of the way in time. Even a copter should not be cruising at low altitudes. Hover and move slowly, sure, but it's not asking too much to go up a few 100ft to cruise.

Now that doesn't seem to apply in this article, since the pilot sought out to get in the way.

 

[Luckygecko]

Per the FAA:

Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason: they have unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is their ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power-out emergencies. Furthermore, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility.

 

[cgmaxed]

The reason I use Firehouse ARC XLs for nav lights. Certified to 3.5 miles visibility... but honestly solid for maybe a mile. Best seen in low light conditions of late evening, night, or press rise dawn.

I fly recreational. I use a minimum of 4 firehouse XL anti collision lights at dusk,dawn and night, sometimes I use 6 of them for complete coverage. I sometimes, even put a couple on during daylight. They emit a high pitched beeping sound if you crash your drone , the sound helps find the drone. I wonder if this guy just flew in low light conditions with no anti-collision lights. He was also flying without an FAA identity number, i guess, as the police had to look at his SD card to find out who he was. He broke a lot of common rules. No anti-collision lights, no manned aircraft avoidance, probably out of VLOS, interfering with 1st responders and no FAA number. He is screwed....... Oh,speeking of lights, check out my 15,000 lumen spot light for seeing the ground at night. Even at 300 feet I can still see the ground very well. I made it myself, I took apart two high powered LED lamps and attached a small, light, high powered 3s 11.1v battery to the 2 lights. It takes about 10 minutes of my flight time, but it is awesome.

 

[cgmaxed]

You are correct about flight paths. Flight plans are made for a reason.

I was just saying that for preservation of life, pilots would tend to avoid a strobe of any type.

I am not saying any of what that guy did is the right thing to do, I'm just saying that strobes have their place. A pilot, although they wouldn't necessarily want to, would avoid a midair strobe. If the pilot thinks to themselves, "what's that thing blinking?", I highly doubt they would fly closer to find out.

Not trying to start "sheet"... Having a great Sunday, hope you are too. I'm just posting from the point of, strobes are not pointless. (Not that you said they were either)

I can't be sure, but I think I have seen some small aircraft avoid my drone a few times. I live next to a public municipal airport. Drones aren't restricted, but I do report to LAANC anyway. My drone has 4 Firehouse XL strobes on it. I obey VLOS, I wasn't in the airports take off or landing corridors, but my house is pretty close. I'm never sure which way the planes are going to go when they take off, so I just lower my altitude as much as I can (without losing my radio signal) and spin the aircraft, to make sure the plane can see the strobes if it's close. Those small aircraft don't climb very fast and are often only 250- 300 ft above my house. Because they leave their flight corridors early they end up at low altitudes over my neighborhood. I wish they wouldn't do that, but they do. All i can do is hover low and wait. I don't want to move my drone, as this could confuse the pilot(s). They wouldn't know which way I'm going. I wish I had a radio. Drone, flying at 200-300 ft, at latitude blah ,and longitude blah, do not leave your flight corridor or enter until you are at or above above 400 ft. I usually hear them from far off, so I make adjustments, Its just when they leave or enter the flight corridor early at 200 ft. wish they wouldn't do that. They often enter their flight corridors early, instead of flying in from the end of the corridor. To do this they fly in at low altitude above my neighborhood and then turn into the corridor early, The Mavic Air 2s ADS-B helps a bit. But I also use other drones without ADS-B. And what's the deal with Helicopters, Emergency and Police never turn on their ADS Transmitters. Only commercial Heli's seem to do so.

 

[B52-D]

---

Busted! Drone Pilot Suspected of Hitting LAPD Helo Is Arrested​

When Special Agents with the FBI come knocking on your Drone door, you probably are thinking that you should have had your thinking cap on before you launched that last flight.

Federal Charges Allege Pilot Recklessly Operated Drone​

Using data from the remnants of a drone that hit an LAPD helo last September and other evidence, the Feds believe they have found the operator of the errant aircraft.

Special agents with the FBI this week arrested a Hollywood man on a federal charge alleging that he recklessly operated a drone that crashed into a Los Angeles Police Department helicopter.

The drone damaged the LAPD aircraft and the pilot was forced to initiate an emergency landing. The drone also damaged a vehicle when the unmanned aircraft fell from the sky after the crash.

Andrew Rene Hernandez (pictured), 22, was arrested pursuant to a criminal complaint filed Wednesday that charges him with one count of unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft.

According to the complaint filed in United States District Court, during the early morning hours of September 18, LAPD officers responded to a burglary call at a pharmacy in Hollywood. The responding officers requested air support, and an LAPD helicopter flew toward the scene. As the helicopter approached the pharmacy, the pilot saw the drone and attempted to evade the unmanned aircraft.

Despite the evasive efforts, the drone stuck the helicopter, forcing the pilot to initiate an emergency landing. The drone damaged the helicopter’s nose, antenna and bottom cowlings. According to the complaint, “if the drone had struck the helicopter’s main rotor instead of the fuselage, it could have brought the helicopter down.”

LAPD officers located parts of the drone near the pharmacy and discovered a vehicle damaged by the drone as it fell from the sky. Further investigation, including a review of the drone’s camera and SD card, led to the identification of Hernandez as the drone’s operator.

The FBI executed additional search warrants in late October at Hernandez’s residence. Hernandez admitted to flying the drone on September 18 after he heard police vehicles and an approaching helicopter just after midnight. According to the complaint, Hernandez said he flew his drone “to see what was going on.” As the drone was ascending, Hernandez saw the drone “smacked” by the hovering police helicopter, and it fell to the ground at a nearby residence, the complaint states.

FMI: www.justice.gov​

 

[Repaid1]

---

Busted! Drone Pilot Suspected of Hitting LAPD Helo Is Arrested​

When Special Agents with the FBI come knocking on your Drone door, you probably are thinking that you should have had your thinking cap on before you launched that last flight.

Federal Charges Allege Pilot Recklessly Operated Drone​

Using data from the remnants of a drone that hit an LAPD helo last September and other evidence, the Feds believe they have found the operator of the errant aircraft.

Special agents with the FBI this week arrested a Hollywood man on a federal charge alleging that he recklessly operated a drone that crashed into a Los Angeles Police Department helicopter.

The drone damaged the LAPD aircraft and the pilot was forced to initiate an emergency landing. The drone also damaged a vehicle when the unmanned aircraft fell from the sky after the crash.

Andrew Rene Hernandez (pictured), 22, was arrested pursuant to a criminal complaint filed Wednesday that charges him with one count of unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft.

According to the complaint filed in United States District Court, during the early morning hours of September 18, LAPD officers responded to a burglary call at a pharmacy in Hollywood. The responding officers requested air support, and an LAPD helicopter flew toward the scene. As the helicopter approached the pharmacy, the pilot saw the drone and attempted to evade the unmanned aircraft.

Despite the evasive efforts, the drone stuck the helicopter, forcing the pilot to initiate an emergency landing. The drone damaged the helicopter’s nose, antenna and bottom cowlings. According to the complaint, “if the drone had struck the helicopter’s main rotor instead of the fuselage, it could have brought the helicopter down.”

LAPD officers located parts of the drone near the pharmacy and discovered a vehicle damaged by the drone as it fell from the sky. Further investigation, including a review of the drone’s camera and SD card, led to the identification of Hernandez as the drone’s operator.

The FBI executed additional search warrants in late October at Hernandez’s residence. Hernandez admitted to flying the drone on September 18 after he heard police vehicles and an approaching helicopter just after midnight. According to the complaint, Hernandez said he flew his drone “to see what was going on.” As the drone was ascending, Hernandez saw the drone “smacked” by the hovering police helicopter, and it fell to the ground at a nearby residence, the complaint states.

FMI: www.justice.gov​

The purpose of this post...was??? I mean we are already discussing a post that includes all of the stuff you posted many days later? Just say'n

 

[dronerdave]

Well that's a bit more info than the first article (was there a second article link I missed?) and if he actually did see the chopper hit his drone and did nothing about it, he just went from dumb and dumber to idiot. Still it's a news article that may have scewed it one way or another for obvious reasons but my guess is it's fairly accurate. The court will be more telling. I find it funny how people justify their flights. All it takes is one thing to go wrong and they start making excuses why they feel their flights are safe while breaking the laws. Black eye to those of us who follow the rules.

 

[B52-D]

Well that's a bit more info than the first article (was there a second article link I missed?) and if he actually did see the chopper hit his drone and did nothing about it, he just went from dumb and dumber to idiot. Still it's a news article that may have scewed it one way or another for obvious reasons but my guess is it's fairly accurate. The court will be more telling. I find it funny how people justify their flights. All it takes is one thing to go wrong and they start making excuses why they feel their flights are safe while breaking the laws. Black eye to those of us who follow the rules.