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

Police hold drone hysteria press event in Pennsylvania

I guess I thought it was a relatively polite public service article essentially stating that if you are flying in an area with helicopter activity, a collision could cause damage, so be a good droner and stay out of the way. In reference to the Kobe Bryant crash the article only states that they had to make the crash site a restricted zone because of drone operators trying to get a view of the crash, which is an illegal activity. I don't have any problem with the article.
 
nothing new there ,no responsible UAV pilot would fly their drone when emergency services or LE helis were flying
 
There was no incident involving a drone that prompted this press conference. It’s also illegal to resist arrest, or to interfere with police when they are making an arrest. Yet resisting arrest and interfering with police are far more common occurrences than drone interference. Why not a press conference reminding people that resisting arrest is against the law?
 
Nobody said you didn't have a right to a different point of view. As I read it, there were five responders so far including yourself. And two of you thought the police article was over the top, and three others including myself (and one British citizen) found the article to be relatively balanced. To me, that demonstrates our right to express different points of view. But, as Thomas B stated, one should be polite in the expression of their views.
 
nothing new there ,no responsible UAV pilot would fly their drone when emergency services or LE helis were flying

IMO if anyone does knowingly & intentionally fly in such a way as to interfere with emergency services, the penalty should be severe (a felony). I’ve read multiple accounts of drones interfering with wildfire operations, causing firefighting aircraft to land (or stay grounded), and it just boggles the mind.
 
i don't think it needs an incident for such an event to take place, and if such an event saves lives then i am sure no one would not say that that was not a good thing ,i agree that there is a lot of biased reporting in the media regarding the use of drones ,but in this instance the article was not anti drone ,it just reported on the event in a balanced manner ,as i said before no responsible minded drone pilot would fly their drone in such circumstances, and if they did, then they should be dealt with appropriately
 
If your position is that following the law or not should be optional then you shouldn't be a free American citizen.
If you act irresponsibly with a quad, and don’t want to follow laws, or otherwise act dangerously or irresponsibly, then you should not have a drone.

if you do not agree with a news article, or the slant of a news article, or you think you critically, that has nothing to do with whether you follow good laws or whether you should fly a drone.
 
If you act irresponsibly with a quad, and don’t want to follow laws, or otherwise act dangerously or irresponsibly, then you should not have a drone.

That was my point - your provocative use of the word "hysteria" in the thread title implied, at least to me, that you disagree with the laws that were being publicized at the event.
if you do not agree with a news article, or the slant of a news article, or you think you critically, that has nothing to do with whether you follow good laws or whether you should fly a drone.

So what is your opinion on the message of the event and the reporting on it?
 
That was my point - your provocative use of the word "hysteria" in the thread title implied, at least to me, that you disagree with the laws that were being publicized at the event.


So what is your opinion on the message of the event and the reporting on it?
In Pennsylvania we have an infamous political corruption problem. Our state treasurer blew his head off with a .357 Magnum at a press conference the day before he was to be sentenced in a bribery case. Our well-known football coach, Joe Paterno, was fired without a hearing following revelations that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, for years was sexually abusing boys.

I am a seasoned media professional in Pennsylvania. I can tell you that if some group or individual were to come out opposed to rampant political corruption in Pennsylvania it would not receive coverage without a relevant ‘news hook’ or event that made it relevant. And I can guarantee you that the state police would never hold a press event advising politicians not to accept bribes.

In Pennsylvania there have been several recent events were drivers have killed or injured others by driving the wrong way down an interstate or the turnpike. In these instances, an intoxicated individual piloted a 3,000 lb. piece of machinery the wrong direction down a public roadway, gravely endangering others. Yet, if the state police were to hold a press event and warn the public not to drive their cars the wrong way down a street, people would say that’s ridiculous, and common sense.

The observation in this post is that their was no event involving a drone interfering with first responders that warranted this press event or article. And so, yes, I see this article as an example of the current anti-drone hysteria.

You my not agree, and power to you.

I would say that Pennsylvania, as the article mentions in passing, just passed a law forbidding the use of drones for ‘surveillance’ or ‘invasion of privacy.’ There seems to be great confusion about what that means in Pennsylvania. Does that mean, have some have worried, that any photograph or video of someone’s private property from 400 feet qualifies one for an arrest?

I’d note that no one, to my knowledge, has yet to be prosecuted under this new drone law. But a press conference discussing what is or is not allowed by this newly enacted law would be more educational and worthwhile to the public than the above article which yes, to me, seems rooted in current hysteria.
 
Last edited:
In Pennsylvania we have an infamous political corruption problem. Our state treasurer blew his head off with a .357 Magnum at a press conference the day before he was to be sentenced in a bribery case. Our well-known football coach, Joe Paterno, was fired without a hearing following revelations that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, for years was sexually abusing boys.

I am a seasoned media professional in Pennsylvania. I can tell you that if some group or individual were to come out opposed to rampant political corruption in Pennsylvania it would not receive coverage without a relevant ‘news hook’ or event that made it relevant. And I can guarantee you that the state police would never hold a press event advising politicians not to accept bribes.

In Pennsylvania there have been several recent events were drivers have killed or injured others by driving the wrong way down an interstate or the turnpike. In these instances, an intoxicated individual piloted a 3,000 lb. piece of machinery the wrong direction down a public roadway, gravely endangering others. Yet, if the state police were to hold a press event and warn the public not to drive their cars the wrong way down a street, people would say that’s ridiculous, and common sense.

You are completely correct in those observations, but that's a false comparison. It turns out that while it's common sense to know that it's illegal to take bribes and drive on the wrong side of the road, aviation rules completely elude large numbers of drone users.
The observation in this post is that their was no event involving a drone interfering with first responders that warranted this press event or article. And so, yes, I see this article as an example of the current anti-drone hysteria.

And yet there are numerous documented cases, with increasing frequency, of drones interfering with emergency operations.
I would say that Pennsylvania, as the article mentions in passing, just passed a law forbidding the use of drones for ‘surveillance’ or ‘invasion of privacy.’ There seems to be great confusion about what that means in Pennsylvania. Does that mean, have some have worried, that any photograph or video of someone’s private property from 400 feet qualifies one for an arrest?

I think that you will find that the law references intent to surveil, not just incidental images.
I’d note that no one, to my knowledge, has yet to be prosecuted under this new drone law. But a press conference discussing what is or is not allowed by this newly enacted law would be more educational and worthwhile to the public than the above article which yes, to me, seems rooted in current hysteria.

The hysteria appears to be in your mind - as far as I can tell this event and article were completely devoid of hysteria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cymruflyer
There was no incident involving a drone that prompted this press conference.

I can see your point for sure, and couple with the fact PA is the whole countrys span from the Kobe crash . . . is EVERY state govco between / above / below going to issue the same warning ?
And see it written up like an incident there ?

This does look a little hysteric, both the media statement, and the reporting.

Personally, I feel the FAA should be doing all the warnings like this, why has the leading authority and regulator not sent such a warning out to all the registered part 107 and hobbyists on their system, they would have email addresses I'm sure.
Or have they (ever issued a warning / reminder) ?

Nothing wrong with some proactive education, but leaving such things to click bait media is not a good thing, it will affect you all when things get even tighter, due to perceived potential problems.

Again the wrond info on Kobe crash airspace "The event came less than a week after the helicopter crash in California that killed former NBA star Kobe Bryant. There, people using drones to glimpse the crash scene caused federal officials to close the air space above the site."
 
In Pennsylvania we have an infamous political corruption problem. Our state treasurer blew his head off with a .357 Magnum at a press conference the day before he was to be sentenced in a bribery case. Our well-known football coach, Joe Paterno, was fired without a hearing following revelations that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, for years was sexually abusing boys.

I am a seasoned media professional in Pennsylvania. I can tell you that if some group or individual were to come out opposed to rampant political corruption in Pennsylvania it would not receive coverage without a relevant ‘news hook’ or event that made it relevant. And I can guarantee you that the state police would never hold a press event advising politicians not to accept bribes.

In Pennsylvania there have been several recent events were drivers have killed or injured others by driving the wrong way down an interstate or the turnpike. In these instances, an intoxicated individual piloted a 3,000 lb. piece of machinery the wrong direction down a public roadway, gravely endangering others. Yet, if the state police were to hold a press event and warn the public not to drive their cars the wrong way down a street, people would say that’s ridiculous, and common sense.

The observation in this post is that their was no event involving a drone interfering with first responders that warranted this press event or article. And so, yes, I see this article as an example of the current anti-drone hysteria.

You my not agree, and power to you.

I would say that Pennsylvania, as the article mentions in passing, just passed a law forbidding the use of drones for ‘surveillance’ or ‘invasion of privacy.’ There seems to be great confusion about what that means in Pennsylvania. Does that mean, have some have worried, that any photograph or video of someone’s private property from 400 feet qualifies one for an arrest?

I’d note that no one, to my knowledge, has yet to be prosecuted under this new drone law. But a press conference discussing what is or is not allowed by this newly enacted law would be more educational and worthwhile to the public than the above article which yes, to me, seems rooted in current hysteria.

Excellent! Kudos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drgnfli
You are completely correct in those observations, but that's a false comparison. It turns out that while it's common sense to know that it's illegal to take bribes and drive on the wrong side of the road, aviation rules completely elude large numbers of drone users.


And yet there are numerous documented cases, with increasing frequency, of drones interfering with emergency operations.


I think that you will find that the law references intent to surveil, not just incidental images.


The hysteria appears to be in your mind - as far as I can tell this event and article were completely devoid of hysteria.

The hysteria appears to be in your mind -

Isn't that where all hysteria appears?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Classic flyer
Its funny, the writer of the article mentions Bryant because he was a celebrity, but he makes no mention of the other 8 people who lost their lives in the copter crash?

Nor does he make any mention of the very poor decision that was made to fly a helicopter in very dangerous foggy weather.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,585
Messages
1,554,103
Members
159,586
Latest member
DoubleBarS