Police showed up my house within 15 minutes of flight today

[Dizzy1971]

see & avoid? What is wrong with flying out of your window and looking at the screen of your cell phone to guide your flying?

Staying by a window is warmer, and gives you extra height.

Do you think I'm really making this up? What is there that makes it seem not believable. I agree that counter terrorist task force coming to your door 15 minutes after taking off is very surprising. But no so much when you see that they have the DJI Aeroscope.

Not to speak for anyone,but I think what he was asking is “how can you maintain VSLOS from inside your house?” As in, it’s not legal to fly where you can’t see your quad. So nothing wrong with flying from your window,but you still have to maintain a visual on your quad at all times.

 

[DannyDieHard]

Counter terrorism task force showed up at my house about 15 minutes of flight. There was a parade starting in 2 hours and that is why they showed up.

I wasn't flying over my house and there is no way they could have known it was from my house. They came right to my house and even in my yard. I was at a window in my house at the time. There is no way they could have known which of the many houses with close back yards that the drone could have come from.

How did they know so quickly? Is this because they can log into DJI software and know my fly home address?

Your drone is registered to you? Because dji has the flight I'd thing they want on all drones , my freestyle fpv quads do t have it , those are the o es they want to make illegal

 

[Earthman]

see & avoid? What is wrong with flying out of your window and looking at the screen of your cell phone to guide your flying?

Staying by a window is warmer, and gives you extra height.

What’s wrong with “flying out of your window and looking at the screen of your cell phone to guide your flying?”

Read the rules. One of them basically say that as Pilot In Command (PIC), you are not permitted to fly First Person View (FPV) unles you have an observer or observers who maintain VLOS with the UAV at all times, and who can effectively communicate to you any action that you must take to avoid a manned aircraft.

It’s a rule that I follow even though I wish it only applied to flying UAVs in airspace where manned aircraft can fly safely. Like above 400-ft or more AGL. But that’s not what the rule says.

I’m no expert, but I assume that if the guys who showed up at your door knew what they were doing and wanted to, they probably could have arrested you for flying FPV without an observer, which most reasonable people would consider reckless.

From your post, it sounds like you were violating at least the VLOS rule, maybe common sense, and got off lucky.

 

[Cloudman]

Counter terrorism task force showed up at my house about 15 minutes of flight. There was a parade starting in 2 hours and that is why they showed up.

I wasn't flying over my house and there is no way they could have known it was from my house. They came right to my house and even in my yard. I was at a window in my house at the time. There is no way they could have known which of the many houses with close back yards that the drone could have come from.

How did they know so quickly? Is this because they can log into DJI software and know my fly home address?

Funny that you mentioned that i was doing a hyperlapse one night had the drone hovering about 70ft over me and i kept on seeing a flash when my head was down happened like three times immediately i felt like the drone was taking pictures with the bottom camers and the smart controller also looks like it has a small camera at the top of the screen in the center maybe we are being spyed on

 

[sar104]

Tracked the location of signal sorce. We are able to triangulate the location of any electronically derived signal down to three meters

No - you definitely are not able to do that.

 

[Fort Pierce Pilot]

Where I live my backyard is controlled (Class D) airspace. I use AirMap to obtain authorization every time I fly here. So, they already have my flight time, location, and even phone number. I always assumed my flight data was available to the authorities and act accordingly. Glad to hear the investigating officer was reasonable. A drone would be very hard to pick up on radar so it does not surprise me authorities have another method for tracking it. Most big cities today - especially NYC - are using very sophisticated methods to fight terrorism. We would likely be the first to complain if they failed to use it and something really bad happened. I'm sure data is obtained and stored on every aircraft flight that occurs over US soil. I always assumed this included UAV's. The fact that video's exist with pilots flying these things three miles away (hard to believe their spotter can still see it) and no action is taken against them gives me some comfort big brother is not looking to simply ground us.

 

[Davros007]

On the flip side to all of this. Some countries, like US, seem to have grossly restrictive drone laws. For a start, the OP clearly stated he was flying before the parade, not over it! You seem to have a lot of laws overall that are pro-big brother, accompanied by, “We’re the land of the free!”. If a terrorist wanted to attack the parade, they’d do so. And even if they used drones, the ‘tracking’ wouldn’t stop them. Even reading the the last posts would tell them which drones to buy so they won’t be tracked! As well as the fact it took police 15mins to turn up - that’s likely total flight time for a drone with a heavy frag grenade under it. So, whilst the OP may well have broken some laws, and shouldn’t have, the laws themselves are a waist of time and policing. They are simply to make the public feel safe: meanwhile the terrorists are buying AKs/AR15s from the local meth dealer in a shopping centre car-park.
A passive non-law breaking protest would be interesting. Say, drones with no props on, synced and “on” then run around with it/put in bike backpack. Get 10-20 people to do it and really tie up the system. US - and many other countries- need to get some public safety priorities right. Drones are not high on the list. And I do feel this forum could do more to promote pro-drone laws, and how to protest non illegally but effectively, rather than, “how to obey mindlessly”. Very Stockholm Syndrome at times.

 

[HigherPerspectives]

Counter terrorism task force showed up at my house about 15 minutes of flight. There was a parade starting in 2 hours and that is why they showed up.

I wasn't flying over my house and there is no way they could have known it was from my house. They came right to my house and even in my yard. I was at a window in my house at the time. There is no way they could have known which of the many houses with close back yards that the drone could have come from.

How did they know so quickly? Is this because they can log into DJI software and know my fly home address?

For the rest of you: Please don't feed the troll. Edward 500 - If you have a legitimate issue with law enforcement, you certainly shouldn't be posting it here. If you have some sort of paranoid delusion that the US government is tracking you through dji, I highly question your motives for posting.

 

[WanderDawg]

I really hope he is just trying to tell people to fly legally and safe.. but that’s too good to be true. Sigh.
I’m really concerned about people trying to “normalize” illegal behavior as “acceptable” so I’m taking the fact that the OP has never mentioned if he checked for a TFR zine as a “yes, he probably was flying in a TFR zone” and that’s scary for me both as a drone hobbyist AND a part of the general public that can be affected by reckless behavior from other drone operators.

In the brief time I've been reading discussions between drone operators online, two distinct camps have emerged to my eyes: those who know and observe rules and regulations, and those who think all regulations are bad, without purpose and just "evil government" out to get them.

 

[Davros007]

In the brief time I've been reading discussions between drone operators online, two distinct camps have emerged to my eyes: those who know and observe rules and regulations, and those who think all regulations are bad, without purpose and just "evil government" out to get them.

Yes - but also sub groups of the latter - those who don’t like them but follow, and those who consider themselves above the law (excuse the drone-pun!).
I’d like to see more of the, “I don’t like them but obey” doing more to legally protest and positively bring their concerns to the mainstream. The anti-drone nutters certainly do, and they are getting attention and acceptance they shouldn’t be.

 

[WanderDawg]

“We’re the land of the free!”. If a terrorist wanted to attack the parade, they’d do so. And even if they used drones, the ‘tracking’ wouldn’t stop them.

Sounds like they found OP pretty quickly so that kind of flushes your point down the drain.

Furthermore, this exact same stupid argument has been made to protest virtually every other law and/or regulation in the land, and as with those arguments if you follow it to it's logical end then you are making the argument that we should have ZERO laws and just have anarchy; because you can't stop people from breaking laws that they are intent on breaking. But guess what? You can punish them for breaking them.

The extent of your freedom ends where it starts putting other people at risk.

 

[Davros007]

Sounds like they found OP pretty quickly so that kind of flushes your point down the drain.

Furthermore, this exact same stupid argument has been made to protest virtually every other law and/or regulation in the land, and as with those arguments if you follow it to it's logical end then you are making the argument that we should have ZERO laws and just have anarchy; because you can't stop people from breaking laws that they are intent on breaking. But guess what? You can punish them for breaking them.

The extent of your freedom ends where it starts putting other people at risk.

What I’m trying to say is that they didn’t find the OP fast enough to counter any ‘attack’ - and any terrorist isn’t going to fly before the parade (maybe weeks before, to plan). They also wouldn’t likely fly a drone with tracking. So it’s not that the law is wrong in its intention, it’s just that’s it’s another pointless law. For example, what would be better would be a jamming signal 15mins prior to the parade, with notification. Or observers that activate such on site of a drone. The law as it stands doesn’t actually do anything apart from impose on people like the OP, hence, it reduces freedom pointlessly. And we have plenty of examples of laws that allow us to put others at risk - who needs a motorbike that can do 150mph? No one, legally, but we still allow possession, we don’t have them tracked. You can still drive an F250 in the side streets of the parade, and that in itself puts people at risk, let alone full of KMNO4. So there needs to be a realistic balance of the law, otherwise we may as well give up our freedoms now and let big brother make us ‘safe’!

 

[WanderDawg]

Yes - but also sub groups of the latter - those who don’t like them but follow, and those who consider themselves above the law (excuse the drone-pun!).
I’d like to see more of the, “I don’t like them but obey” doing more to legally protest and positively bring their concerns to the mainstream. The anti-drone nutters certainly do, and they are getting attention and acceptance they shouldn’t be.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very liberal in my dissent against government overreach. But much of the complaining I see directed at drone regulation isn't very well thought out or considered - it's just indiscriminate moaning about the inconvenience of having rules. Or it has to tie into some other conspiracy theory about money grabs and corporations. They never acknowledge that just maybe an exploding market of unmanned air vehicles buzzing around urban areas without regulation is a risk to a lot of people who never consented to being put at risk.

 

[WanderDawg]

What I’m trying to say is that they didn’t find the OP fast enough to counter any ‘attack’ - and any terrorist isn’t going to fly before the parade (maybe weeks before, to plan). They also wouldn’t likely fly a drone with tracking. So it’s not that the law is wrong in its intention, it’s just that’s it’s another pointless law. For example, what would be better would be a jamming signal 15mins prior to the parade, with notification. Or observers that activate such on site of a drone. The law as it stands doesn’t actually do anything apart from impose on people like the OP, hence, it reduces freedom pointlessly. And we have plenty of examples of laws that allow us to put others at risk - who needs a motorbike that can do 150mph? No one, legally, but we still allow possession, we don’t have them tracked. You can still drive an F250 in the side streets of the parade, and that in itself puts people at risk, let alone full of KMNO4. So there needs to be a realistic balance of the law, otherwise we may as well give up our freedoms now and let big brother make us ‘safe’!

There are a lot of holes in OP's story and I do not think he is the victim he's making himself out to be. In another post he made some comment about how a friend asked him if "he'd been bothering anyone else with his drone lately," and we already know he was flying from inside his house without VLOS. His whole story is pretty trollish, and nobody here truly knows why the cops showed up at his door. Only what he's told you, which again, is a story with a lot of holes.

 

[sar104]

What I’m trying to say is that they didn’t find the OP fast enough to counter any ‘attack’ - and any terrorist isn’t going to fly before the parade (maybe weeks before, to plan). They also wouldn’t likely fly a drone with tracking. So it’s not that the law is wrong in its intention, it’s just that’s it’s another pointless law. For example, what would be better would be a jamming signal 15mins prior to the parade, with notification. Or observers that activate such on site of a drone. The law as it stands doesn’t actually do anything apart from impose on people like the OP, hence, it reduces freedom pointlessly. And we have plenty of examples of laws that allow us to put others at risk - who needs a motorbike that can do 150mph? No one, legally, but we still allow possession, we don’t have them tracked. You can still drive an F250 in the side streets of the parade, and that in itself puts people at risk, let alone full of KMNO4. So there needs to be a realistic balance of the law, otherwise we may as well give up our freedoms now and let big brother make us ‘safe’!

It's not directly about terrorists. In terms of LE it's about a mechanism to detect and interdict illegal flight, for whatever reason it may be happening. That will dissuade many people from flying illegally and jeopardizing the NAS and the public on the ground. It will therefore also make it easier to detect more pernicious threats, since they won't be lost in such an extensive sea of ignorant non-compliance.

 

[Davros007]

It's not directly about terrorists. In terms of LE it's about a mechanism to detect and interdict illegal flight, for whatever reason it may be happening. That will dissuade many people from flying illegally and jeopardizing the NAS and the public on the ground. It will therefore also make it easier to detect more pernicious threats, since they won't be lost in such an extensive sea of ignorant non-compliance.

Yep, I do see the reasoning - but where is the evidence anyone is being jeopardised? That’s the issue. Why create these laws in the first place, if there is very little risk? Suddenly, “Not obeying the law” is the issue, rather than actually endangering people. Someone kills more than 50 people with a gun: life goes on as usual. Someone gets it into their head that a drone might crash into a baby stroller after taking out a helicopter, which then leads to the stroller rolling into the path of a truck, that then slams into a train - and not only that, the drone may have taken a picture of me BBQing a steak in my backyard! - suddenly there are all these wild laws created on the hop that need to be ‘enforced’. But what are they actually doing?? Not much! They’re not actually protecting people to any great extent from the threat they purport to! They’re just making people feel comfortable. And taking time away from real issues. I just feel on this forum we should all be working to fight against laws created with no extensive evidence. Drinking alcohol and smoking kills millions - but that’s not hammered, just mild restrictions and consequences for those who cause accidents. I agree, the OP may be posting what some might see a a ‘trolling’ post. Be they do raise good points. And we should fight restrictions on our lives that are not backed by extensive, repeated data with evidence the proposed law will actually work, before they are created. Otherwise we may as well be in communist China, getting our social scores, because it really benefits everyone...

 

[Davros007]

There are a lot of holes in OP's story and I do not think he is the victim he's making himself out to be. In another post he made some comment about how a friend asked him if "he'd been bothering anyone else with his drone lately," and we already know he was flying from inside his house without VLOS. His whole story is pretty trollish, and nobody here truly knows why the cops showed up at his door. Only what he's told you, which again, is a story with a lot of holes.

Agreed - but by the same token, we also don’t know what’s meant by “bothering” - some overreaction by a conspiracy theorist or genuine illegal harassment. But yep - we don’t know the full story. My comments I guess are just general, but overall I agree with the OPs insinuation that the police should have better things to do through better, more tolerant laws (not that these police had a choice - they were rightly doing their jobs and I’m not criticising them).

 

[Stacy]

OP never stated his drone was outside VLOS.

You have a potential 180 degree FOV from an open window and would not be violating any laws or recommendations for a safe flight. A lot of propeller heads here seem to assume OP was flying illegally, which has not been proven.

There are many "Good to Go" areas in and around NYC. If the parade administration did not register restricted airspace applicable two hours prior to the event, flying a drone over a part of the route is not illegal.

The OP's topic was that his flight triggered a nearly immediate police response which freaked him out (for good reason IMHO).

When asked by police if someone was operating a drone from the back yard, my truthful response in this situation would have been "no" and "good bye".

Seems to me, with the ultra-high violent crime rate basically unaddressed, NY Police should have something better to do.

 

[Davros007]

OP never stated his drone was outside VLOS.

You have a potential 180 degree FOV from an open window and would not be violating any laws or recommendations for a safe flight. A lot of propeller heads here seem to assume OP was flying illegally, which has not been proven.

There are many "Good to Go" areas in and around NYC. If the parade administration did not register restricted airspace applicable two hours prior to the event, flying a drone over a part of the route is not illegal.

The OP's topic was that his flight triggered a nearly immediate police response which freaked him out (for good reason IMHO).

When asked by police if someone was operating a drone from the back yard, my truthful response in this situation would have been "no" and "good bye".

Seems to me, with the ultra-high violent crime rate basically unaddressed, NY Police should have something better to do.

I’m not from US. But given the information and my limited FAA knowledge- sounds like what I would aim for if I did have the info. And my overall belief that this kind of action is a gross over-reach.
So saying, if they were aware of a threat that was not public knowledge, we might be over reacting by criticising - but likely they were not responding to something sinister.

 

[sar104]

Yep, I do see the reasoning - but where is the evidence anyone is being jeopardised? That’s the issue. Why create these laws in the first place, if there is very little risk? Suddenly, “Not obeying the law” is the issue, rather than actually endangering people. Someone kills more than 50 people with a gun: life goes on as usual. Someone gets it into their head that a drone might crash into a baby stroller after taking out a helicopter, which then leads to the stroller rolling into the path of a truck, that then slams into a train - and not only that, the drone may have taken a picture of me BBQing a steak in my backyard! - suddenly there are all these wild laws created on the hop that need to be ‘enforced’. But what are they actually doing?? Not much! They’re not actually protecting people to any great extent from the threat they purport to! They’re just making people feel comfortable. And taking time away from real issues. I just feel on this forum we should all be working to fight against laws created with no extensive evidence. Drinking alcohol and smoking kills millions - but that’s not hammered, just mild restrictions and consequences for those who cause accidents. I agree, the OP may be posting what some might see a a ‘trolling’ post. Be they do raise good points. And we should fight restrictions on our lives that are not backed by extensive, repeated data with evidence the proposed law will actually work, before they are created. Otherwise we may as well be in communist China, getting our social scores, because it really benefits everyone...

Once it started to become apparent that sUAS were going to be a big thing, the FAA was tasked with integrating them into the NAS. That included the full range of anticipated issues, from figuring out how to assure collision avoidance with manned traffic to problems of law enforcement against flying vehicles that are difficult to track or deal with. This is not some campaign to penalize poor recreational flyers, even though a segment of that community seems to feel that it's all about them.

Drones will continue to get better; bigger, faster, longer range, more autonomous, and there will continue to be increasing numbers of them in the skies. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the problems of traffic deconfliction and law enforcement will grow accordingly. But you want to wait until these are a real problem before addressing it? Can you imagine the criticism that the bulk of the population, who are not stuck in this self-indulgent bubble, would level at the FAA if they took no action until they had a nice long list of accidents and issues to justify it? Congress, appropriately in my opinion, decided to be proactive for once.