Was your drone knocked off its flight by a helicopter?

[Weaponized]

Did either of you guys (@Weaponized & @Mojo) read FoxHallGH's post #74 ? If not then please do. If so then why can't you understand his simple and clearly stated logic? Just let it go - you're continued nit-picking over this particular incident never had legs and never will.

Read it and don't fully agree with it. I've spent the better part 10,000 hours inside of an aluminum tube. If one of my pilots pulled a stunt like that he would not have made it back to the ready room under his own power. There's zero excuse for risking the life of your crew, craft, or those on the ground over the "inconvenience" of a drone being where it's not supposed to be. I've read nothing here that would convince me otherwise. I've had traffic enter my airspace before...we didn't knock it out of the sky.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

I don't know about surf meets on Maui, but the larger ones on Oahu have security, Honolulu PD, and usually City and County of Honolulu FD onsite. I highly doubt the pilot was hiding in the bushes, but positioned on a nearby beach.

Instead of putting everyone in danger to down a drone, the helicopter crew should have scanned the nearby area, located the 'pilot', and radioed his location to the authorities.

I'm curious to know if the downed drone was recovered and if it had registration information on it! Chances are it was registered with DJI and could be traced back to an owner.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

@Weaponized & @Mojo

This guy gets what you're saying!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[draver]

I read an article somewhere that claimed the event sponsor expected to have the exclusive rights to any potential footage because they were footing the bills. If they directed the helo pilot to purposely interfere with the drone which appeared to be in public airspace, that seems to be unsafe, unethical and probably a violation of their waiver for the event. They should be accountable in my opinion.

 

[draver]

So why bother nitpicking about this particular case? I was obviously making my point in general terms. The fact still remains that the incident WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED had the irresponsible drone pilot not been flying illegally in the first instance.

All he/she needed to do was stay 30 metres away from the people in the water and the FAA would have one less example to use when justifying new and heavier restrictions that are more than likely to be handed down some time sooner than later.

What information do you have the pilot was flying illegally? Do you suppose the helo pilot checked that the drone pilot had not been issued a waiver for that flight before his intentionally aggressive move to damage/destroy the property of another? Are helo pilots exempt from vertical separation from other aircraft?

 

[deleted member 877]

What information do you have the pilot was flying illegally? Do you suppose the helo pilot checked that the drone pilot had not been issued a waiver for that flight before his intentionally aggressive move to damage/destroy the property of another? Are helo pilots exempt from vertical separation from other aircraft?

Blind Freddy can see that the drone was hovering directly over people and that it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY for a waiver allowing such behaviour to have been issued.

But by all means keep on nit picking if that makes you happy - LOL.

 

[draver]

So it's much safer to just use propwash to drive the drone down into the surfers? It's not nitpicking with the FAA apparently.

Quote from Forbes Magazine:

FAA Confirms Shooting A Drone Is A Federal Crime. So When Will U.S. Prosecute?


John Goglia Contributor

In the wake of the latest drone shooting, this time in Norfork, Ark., many in the drone community have been wondering whether unmanned aircraft were federally protected from criminal destruction just like manned aircraft. Since the FAA considers drones to be aircraft, it makes sense that they would have the same federal protections as manned aircraft since the FAA holds their operation to many of the same standards.

But with at least a dozen reported shootings of drones and no federal prosecution, the question of their federally-protected status remained open. But today the FAA in response to my questioning confirmed that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited 18 USC 32. That statute makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft.


But I guess they "NitPick" too?

 

[deleted member 877]

So it's much safer to just use propwash to drive the drone down into the surfers? It's not nitpicking with the FAA apparently.

Quote from Forbes Magazine:

FAA Confirms Shooting A Drone Is A Federal Crime. So When Will U.S. Prosecute?


John Goglia Contributor

In the wake of the latest drone shooting, this time in Norfork, Ark., many in the drone community have been wondering whether unmanned aircraft were federally protected from criminal destruction just like manned aircraft. Since the FAA considers drones to be aircraft, it makes sense that they would have the same federal protections as manned aircraft since the FAA holds their operation to many of the same standards.

But with at least a dozen reported shootings of drones and no federal prosecution, the question of their federally-protected status remained open. But today the FAA in response to my questioning confirmed that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited 18 USC 32. That statute makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft.


But I guess they "NitPick" too?

If you want to keep nit picking at least do it properly. The helicopter pilot in this instance didn’t shoot at the drone.

 

[Weaponized]

If you want to keep nit picking at least do it properly. The helicopter pilot in this instance didn’t shoot at the drone.

Didn't have to shoot at the drone. Doesn't matter why the drone was there. The pilot of the helicopter had one responsibility… to maintain visual separation from other air traffic. He failed. It's like rule number one right behind keeping the pointy end forward and takeoffs are optional...landing is mandatory. It's not a pilots role to determine what traffic belongs and what traffic does not. This is really no different than road rage and the guy belongs in jail.

If that's nit picky, what is it called that you are doing? Sucking up to the pilots? Asking for a friend.

 

[draver]

So you decided to teach me how to nitpick by qualifying the method of damaging the drone? LOL

I truly hope the FAA goes after the helo pilot for his cavalier, cowboy behavior. My opinion is he has no business flying, and was grandstanding for the crowd and his employer. Besides, how is the method of damage/destruction even an issue? I assume you must be joking, right? Or are some pilots more equal than others?

 

[deleted member 877]

Didn't have to shoot at the drone. Doesn't matter why the drone was there. The pilot of the helicopter had one responsibility… to maintain visual separation from other air traffic. He failed. It's like rule number one right behind keeping the pointy end forward and takeoffs are optional...landing is mandatory. It's not a pilots role to determine what traffic belongs and what traffic does not. This is really no different than road rage and the guy belongs in jail.

If that's nit picky, what is it called that you are doing? Sucking up to the pilots? Asking for a friend.

Geez, calm down before you have a stroke - LOL.

 

[deleted member 877]

So you decided to teach me how to nitpick by qualifying the method of damaging the drone? LOL

I truly hope the FAA goes after the helo pilot for his cavalier, cowboy behavior. My opinion is he has no business flying, and was grandstanding for the crowd and his employer. Besides, how is the method of damage/destruction even an issue? I assume you must be joking, right? Or are some pilots more equal than others?

So let’s wait to see if the FAA presses charges. I’m predicting that they won’t.

 

[Weaponized]

Geez, calm down before you have a stroke - LOL.

I'm actually lying down listening to one of those sweet ocean breeze machines. Simulated salt air does that to me. As soon as I'm done I'm going to squash a bag of puppies in front of a pre school

 

[BigAl07]

This video was uploaded to YT back on

"Published on Nov 1, 2017 "

 

[dirkclod]

I'm actually lying down listening to one of those sweet ocean breeze machines. Simulated salt air does that to me. As soon as I'm done I'm going to squash a bag of puppies in front of a pre school

 

[draver]

You're probably right that they won't go after either pilot, I imagine they have bigger fish to fry.

Well at least we all got a chance to air our opinions, eh?

 

[FoxhallGH]

The very valid point has been raised however, that if the authorities want drone operators and drones to be regulated / treated like aircraft - then they should not be allowed to just brush an incident like this aside ...

 

[ps82]

Bingo...This falls under the same category even of the angry neighbor shooting a drone with a shotgun or swatting it down with a broom. If a drone is suspected of a violation, gather as much information about the drone and operator if available, and report to local authorities/FAA.

This helicopter engaged in not only interfering with an aircraft (yes the FAA defines a SUAS as an aircraft in regards to this issue), but he/she operated the helicopter in a reckless manner. This part of the FAA regs that allows a helicopter to operate at a lower altitude and over people, does not include putting those below at risk by downing another aircraft. Yes the helicopter is perfectly capable of an autorotation to landing, but that low, over water, and over people, there are not a lot of options. Autorotation also only takes into account engine failure, not catastrophic or structural failure given a collision with another airborne object, or perhaps a 2.2lb object colliding with a tail rotor providing total loss of directional control.

I would hope at least some action was taken against the helo pilot, whether it be revocation, suspension of privileges, and/or a letter in their file. I would also hope that if the WSL instructed the pilot to interfere with another aircraft, that they would be held somewhat accountable. And if this all was a stunt, I should hope there would be some fines in place as well for all parties.

Do we know if the drone operator had an FAA waiver for operations over people?

OMG did you just say that. So it's not ok for a very small multi rotor to fly over these surfers, but it ok for a huge 1 ton jet engined helicopter to fly in the same area? Besides the copter pilot violated FAA regulations by intentionally endangering another aircraft.

Personally I think the copter pilot and the people that hired him should be held accountable both for the Mavic Pilots financial loss and breaking FAA regulations with their actions. This is just more drone histratia at it's best.

 

[Sky1]

I have on more than just a rare instance seen manned aircraft flying under 400' either over my house or along the beach. I thought they are supposed to maintain a minimum of 500' and 1000' from people and houses?

 

[BigAl07]

I have on more than just a rare instance seen manned aircraft flying under 400' either over my house or along the beach. I thought they are supposed to maintain a minimum of 500' and 1000' from people and houses?

Here's the actual Law from the FAA, the BOLD and color were added by ME for emphasis:

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas – Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas – An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters – Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.