Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
Two Men Charged For Nearly Crashing Drone Into NYPD Helicopter Over George Washington Bridge
Two Manhattan men were arrested and arraigned on felony reckless endangerment charges early Monday after they piloted a drone that almost struck an NYPD helicopter flying over the George Washington Bridge, police said on Tuesday, forcing the police chopper to steer off course in order to avoid a crash. (www.hngn.com) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The defense attorney in this case is highly uninformed. Those drones sure can go 2,000 ft even though fed regs ban them from over 400 ft. near a control zone.
Also calling them drones is not accurate. These are just like any other radio controller helicopter except they have more than one blade.
The real catalyst to all of this negative press though is the FPV (first person view) technology which allows pilots to see what the copter sees as they are flying through video goggles or a monitor. They give people the ability to fly 2000 feet into the air or a mile down the road without any worry. When in reality you have a much more connected feeling to the craft because you have the ability to see exactly where you are.
The real catalyst to all of this negative press though is the FPV (first person view) technology which allows pilots to see what the copter sees as they are flying through video goggles or a monitor. They give people the ability to fly 2000 feet into the air or a mile down the road without any worry. When in reality you have a much more connected feeling to the craft because you have the ability to see exactly where you are.
By strict definition they are drones. However, that means DRONES have been flying around for DECADES.... All RC planes even in the 50's when they first came out would be under the definition of drones.. And I have 25+ drones that I fly for the fun of it... Some with Lights to fly at night, some with cameras... So What.. It is a strict definition, but not a good definition
Easy sparkie, easy...
This quadcopter can be considered a drone (FAA calls it an unmanned aircraft system - UAS) as it uses GPS to help stabilize it / navigate. The operator can turn that function off and use it as a normal r/c helicopter if they wanted to though. If used as a r/c it's basically got to be flown line of site, obey the community rules, stay away from airplanes, and notify the airport if you'll be flying within 5 miles (from the east side of the George Washington Bridge it's under 6 miles to TEB and JFK). Also the FAA can prosecute if it feels the NAS was in danger.
In the advisory circular the 400 foot "rule" has nothing to do with the distance from the airport, so stop making that connection. Besides, advisory circulars are not regulatory so you don't have to follow them (although it's the smart thing to do).
In my opinion these r/c pilots aren't the brightest of the bunch to be flying around at midnight as they almost certainly will be getting some kind of attention. Also in defense of the helicopter pilot lights can play mean tricks at night.
This quadcopter can be considered a drone (FAA calls it an unmanned aircraft system - UAS) as it uses GPS to help stabilize it / navigate. The operator can turn that function off and use it as a normal r/c helicopter if they wanted to though. If used as a r/c it's basically got to be flown line of site, obey the community rules, stay away from airplanes, and notify the airport if you'll be flying within 5 miles (from the east side of the George Washington Bridge it's under 6 miles to TEB and JFK). Also the FAA can prosecute if it feels the NAS was in danger.
In the advisory circular the 400 foot "rule" has nothing to do with the distance from the airport, so stop making that connection. Besides, advisory circulars are not regulatory so you don't have to follow them (although it's the smart thing to do).
In my opinion these r/c pilots aren't the brightest of the bunch to be flying around at midnight as they almost certainly will be getting some kind of attention. Also in defense of the helicopter pilot lights can play mean tricks at night.
A blanket 400 foot limitation is indicated here:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
middle of page 4
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
middle of page 4
Please note my message below. They were 7.6 miles from the closest airport, they WERE NOT limited to 400 feet as per the "Advisory Circular 91-57" It may be true that the defense attorney is totally uninformed, but so are you.
I've seen you post this multiple times, and I have to wonder whether you have comprehension difficulties or if you just want to see what you want to see because it supports your view.
91-57 states very clearly:
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control
tower, or flight service station."
This is not an AND logical statement. It is two distinct statements:
1. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
2. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
So model aircraft should not be flown higher than 400ft above the surface anywhere.
91-57 states very clearly:
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control
tower, or flight service station."
This is not an AND logical statement. It is two distinct statements:
1. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
2. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
So model aircraft should not be flown higher than 400ft above the surface anywhere.
To put it bluntly because you cannot understand it any other way is.. They over by more than double the distance... They were 7.559376 miles from the closes airport... That advisory circular is for 3 miles and closer... what can you not understand... They were further than 3 miles.... 6 miles would be double that, and 7 in case your math is off 7 is further away than 6... READ YOUR OWN POST...
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport"
Doh.... READ IT! The 400 foot limitation is no where near in effect.. I am not sure why you and so many others are blind to that... When you read the FAR's you read all of them and do what it says... not what you want it to read... It is very clear that you do not understand your full post... If you had rad mine, you would have seen approx 7.6 miles, but to me a little more accurate, they were 7.559376 miles from KTEB (so you don't have to look it up and risk misinterpretation that is Teterboro in New Jersey.
You saying model a/c should not be flow higher than is Total and Absolute BS... Do not interpit what you want it to say... Read what it really says... There is NO altitude restriction further than 3 miles from an airport... PERIOD...
To Make you Better Understand if you are driving down the road at 75 MPH and you get pulled over by a cop, and you say.. But Officer, 3 1/2 miles down the road I can do 75... That doesn't mean that is what it says where you are at..
BTW, Have you had reading class... If not, take one, if you have, take one again.
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport"
Doh.... READ IT! The 400 foot limitation is no where near in effect.. I am not sure why you and so many others are blind to that... When you read the FAR's you read all of them and do what it says... not what you want it to read... It is very clear that you do not understand your full post... If you had rad mine, you would have seen approx 7.6 miles, but to me a little more accurate, they were 7.559376 miles from KTEB (so you don't have to look it up and risk misinterpretation that is Teterboro in New Jersey.
You saying model a/c should not be flow higher than is Total and Absolute BS... Do not interpit what you want it to say... Read what it really says... There is NO altitude restriction further than 3 miles from an airport... PERIOD...
To Make you Better Understand if you are driving down the road at 75 MPH and you get pulled over by a cop, and you say.. But Officer, 3 1/2 miles down the road I can do 75... That doesn't mean that is what it says where you are at..
BTW, Have you had reading class... If not, take one, if you have, take one again.
All you need to read is "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface." That's it -- it's a complete sentence all by itself.
Basic punctuation knowledge aside, you have to admit the document is oddly constructed (assuming I'm looking at the right one). It's almost like it was written as an afterthought or maybe edited down to a single page from just a few lines over. Or maybe dictated and typed up, or done close to quitting time, who knows. Looking at the rest of the list under operating standards though, combining the altitude and airport proximity limitations is a really odd choice.
Or maybe the author was ahead of his time and hoped a little dose of 2nd amendment ambiguity might secure his place in history, who knows. So far so good.
Or maybe the author was ahead of his time and hoped a little dose of 2nd amendment ambiguity might secure his place in history, who knows. So far so good.