EXCLUSIVE: Arrest made after small helicopter drone crash lands on New York city street | 7online.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Finvestigators&id=9292217)

good. reckless endangerment sounds about right

What an idiot ... Luckily it didn't hit any one!

I completely agree with pilots needing to hold a license and the correct insurance etc. They're just too risky and shouldn't be treated like a toy.

I think everyone agrees, this guys is an idiot and hopefully will get the punishment he deserves. But making every other good law abiding MR pilot have to get a license for this idiots behavior is wrong.

Do you think having a law that everyone flying an RC has to have a license would have made a difference in this incident?

The quotes that were attributed to some guy that claimed to be a pilot, well that guys as much of an idiot as the MR pilot who crashed! Here's a test, look up, how many airplanes do you see? Any? If so, how many and how close are they? The claims that this guy, and others like him, make about the likelihood of a collision between a MR and any other aircraft are so over exaggerated.

Seriously, everyone needs to stop posting crap like this if you think the solution is to license MR's why stop there? Clearly the answer is to license GoPro's, clearly they are the ones responsible for this.

And spoons, and hammers... those things are SOOOOO dangerous...

The only regulations that people seem to be suggesting are for professional operators of drones.

Professional chefs are trained to use knives and when I studied engineering I was taught the correct techniques for using both the flat and round sides of an engineering hammer. No one is stopping hobbyists from using either implement, but professionals are trained in an attempt to ensure a minimum standard in an industry.

Its simple common sense, you need a licence to drive a car.
Obviously you should need a licence to fly a drone.
The only problem at the moment is its so difficult to even find out how to go about it that
noone is going to bother.
Thats what needs to be addressed.
Unfortunately it seems we are going to have to wait until someone looses their life to it before anything is done.

Its simple common sense, you need a licence to drive a car.
Obviously you should need a licence to fly a drone.
The only problem at the moment is its so difficult to even find out how to go about it that
noone is going to bother.
Thats what needs to be addressed.
Unfortunately it seems we are going to have to wait until someone looses their life to it before anything is done.

What percentage of Americans drive how many cars? How many cars were on the road before the government required the driver to have a license? Why did the State government require licenses in the first place? What percentage of drivers, especially in California drive without a license or insurance? [the number might surprise you] How many people do you think will buy a DJI Phantom with aspirations of becoming a professional will fly it for about a month, crash and never fly it again versus how many people buy a car, drive it for a month and never drive it again for any reason?

MR's ARE NOT CARS! THEY ARE NOT AIRPLANES! THERE ARE FAR FEWER INJURIES FROM MR's then there are from people using SKILL SAWS but I don't need a F$#%*! license for a skill saw.

The only regulations that people seem to be suggesting are for professional operators of drones.

Professional chefs are trained to use knives and when I studied engineering I was taught the correct techniques for using both the flat and round sides of an engineering hammer. No one is stopping hobbyists from using either implement, but professionals are trained in an attempt to ensure a minimum standard in an industry.

The claims of the number of MR's being flown, crashes that result in serious injury or property damage, and the number of people trying to do AP professionally are so over exaggerated that AP for any reason has been outlawed in 17 States already, before the FAA has made a single ruling.

Sorry, Chefs do not have to be licensed to own, operate or work in a restaurant. In most circumstance nor do Engineers. What differentiates a professional chef from a hobbyist cook is the quality of their work, if its good enough people will buy. I'm not suggesting that food preparation isn't highly regulated, in most States its probably over regulated, but that's a food supply issue that has nothing to do whether the chef has a license, And I know a lot of people who design, develop and distribute some really cool products that aren't engineers, not licensed to do anything and didn't go to college. Steve Jobs being one of them.

The minimum standard your looking for is the free market. If you show up to a $3M house to shoot some aerial footage for a realtor and the maintenance guy has to fish your MR out of the pool or you crash it into the car in the driveway you will probably never work for another realtor within a 50 mile radius, in fact after that experience it might be a while before that realtor hires anyone to do aerial for them again. It will have a profound impact on your ability to gain further employment plus you'll be spending a lot of your future earning paying for the damage. A license has nothing to do with the civil liability.

I'm guessing that a lot of people who comment on this website regarding AP have never actually done AP, your checking out this thread because its something you might be interested in. If the government regulates the flight and use of MR's I can guarantee that it will become more confusing than it already is, cost prohibitive for most, incredibly OVER complicated and the only people who will actually be allowed to fly them will eventually be the "professionals" who had the time, money and opportunity.

The unintended consequences of this will be much less amazing AP, increased regulation requiring more liability insurance, not only on the pilot but anyone who designs or manufactures parts, which will result in fewer parts being designed and for the ones that are still distributed the cost will go up significantly. So the person shooting amazing AP in Idaho will in all likelihood be doing it illegally, kind of how it is now but without all of the innovation and easy access to great equipment. Sounds like a great idea to me.

So why can I guarantee this? Because for anyone who is a pilot and owns a plane knows this is what happened to General Aviation since 9/11. Actually its been happening to GA since the early '70's. So if you don't think this can happen to you with your MR's, I have a great plane I'd like to sell you.

The difference of opinion here is that on one hand there is a call for licensing - you DO NOT NEED a license to do pretty much ANYTHING... NEED implies a "requirement" to do something....

Stupid people will simply ignore reasonable training/safeguards/processes, that's human beans fer ya. Outlaw stupid, there won't be enough jails for EVERYONE... but I'm sure some entity will gladly collect the "fines". Adding a "required" license will just add fees and fines... and only for SOME.



OTOH, there is a desirable situation where "pilots" of R/C have some TRAINING, understand potential risks and take appropriate measures to minimize those risks (sometimes you might call this "common sense").

People nowadays are easily scared, some so much that they need tinfoil hats, but the reality is life entails SOME risk, you can't eliminate every possible risk, and you sure as heck don't want to live in a world where "legislators" are passing as many laws as possible to answer every paranoid delusion of a "scared person"... we're WAY too close to that already, best not to feed the wolves...


Look at how fingernail clippers were banned from flying after 9/11 - think about that, fingernail clippers (OK, I explained to a friend how to use a pen to "disable" an attacker after she was afraid to fly after 9/11... she flew with a BIG smile, pen in pocket... but I digress). As SOON as you start creating "agencies" and passing rules, the next thing you know, you've got a mess... and in the end, you may or may not make things any safer or "save" any lives... stupid, irresponsible, and just plain accidents will STILL happen.

IF you choose to fly, do it responsibly, know your equipment, and minimize or eliminate wherever possible, risks to yourself and others. Is it really more complex than that? OK, maybe add "don't do something stupid just because someone else does it..."

MR's ARE NOT CARS! THEY ARE NOT AIRPLANES! THERE ARE FAR FEWER INJURIES FROM MR's then there are from people using SKILL SAWS but I don't need a F$#%*! license for a skill saw.




Unless you are running at someone with a skillsaw then your not endangering anyone elses life other than your own. Not the case with MRs. This is why I believe it should be mandatory to do the course to get the licence. At least then these idiots with too much money and free time will think of something else to do with both.

Quadcopter hits groom in the head. // Epic Fail - Seriously - YouTube

Unless you are running at someone with a skillsaw then your not endangering anyone elses life other than your own. Not the case with MRs.
Ger - I've made a similar point several times in another thread. What risks anybody takes with their own life or property is one thing - what risks they take with somebody else's life or property is another matter.

Is that really so difficult to understand.......?

Quadcopter hits groom in the head. // Epic Fail - Seriously - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocqB6_y71xE)

I hope that next time when the couple in this video think of kissing or holding on to each other, they won't have nightmares of a drone hitting them.

Given that the USA is probably one of the most litigious countries around, I'm surprised that there's much debate on professional operators needing minimum skill levels. One of these drones flying around the business centre of a city hitting the CEO of of billion dollar corporation (extreme I know, but not impossible in some places) might result in really heavy handed regulations being put into place

I suspect you won't last long as a chef in a restaurant or an engineer working for a company, even as a one man operation, unless you've got skills and the traditional methods of apprenticeships and training is the way most people learn these. You start up a catering establishment, but you can find that there's a fair amount of regulations involved and poor practise isn't good for the health of your customers. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/rating/ http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/services/restaurant-inspection.shtml

There will always be enthusiastic hobbyists who operate things properly, or are self-taught following how to tutorials, that never injure anyone or cause damage to any ones property.

But because the copter has a potential danger of harming or even killing some one, I think a license should be required ...

A minimum of 5 operating/flying lessons with a qualified instructor. Then you can take the exam. With a theory test.

Done, license given with photo ID which then needs to be renewed every 3 years.

It would create some jobs for the economy too !

Pilot certificates in the USA do not have photographs. When exercising your privileges as PIC you must have your certificate in your possession as well as a govt. issued photo ID. Also, certificates do not expire. You do have to maintain currency through a flight review with an instructor every 2 years (or other means which I won't go into), but you don't lose your certification for not doing that, just can't fly legally. I suspect drone pilot certificates will follow the same model.

Wow, watched the video and this clown apparently ran into several office buildings with his copter. Was supposed to be "full video of drone crash" but stopped before plummeting to the ground. Hmmm.

Jeff

Unless you are running at someone with a skillsaw then your not endangering anyone elses life other than your own. Not the case with MRs. This is why I believe it should be mandatory to do the course to get the licence. At least then these idiots with too much money and free time will think of something else to do with both.

The reason I'm against regulating MR's has nothing to do with the regulations and more to do with who and why they're doing it.

I don't want to see anyone hurt as the result of MR's, I don't think anyone does. If you ask anyone in the US if they should have affordable healthcare the answer is yes, but the answer may be something different if you think that the affordable healthcare will come from the government.

You say "those idiots with too much money" as though getting into MR's is expensive, yet you argue for regulations that will invariably make this hobby much more expensive which will result in "only those idiots" will be able to afford to do this.

Laws are the function of government, you mightn't like government departments, but you usually need them for a country to function.

I don't know how heathcare comes into an issue of aviation law.

Simple, things that sound good in theory in "emotional" terms, are not always all they are cracked up to be in PRACTICE.

No one wants anyone to be hurt, injured or killed or to "be without" basic services or personal safety... but "stuff happens", and you've got government regulators/legislators being told "there oughta be a law"... with mixed results.

I've got no problem when an IDIOT who clearly had just unpacked a new toy and was CLUELESS about how to fly, faces some penalty under EXISTING LAWS for "stupidity".

I DO have a problem when an experienced flyer is PERSECUTED under regulations that did not "pass muster" - ask Mark Cuban about what happens when a regulatory agency goes on a "witch hunt/fishing expedition".


In the end, I would expect manufacturers (out of their own self interest) to shroud rotors, have "safe return" failsafes, etc, etc... it may be necessary to have a big red "DO NOT FLY until you... do these things" warning in the box, which will STILL be ignored by some people.

I would think a sensible WEIGHT CLASS and or SIZE classification should be put into place - a small MR is clearly NOT in the same "class" as a modded Hughes 500 or F16 (both of which are being tested for remote "unmanned" piloting) or a Reaper... I'd expect agencies such as police/fire departments and other existing groups that can benefit from using a RPV/UAV will need to develop sensible operating procedures. I would argue for "private" use, as long as they are under a certain weight class, regulation should fall under existing laws, not a new "revenue generation scheme".

The reason I'm against regulating MR's has nothing to do with the regulations and more to do with who and why they're doing it.
Unless the whole argument has changed without me noticing, I don't think anybody here is saying they should all be regulated per se, are they?

Isn't the general argument for any legislation just to do with both commercial use and/or over a certain weight/size?

So no specific legislation about small MR being flown for hobby purposes in general - how does that sound?

And if you decide to do it over Manhattan in a fashion as shown here, deal with that under existing law.

Laws are the function of government, you mightn't like government departments, but you usually need them for a country to function.

I don't know how heathcare comes into an issue of aviation law.

How do you expect a government to "effectively" regulate MR's when it can't build a healthcare website, better manage the DMV, Post Office, Amtrak, or General Aviation?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what could happen yet people continue to burry their heads in the sand. I guess they're thinking that's the sort of thing that happens to the other guy.

I've said this before, I don't need a bureaucratic pinhead telling me how to do my job safely and responsibly and the people who do probably aren't going to follow the law anyway so the net result is that the honest people get treated like criminals.

"Given that the USA is probably one of the most litigious countries around, I'm surprised that there's much debate on professional operators needing minimum skill levels. One of these drones flying around the business centre of a city hitting the CEO of of billion dollar corporation (extreme I know, but not impossible in some places) might result in really heavy handed regulations being put into place"

I think your kind of making my point for me, the heavy handed regulations are already being contemplated and I don't think any billion dollar CEO's have been injured. In fact I think its those same CEO's from Boeing, Raytheon and others who are driving a lot of the NPRM. Much easier for them to leverage the FAA to regulate competition than actually win business. The probable reasons for the US being such a litigious society is because there are a lot of attorneys and the result of writing ridiculous regulations/laws that have no resemblance to reality.

"I suspect you won't last long as a chef in a restaurant or an engineer working for a company, even as a one man operation, unless you've got skills and the traditional methods of apprenticeships and training is the way most people learn these. You start up a catering establishment, but you can find that there's a fair amount of regulations involved and poor practise isn't good for the health of your customers."

I'm not sure what government or industry regulations has to do with good training or apprenticeships? I think it would get in the way of it. A lot of people keep comparing getting a drivers license to licensing for MR's, the CA drivers test is a joke, It has been so dumbed down to the lowest common denominator that its a complete waste of time. I guess that's good if your an idiot and need to take the test, but it scares the hell out of me knowing my niece will be driving with a lot of her peers that have no idea how to really drive a car safely.

Unless the whole argument has changed without me noticing, I don't think anybody here is saying they should all be regulated per se, are they?

Isn't the general argument for any legislation just to do with both commercial use and/or over a certain weight/size?

So no specific legislation about small MR being flown for hobby purposes in general - how does that sound?

And if you decide to do it over Manhattan in a fashion as shown here, deal with that under existing law.

A lot of "hobbyist" make this argument thinking this won't effect them, but in the last two years Oregon, Washington, Texas, and a bunch of other States are not distinguishing between "professional" or "hobbyist" AP, they have just made it illegal across the board. Oregon wanted to go so far as to make it illegal to own a MR, not sure where that ended up.

We don't really have a choice in this. In California the LA Sharifs department sent a letter to the California Realtors Association telling them that using AP for real estate was against the law and that they would prosecute with up to a $250K fine and ten years in prison. I think its interesting and a local sherifs municipality would try to enforce a non existent federal regulation and that they chose to threaten the realtors who paid for the service, not the people providing the service. The net result was the same, Realtors stopped spending money on AP, which for me seems like a pretty innocuous application for MR's.

The whole commercial AP vs private AP is a smoke screen.

... it scares the hell out of me knowing my niece will be driving with a lot of her peers that have no idea how to really drive a car safely.

Do you have a constructive recommendation in that regard?

Here's an interesting article that seems to hold some parallels in terms of local attempts at regulation:

Higa & Gipson Blog: Glider Pilot Arrested When Local Sheriff Oversteps the Authority of His Office (http://higagipsonllp.blogspot.com/2013/02/glider-pilot-arrested-when-local.html)

Do you have a constructive recommendation in that regard?

Do you have a child or relative getting their license?

I'm military veteran pilot so I'm instructing my niece about situational awareness, the importance of her scan to develop a complete sight picture and resource management inside the car - how talking on her cell and texting effects that. Mostly defensive driving techniques, that sort of thing.

She, and a couple of her friends had already had drivers education and they didn't cover this sort of thing, they only covered enough to pass the test.

The relationship between government and industry is complex, but you do find crossovers where industrial regulations are part of government legislation. There are companies that require certified people, who can meet international standards and there are industrial organisations involved in setting these standards. Depending on their history, these organisations may or may not be part of government.

In the UK, many industries have organisations that set training standards for people employed within those industries and which have liaised with examination boards within the education sector about their requirements.

Railways tend to be subsidized in many countries, so it's not surprising that Amtrack also requires them, especially since so many Americans use their cars or fly because of the distances.

Do you have a constructive recommendation in that regard?

Errr Jim, I think you've quoted me for something I didn't say.......

David - oops - Sorry about that. Fixed.

Chuck, actually I see a similarity in what you described with people flying UAVs without knowing the rules. I think you recognize the fact that someone could easily fly one into the flight path of a low flying helicopter where it is sucked into the intake and result in a crash of the helicopter,or substitute your favorite disaster scenario. I think it's reasonable to assume that many of these have a service ceiling > 500 feet MSL. Helicopters regularly fly at low altitudes (ca. 500 feet agl) in the Atlanta metro area. They certainly can't see and avoid such small vehicles, particularly in the haze and ground clutter. Yet you are opposed to regulations that would try to insure that operators demonstrate their knowledge of the rules of the (aerial) road.

David - oops - Sorry about that. Fixed.

Chuck, actually I see a similarity in what you described with people flying UAVs without knowing the rules. I think you recognize the fact that someone could easily fly one into the flight path of a low flying helicopter where it is sucked into the intake and result in a crash of the helicopter,or substitute your favorite disaster scenario. I think it's reasonable to assume that many of these have a service ceiling > 500 feet MSL. Helicopters regularly fly at low altitudes (ca. 500 feet agl) in the Atlanta metro area. They certainly can't see and avoid such small vehicles, particularly in the haze and ground clutter. Yet you are opposed to regulations that would try to insure that operators demonstrate their knowledge of the rules of the (aerial) road.

I'm not opposed to effective regulations but I am opposed to regulations that are developed as a result of paranoia and miss information. Those types of regulations will only increase the expense to comply with them and ultimately lead to flying MR's to be less safe, not more.

Until recently I flew full size aircraft and MR's a lot, and I can tell you that if I were flying a UH-1 at 100ft at 100 knots and you didn't know the direction I was approaching from that you couldn't fly your MR into my UH-1 if you tried. The odds of a midair collision between a helicopter and a MR are astronomical, it is almost a non issue. Its simple, keep RC's below 400ft agl, and at least five miles from any airport would keep them separated from GA traffic and under a certain weight and it would increase the safety of the public.

A lot of "hobbyist" make this argument thinking this won't effect them, but in the last two years Oregon, Washington, Texas, and a bunch of other States are not distinguishing between "professional" or "hobbyist" AP, they have just made it illegal across the board..

Actually Chuck, the state of Texas passed legislation making AP illegal without the property owner's permission. The problem being that unless it's a residence on a decent sized plot of land, keeping other property out of the lens is next to impossible. Haven't seen any cases here yet of arrests and/or fines under that legislation, but it was mainly intended to reduce the public's fears of privacy violations. And then when I think of that angle, I wonder about Google Street View and aerial map views. I know Google goes to great lengths to blue anything objectionable, but still.

I tend to agree with the part about keeping UAV's at or below 400 agl as recommended in the FAA advisory circular AC-97 from 1981. Keeping manned aircraft at or above 500 agl as per regulations should keep the two activities safely separated from one another.

I know this is a hot button subject right now so let's keep the discussion here respectful and civil.

-gb-

Current FAA regulations deal with standards for aircraft and things like separation of aircraft in various types of airspace and visibility conditions, e.g. VFR vs. IFR, so I don't see where a certification requirement for pilots and aircraft would be a result of misinformation or anything other than safety concerns. If operators are left to deal with a plethora of local regulations with no consistency, then they are continually at risk from the whims of the local constabulary.

The helicopter scenario is realistic in the situation I've described in a previous thread, several news helicopters and UAVs filming the same news event and each angling for the best view. In qualitative risk analysis you do take probability into account and I agree probability of occurrence is low, however you also take impact into account and in this scenario it's pretty high.

But as I've said previously, I think there has to be a weight class below, and an altitude below which FAA shouldn't care or be involved, commercially or otherwise. This would be the intersection of low risk and low impact.