NYPD Helicopter / Multirotor "Near Miss" Unraveling

[Brian Drysdale]

Unfortunately, if a large enough number of users don't keep to sensible voluntary guidelines, legislation can follow so that they become a legal requirement.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

there is no federal LAW on radio control model aircraft altitudes, and the FAA admits it here.

Maybe not just yet, but I think there's every indication that the FAA is going to follow through with its 2012 commitment to re-write their rules (or lack of them) regarding UAV's per the Reauthorization Act, which are supposed to be in place by Sep. of next year. I'm willing to bet there will be sweeping changes and re-definitions compared to their old RCMS guidelines and that the 400 ft. altitude limit will be a big part of it.

Meanwhile, it appears that the agency is ramping up the granting of commercial UAV permits:

Speedier Commercial Drone-Flight Permits Possible by FAA - Bloomberg

Also, I'm really not a very big fan of the journalism style at Huffington Post, but this is worth checking out (and gets us back on topic here as well, I guess):

Why Drone Enthusiasts All Over The Country Are Getting Arrested

[Jim Michael]

Don't forget the current NPR Regulations.gov - this will formalize use of Part 91 regulations which includes a very broad FAR governing reckless operation.

[Chris Hurd]

And the comment deadline is fast approaching! Due by e.o.d. on July 25th. That's coming up pretty quick. And they do read those things.

Some of the old-timers around here that were with this site from before the beginning (back in the old XL1 Watchdog days) might be aware of my advocacy for the LPFM (low-power FM radio) movement and their efforts to get the FCC to re-define the rules governing FM radio under 100 watts. What's happening here with the FAA and the process with this comment phase is identical to all the the outreach we directed to the FCC back in those days -- and it works. So I can tell you from experience that yes, they do read all of those comments and they definitely take them into consideration.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

Clearly, drones are not a problem these days and the police have no reason to be concerned
New York Man Busted For Flying Drone Outside Exam Windows At Medical Office | The Smoking Gun

I predict charges against him will be dropped unless he caves to a plea. You don't ban or over regulate something just because some yahoo abuses it.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

It wouldn't make a difference what altitude one is flying at, as there is no federal LAW on radio control model aircraft altitudes, and the FAA admits it here.

The trouble is that too many people are relying on the fact that there is no actual LAW. Which may be true - but (as your link makes clear) there are a lot of "best practice" "rules" in existence that sensible operation shouldn't be too difficult to follow. And your link is a good starting point - stay away from people and traffic, don't go too high, stay away from areas where aircraft are likely to be operating etc.

Those guidelines seem to have been largely adhered to by model aircraft enthusiasts for a long time without issue - why is it that drones seem to be causing such a problem?

Just saying "there's no actual law against it" doesn't excuse a lot of the stories we're now hearing. Both because of the actual risk, and the likelihood that the more some drone operators show they can't be sensible with voluntary rules, the more draconian eventual legislation will end up.

And too often we're hearing the excuse "it's only a toy!" We've just had a report published in the UK about a helicopter crash where 4 US servicemen were killed when their helicopter (a Pave Hawk, with two pilots) crashed after being hit by three geese - BBC News - Geese caused fatal USAF helicopter crash in Cley, report says .

The report goes on to say that "the type of geese involved in the crash typically weigh between 6 to 12 lbs ", and that hitting them at about 110 knots caused enough damage to render both the flight crew unconscious. Bear that in mind, bear in mind that a drone is more solid than a goose, and even if the drone doesn't quite weigh 6-12lbs, would you like to hit one at 110 knots?

No, not likely in any one flight, but it only needs to happen once over a city ...........

[Ed Roo]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Here's a question for anyone who knows: in the USA, I understand that the FAA mandates the lowest safe altitude in congested areas to be 1,000 ft. above the highest object within a 2,000 radius of the AC. I know this is different in other countries. I understand that the minimum AGA is supposed to be 500 ft. outside of congested areas. And that unmanned drones are to stay below 400 ft. And that helicopters always seem to be an exception to the rules regarding minimums... is that right?

No where in the FARs will you find a definition of "congested airspace". If you examine the case law, it means whatever the judge wants it to mean for that individual case.
In Uncontrolled Airspace, there is no minimum altitude, only lateral limits (500 feet from any person, vehicle or structure).

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I predict charges against him will be dropped unless he caves to a plea. You don't ban or over regulate something just because some yahoo abuses it.

Right. That guy was a fluke, a rare thing and the police had no right to be wary that it was a public safety, privacy threat or whatever.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ed Roo

No where in the FARs will you find a definition of "congested airspace". If you examine the case law, it means whatever the judge wants it to mean for that individual case.
In Uncontrolled Airspace, there is no minimum altitude, only lateral limits (500 feet from any person, vehicle or structure).

I understand that the wording used is "closer than" (at least in the UK), which can be an altitude of 500ft. because you're dealing with 3 dimensions and means you do need to be aware of these objects.

In this particular case I suspect there may be laws other than aviation law that the person could be breaking.

I suspect the problems are arising because the users of these new small UAVs are larger in number than the traditional model aircraft fliers, don't have the same level of involvement in the construction and are new to this type of flying and its culture. Their vehicles seem commonly to be used in a different manner and are impinging more on other people than modelers who, more or less, kept to flying in suitable areas. .

[Dave Allen]

David Heath, I agree.

The media loves to engage in fear mongering for fun and profit. They just haven't met a disaster they don't love to exploit, and when there are few, they exaggerate and dramatize, and when there are none, they create them. From fake hoax epidemic myths like alar, cell phones/brain cancer, pit bulls, heterosexual AIDS, black church burnings, 20 round clips, electrical power line towers, and my favorite news item: "Vitamin C, the hidden dangers! Tune in tonight to find out how to protect your family!", there are no depths the media will stoop to to sensationalize, and right now, radio control model multirotors are "it" because they get to lump them together with real drones like the Global Hawk that can weigh up to 32,000 lbs when fully armed.

With r/c model planes, we all fly them at known fields, and try to fly away from the stands. They seem to be far more reliable than multirotors. With failures, we can usually just glide to a safe landing away from people. With r/c model multirotors, these are being flown over people. Tiny ones like the Phantom are not that much different than hawkers flying and selling r/c electric toy helicopters from their kiosk stands in shopping malls.

The problem is passing laws won't make people act responsibly, they are typically just enacted to line the coffers of the government by coating their corrupt shakedowns with a veneer of law.

If someone needs a law to not fly r/c model aircraft on the final leg of a commercial passenger jet final approach, well, they must be brain dead already and probably won't comprehend a Federal prohibition.

Then there is the issue of rescue parachutes for multirotors. This might be viable for a m/r that weights 10lbs.

[Ed Roo]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I understand that the wording used is "closer than" (at least in the UK), which can be an altitude of 500ft. because you're dealing with 3 dimensions and means you do need to be aware of these objects.

In this particular case I suspect there may be laws other than aviation law that the person could be breaking.

I suspect the problems are arising because the users of these new small UAVs are larger in number than the traditional model aircraft fliers, don't have the same level of involvement in the construction and are new to this type of flying and its culture. Their vehicles seem commonly to be used in a different manner and are impinging more on other people than modelers who, more or less, kept to flying in suitable areas. .

eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

§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 those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

[Docket No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, you'd keep 500ft above a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. During training we used to practice emergency landings down to 250ft over fields or disused airstrips.

Helicopters may get in closer, although doing so can depend on the airspace and safety considerations.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

The media loves to engage in fear mongering for fun and profit. They just haven't met a disaster they don't love to exploit, and when there are few, they exaggerate and dramatize, and when there are none, they create them.

There may be truth in what you say, but worse is when the media represent a POTENTIAL danger as "a disaster that is going to happen!" So scientists or whoever may say "if we go on as we are, xyz will happen". The story gets reported as "XYZ IS going to happen!!" - end of story.

And if you want an excellent example of that, then go back to the Millenium Bug. I first heard of it way back in the early 90's from an IT friend, who did a lot of work on computer systems for big organisations. The mainstream media didn't really pick up on the story until much later - and yes, they loved the fear mongering element. I asked my friend around this point what he thought was going to happen come 2000, and he told me "not a lot". That's not because the threat had never been real, but all the work during the 90's he expected to mean it no longer was.

And he was right. But come 2000, and no actual disaster, the media then labelled it all a myth. Which was disgraceful. The POTENTIAL had been there, that it didn't turn into an ACTUAL disaster was down to a great deal of time, effort and money having been spent on computer upgrade work.

And I think the same may be true of many other scare stories, including some that you mention. They need to be looked at as warnings to act, not an inevitability that disaster will happen.

Tiny ones like the Phantom are not that much different than hawkers flying and selling r/c electric toy helicopters from their kiosk stands in shopping malls.

Maybe, but you don't get full size helicopters flying through shopping malls.... :-) The risk is putting any solid object high in the air where it may get struck by an aircraft.

When I heard about Amazon deliveries by drone a few months ago, the general reaction was to think probably a publicity gimmick - but now it seems to be getting serious..... Amazon asks FAA for permission to test its delivery drones | Fox News If they (and presumably other companies) really start to roll out such programmes, there simply has to be a lot of legislation to control usage.

The problem is passing laws won't make people act responsibly, they are typically just enacted to line the coffers of the government by coating their corrupt shakedowns with a veneer of law.

If someone needs a law to not fly r/c model aircraft on the final leg of a commercial passenger jet final approach, well, they must be brain dead already and probably won't comprehend a Federal prohibition.

I feel we've been here before, and simply don't agree with your first sentence. If it was true, you're effectively saying that all laws are useless.

And yes, it may be true that people still steal, murder, defraud etc in spite of laws against such behaviour, but I'd like to think the laws LIMIT such behaviour. It's much less thanks to the law than it would be otherwise - and I've already given the drink drive laws as an example.

And if the brain dead person still flies close to a passenger jet on finals, you've got something to prosecute him with even if (this time) he doesn't cause a crash. Which will hopefully stop him doing it again, and set an example to others.

[Dave Allen]

The Amazon delivery multirotor thing continues to be a massive publicity hoax.

[Jim Andrada]

Amazon has a distribution center within 2 hours by road of 95% of the US population. They also have the USPS delivering their small packages door to door.

Why would they need drones when they have the USPS?