Anyone flying over a freeway where hundreds can see them, and the story is reported on the evening news - that pilot is feeding the hysteria around personal drones - NOT the forum member reporting here.
Stop defending people flying stupid.
A Bozo Phantom pilot strikes again
- Thread starter mjw
- Start date
- Status
Stop defending people flying stupid.
In the end if the pilot notified the tower he/she did nothing illegal. That is a fact and that fact is what Steve is driving at. In the past I have mistaken the approach of stating the simple fact as defending questionable decisions but with all of the conjecture and blanket labeling of what is wrong and what is right (based on personal opinion) all we have is the facts.
Anyone who cannot handle or decipher sarcasm on this forum is in the wrong place. If you can dish it out better be able to have the skin to receive it.
Anyone who cannot handle or decipher sarcasm on this forum is in the wrong place. If you can dish it out better be able to have the skin to receive it.
Both yours and the media's.
Flying over a freeway is reckless. If he crossed the freeway on his flight path that is one thing, but if he flew with or against traffic, that is dangerous and reckless.
We don't know the details of the flight, but the fact is it was reported on the news. Damage done.
Fly over a crowd, you are going to get attention. Fly over traffic and you deserve all the attention you get. Stop making excuses for bad piloting.
Not excuses, just stating that it may have been a legal flight. I do agree that hovering over or even flying with traffic may not be the best decision but calling it reckless is a bit extreme (unless the pilot was causing a real disturbance in the traffic flow).
Again just my opinion everyone is entitled to theirs.
Again just my opinion everyone is entitled to theirs.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 121
This whole thing seems to be a great example of completely irresponsible reporting and repeating....and the sort of effect that such a thing and debate can generate even within a forum filled with people that should know better. In the news video, the drone was reported as flying between the Reunion Bldg and the Courts Bldg... BOTH of which are more than 5 miles away from Love Field (and yes, as regulations currently stand, distances are measured from center point of an airport).
I think the title should be change to "Bozo Reporter films drone and claims it violates Love Field airspace, when it in fact wasn't....and needlessly stirs debate".
The attached picture shows a 5 mile red circle around the coordinates of Love Field as reported in the AFD, and a .5 mile green circle around Reunion Tower. They do not overlap.
This zoomed in picture shows the proximity of Reunion Tower to the Courts building, both of which well outside (at least 1/2 mile outside) the 5 mile radius:
All I'm saying is this seems to be an example of a drone flying in a location that people may not like (urban, over freeways), reported as illegal and dangerous, yet may in fact be perfectly within regulations, even without notification to ATC. Be skeptical when you hear such "news" reports. The news station should possibly be chastised for their poor reporting.
The full report can be seen here: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Video-Shows-Drone-in-Controlled-Dallas-Airspace-337331541.html#
I think the title should be change to "Bozo Reporter films drone and claims it violates Love Field airspace, when it in fact wasn't....and needlessly stirs debate".
The attached picture shows a 5 mile red circle around the coordinates of Love Field as reported in the AFD, and a .5 mile green circle around Reunion Tower. They do not overlap.
This zoomed in picture shows the proximity of Reunion Tower to the Courts building, both of which well outside (at least 1/2 mile outside) the 5 mile radius:
All I'm saying is this seems to be an example of a drone flying in a location that people may not like (urban, over freeways), reported as illegal and dangerous, yet may in fact be perfectly within regulations, even without notification to ATC. Be skeptical when you hear such "news" reports. The news station should possibly be chastised for their poor reporting.
The full report can be seen here: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Video-Shows-Drone-in-Controlled-Dallas-Airspace-337331541.html#
steve - any thoughts about the statement in the piece from the FAA, strangely there's not quote .
The Federal Aviation Administration said no drones should fly there – at any altitude – because it is in the flight path of Dallas Love Field.
if its outside of the 5 mile airport radius, im not sure i understand the issue.
Great job on actually doing some research, which most would assume the news station did, but apparently they don't have the facts quite right.... what a shock!
Not all controlled airspace areas are as neatly defined as a five mile radius around the airport. Very large airports have a complex, 3 dimensional controlled airspaces designed to maintain safe separation between aircraft. The area mentioned is located within what is called "Class B" airspace which extends outward from the Dallas Fort Worth International airport.
According to this aeronautical chart, that location has restrictions for flying that extend from the surface of the ground, up to 11,000 feet. To fly in that airspace, a pilot must do all of the following: 1) Obtain clearance from Air Traffic Control before entering, 2) Maintain radio contact with Air Traffic Control, and 3) be equipped with an altitude-encoding transponder.
According to this aeronautical chart, that location has restrictions for flying that extend from the surface of the ground, up to 11,000 feet. To fly in that airspace, a pilot must do all of the following: 1) Obtain clearance from Air Traffic Control before entering, 2) Maintain radio contact with Air Traffic Control, and 3) be equipped with an altitude-encoding transponder.
Last edited:
The FAA person making the statement was referring to that location being in Class B airspace from the surface to 1100 ft. But, we don't know if the drone was flown by a commercial operator with permission from ATC, which would have been perfectly legal.
I find it difficult to believe that there is anyone here who is really into this hobby who has never flown over a road, people, private property, a building or in some other "technically illegal or discouraged" way. Very difficult not to unless you're out in the plains or in Alaska.
Everyone here with any sense of responsibility probably tries to fly without endangering anyone and without risking a confrontation with the law while still enjoying the hobby.
Where's a link to the full story? Is there video available of the alleged wrong doer? ANY proof?
The media pays well for video of news stories. Noone's sold them a video?
What verifiable evidence is available to corroborate this story?
I Googled it but found nothing other than an "alleged" incident back in April and as usual, no evidence whatsoever except an "authority" says so.
Why would you call someone an idiot without evidence they did what was purported?
Is it really so easy for the media to control people's opinion and behavior?
April 2015....
"The Dallas Police Department’s Air One helicopter searched for the drone but could not locate it or the point of origin."
With so many people allegedly flying drones near airports, don't you think they'd have arrested at least one or two by now? What are the odds that with the hundreds and hundreds of incidents near airports, there has not been a single cop nearby to see it and find the operator nor has there been a verified collision? With so many people around airports, how could there NOT be video turned in by someone? Even if there was, without an arrest it could be a legal flight. Control towers actually can give permission to fly a UAV on their field if they choose.
Why are there members here who seem always ready to embrace nearly every alleged report of misconduct so quickly..... before any evidence is presented and throw their full weight against the drone owner/operator every time? Aren't we here because we love this hobby? I know I do. I can't speak for anyone else but I find it odd.
Everyone here with any sense of responsibility probably tries to fly without endangering anyone and without risking a confrontation with the law while still enjoying the hobby.
Where's a link to the full story? Is there video available of the alleged wrong doer? ANY proof?
The media pays well for video of news stories. Noone's sold them a video?
What verifiable evidence is available to corroborate this story?
I Googled it but found nothing other than an "alleged" incident back in April and as usual, no evidence whatsoever except an "authority" says so.
Why would you call someone an idiot without evidence they did what was purported?
Is it really so easy for the media to control people's opinion and behavior?
April 2015....
"The Dallas Police Department’s Air One helicopter searched for the drone but could not locate it or the point of origin."
With so many people allegedly flying drones near airports, don't you think they'd have arrested at least one or two by now? What are the odds that with the hundreds and hundreds of incidents near airports, there has not been a single cop nearby to see it and find the operator nor has there been a verified collision? With so many people around airports, how could there NOT be video turned in by someone? Even if there was, without an arrest it could be a legal flight. Control towers actually can give permission to fly a UAV on their field if they choose.
Why are there members here who seem always ready to embrace nearly every alleged report of misconduct so quickly..... before any evidence is presented and throw their full weight against the drone owner/operator every time? Aren't we here because we love this hobby? I know I do. I can't speak for anyone else but I find it odd.
I agree its not factual on what people are saying about drones, but it makes the press..and in this connected world, that's all that matters, certainly to people who do not understand this fast moving technology.
Only today on the BBC in the UK, an Inspire1 crashes into electric cables in Holywood...
Drone crash causes Hollywood electricity blackout - BBC News
Although its not going to be popular, for one I want this hobby to survive for the general public, BUT much stiffer penalties for these twats' that fly stupidly, and/or decide to let everyone know how far they can fly (i.e. break the law), complete with video evidence.
Why can't these twat's get it into there head that apart from giving the majority of law abiding pilots a bad name, in the event of a hardware failure, including there probably lack of skills, they might injury people(s) or worse.
Personally I'm in favour apart from much stiffer penalties (say min 3-5 years) when breaking FAA/CAA laws, in future anyone intending to buy/use a drone needs a basic pilot qualification, RPQs, BNC-s whatever. Registration won't help one **** bit.
My 2pence worth, not popular I'm sure, but that's the way it is.
Only today on the BBC in the UK, an Inspire1 crashes into electric cables in Holywood...
Drone crash causes Hollywood electricity blackout - BBC News
Although its not going to be popular, for one I want this hobby to survive for the general public, BUT much stiffer penalties for these twats' that fly stupidly, and/or decide to let everyone know how far they can fly (i.e. break the law), complete with video evidence.
Why can't these twat's get it into there head that apart from giving the majority of law abiding pilots a bad name, in the event of a hardware failure, including there probably lack of skills, they might injury people(s) or worse.
Personally I'm in favour apart from much stiffer penalties (say min 3-5 years) when breaking FAA/CAA laws, in future anyone intending to buy/use a drone needs a basic pilot qualification, RPQs, BNC-s whatever. Registration won't help one **** bit.
My 2pence worth, not popular I'm sure, but that's the way it is.
I agree totally, but I'm hoping you don't open wider an already open can of worms with this statement...
(the "break the law" part...)Nickyb,
I agree that blatantly stupid and dangerous has to be punished.
But while you read that one story, I would estimate that 100 times that many power lines were knocked down nationwide that same day by bad drivers. So we all know why the one drone incident made headlines right?
I can't see this technology not becoming commonplace and used by business and authorities everywhere eventually. What makes headlines today will be old hat in the future.
No matter how safe you try to be, stuff happens sometimes.
I think we're going to have to learn to integrate this tech into society without every mishap becoming a headline.
But yeah, that power line incursion is gonna cost that guy a fortune I'd bet.
I agree that blatantly stupid and dangerous has to be punished.
But while you read that one story, I would estimate that 100 times that many power lines were knocked down nationwide that same day by bad drivers. So we all know why the one drone incident made headlines right?
I can't see this technology not becoming commonplace and used by business and authorities everywhere eventually. What makes headlines today will be old hat in the future.
No matter how safe you try to be, stuff happens sometimes.
I think we're going to have to learn to integrate this tech into society without every mishap becoming a headline.
But yeah, that power line incursion is gonna cost that guy a fortune I'd bet.
As other's have noted, Class B does extend to the surface in this area. Obviously these airspace definitions don't make much sense to aircraft that can occupy the same "airspace" as the cars travelling down the freeway in Class B--or someone tossing a paper airplane from the Reunion Tower is effectively violating Class B airspace.
I'm not sure if you were generalizing, Steve, but is it possible to get permission from ATC to fly in Class B without Mode C, when you're obviously within the 30nm radius Mode C veil? I doubt this Phantom in the video had Mode C...
JKD, the story is here: Meet Goober: The Pet of the Week
The video was shot by an NBC cameraman who happened to be in the Reunion Tower...
*EDIT* Just found out there's a waiver for Mode C if your electrical system is not powered by another engine.
Last edited:
- Status
