Drone hits empire state building nyc

Tron_X · Feb 18, 2016

I said organizations (orgs are groups of people) were actively looking to ban drones and amazingly the first person to disagree with me ultimately found out that he actually lives inside of a drone ban. Palm Beach cracks down on drones
You're not keeping up with the facts here, friend. Now he's going to have to wonder if he'll have to pay a $250 or $500 fine every time he flies. That sounds like common sense regulation to me!

More drone bans -
Huntington bans drones from flying over private property
Paradise Valley becomes first town in Arizona to regulate drones
Drone-usage ban considered in village

It goes on forever... time to stop ignoring this and get organized for the future of the sport & business. Read the comment roll under the articles if you don't believe that people are willing to strip your rights and privileges away just to spite you.

Odogster · Feb 18, 2016

NotARubicon said:
Says he's expected to face criminal charges.. What would he be charged with?

I would guess reckless endangerment...

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

Odogster said:
I would guess reckless endangerment...

Yup, reckless endangerment.

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

Tron_X said:
I said organizations (orgs are groups of people) were actively looking to ban drones and amazingly the first person to disagree with me ultimately found out that he actually lives inside of a drone ban. Palm Beach cracks down on drones
You're not keeping up with the facts here, friend. Now he's going to have to wonder if he'll have to pay a $250 or $500 fine every time he flies. That sounds like common sense regulation to me!

More drone bans -
Huntington bans drones from flying over private property
Paradise Valley becomes first town in Arizona to regulate drones
Drone-usage ban considered in village

It goes on forever... time to stop ignoring this and get organized for the future of the sport & business. Read the comment roll under the articles if you don't believe that people are willing to strip your rights and privileges away just to spite you.

LOL, three cities that have enacted bans. One village that is considering a ban.

So that is what you call "a plethora" of bans, eh?
"Plethora" indicates a large or excessive amount. You found 3 and a half.

I'm left to snicker at your "plethora."

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

Doubt they will get very far since no one was even hurt by the 100 gram copter. Maybe the cops who told him to go ahead will get busted too.

"Reckless Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person."

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

TheTanger said:
"Reckless Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person."

Yes, that is the definition.
Note:
""Reckless Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person."

Injury does not have to occur, only that the behavior could lead to injury.
Here, this may help your understanding: Reckless Endangerment Charges | LegalMatch Law Library

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

So, in your opinion, would a plastic 100 gram quad falling from the sky likely cause death or grievous bodily harm? I say no, which is probably WHY the .55 lbs (250 grams) minimum was put in for a requirement to get FAA certification.

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

TheTanger said:
So, in your opinion, would a plastic 100 gram quad falling from the sky likely cause death or grievous bodily harm? I say no, which is probably WHY the .55 lbs (250 grams) minimum was put in for a requirement to get FAA certification.

Unless I am to be called as an expert witness, my opinion has no value.

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

GoodnNuff said:
Unless I am to be called as an expert witness, my opinion has no value.

True, but why then did FAA NOT require registration for craft weighing less than 250 grams (which the Empire State drone was)? They are by FAR more difficult to control than Phantoms or other GPS craft.

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

TheTanger said:
True, but why then did FAA NOT require registration for craft weighing less than 250 grams (which the Empire State drone was)? They are by FAR more difficult to control than Phantoms or other GPS craft.

I don't represent, nor am I connected to the FAA. I wouldn't presume to answer for them.
Have you tried contacting someone at the FAA with your questions?

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

GoodnNuff said:
I don't represent, nor am I connected to the FAA. I wouldn't presume to answer for them.
Have you tried contacting someone at the FAA with your questions?

No, but I think it should probably be part of their FAQ's for sure.

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

TheTanger said:
No, but I think it should probably be part of their FAQ's for sure.

Then your time would be far better spent perusing the FAA's website as opposed to querying people here, don't you think?

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

Already looked, just gobbly-gook. I don't think they have really fleshed it out yet for the under 250 gram class toys.

I think there may be a massive market for GPS enabled 1080P craft weighing less than .55lbs with either a gimbal or digital stabilization.

Odogster · Feb 18, 2016

I would have to say that there are too many variables at play to make a blanket statement as to what weight of a falling object could cause death or grievous bodily harm. If someone happens to be holding their infant with the soft spot of the head face up and is hit with a 240g object falling from 400 ft. it would be potentially far worse than some fat shmuck lying on the beach that gets hit on his back fat roll with the same object. However, adhering to the standards of reason, seems obvious that the heavier an object the more damage it will cause as the good old theory of relativity alludes to.

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

Odogster said:
I would have to say that there are too many variables at play to make a blanket statement as to what weight of a falling object could cause death or grievous bodily harm. If someone happens to be holding their infant with the soft spot of the head face up and is hit with a 240g object falling from 400 ft. it would be potentially far worse than some fat shmuck lying on the beach that gets hit on his back fat roll with the same object. However, adhering to the standards of reason, seems obvious that the heavier an object the more damage it will cause as the good old theory of relativity alludes to.

Certainly there are...it could hit someone in the eye (props are sharp), etc. Maybe I'll write the FAA an e-mail asking about why they aren't regulating <.55 of a pound craft at ALL.

GoodnNuff · Feb 18, 2016

Odogster said:
I would have to say that there are too many variables at play to make a blanket statement as to what weight of a falling object could cause death or grievous bodily harm. If someone happens to be holding their infant with the soft spot of the head face up and is hit with a 240g object falling from 400 ft. it would be potentially far worse than some fat shmuck lying on the beach that gets hit on his back fat roll with the same object. However, adhering to the standards of reason, seems obvious that the heavier an object the more damage it will cause as the good old theory of relativity alludes to.

Not sure of the weight of the small racing type drone that took out the toddler's eye in the UK, but it was quite a bit smaller than a Phantom:
Toddler, 18 months, left blind in one eye by drone propeller

Odogster · Feb 18, 2016

TheTanger said:
Certainly there are...it could hit someone in the eye (props are sharp), etc. Maybe I'll write the FAA an e-mail asking about why they aren't regulating <.55 of a pound craft at ALL.

Exactly, but I wouldnt give the FAA any more ideas that would be kinda like asking a probation officer why you only get a 5 panel instead of a 7 panel drug test.

I would guess that the size, speed and density of the larger copters props was also a factor being considered.

Odogster · Feb 18, 2016

GoodnNuff said:
Not sure of the weight of the small racing type drone that took out the toddler's eye in the UK, but it was quite a bit smaller than a Phantom:
Toddler, 18 months, left blind in one eye by drone propeller

I dont know what those weigh either, but I have read that many times they are using carbon fiber props.

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

Odogster said:
I dont know what those weigh either, but I have read that many times they are using carbon fiber props.

Those things aren't that light...about 500 grams with the battery (which is over 1 pound and double the minimum weight for FAA registration). Standard 250 racer chassis...the carbon fiber prop is probably a major factor in that accident.

The NYC Empire drone was about 1/4 of that weight (about .20-.25 of a pound).

Eachine Racer 250 FPV Drone Built in 5.8G Transmitter OSD With HD Camera ARF Version

TheTanger · Feb 18, 2016

Odogster said:
Exactly, but I wouldnt give the FAA any more ideas that would be kinda like asking a probation officer why you only get a 5 panel instead of a 7 panel drug test. I would guess that the size, speed and density of the larger copters props was also a factor being considered.

On the other hand, if the FAA mandated simplified certification and piloting test (like DMV for driver's tests), perhaps the hysteria would go away if those who were flying were all certified and could be reported?

So instead of just REGISTRATION, an actual LICENSING / Pilot model. The smaller toys probably weren't considered because of their lack of range & weight is my guess.