Drone knucklehead . . . very UNCOOL stunt flying over HELICOPTER

[2edgesword]

One last comment before I call it a day. In no way do I excuse the violation of FAA regulations. My only issue is assigning blame when I don't know all the facts. That said, if this is an incident where a drone pilot flagrantly violated regulations that are meant for all of us to fly as safely as possible there is no excuse for it and it cast a shadow over the hobby and industry. These flagrant violations are going to be the motivation for enacting even more stringent regulations that pretty much do away with or strictly limit the hobby aspect of flying drones.

I had no plans to fly drones for commercial purposes but I take sharing the airspace with others seriously. That motivated me to take the time and expended the resource to get my 107 license. I say that to dispel any notion that I don't view putting others at risk by violating the rules lightly.

 

[sar104]

One last comment before I call it a day. In no way do I excuse the violation of FAA regulations. My only issue is assigning blame when I don't know all the facts. That said, if this is an incident where a drone pilot flagrantly violated regulations that are meant for all of us to fly as safely as possible there is no excuse for it and it cast a shadow over the hobby and industry. These flagrant violations are going to be the motivation for enacting even more stringent regulations that pretty much do away with or strictly limit the hobby aspect of flying drones.

I had no plans to fly drones for commercial purposes but I take sharing the airspace with others seriously. That motivated me to take the time and expended the resource to get my 107 license. I say that to dispel any notion that I don't view putting others at risk by violating the rules lightly.

I don't think that you have actually followed the link and looked at this on YouTube. The pilot already admitted that he was completely in the wrong. We know that he was at approximately 1100 ft AGL. He stated that his only guidance was the lack of restrictions in the GO app, so he was definitely not flying with any waivers under Part 107. If you don't think that you have enough facts to conclude, unambiguously, that this flight was reckless and illegal then I suggest that you do a little more research before you make any further posts on the subject because, right now, all you are doing is muddying the waters.

 

[2edgesword]

I don't think that you have actually followed the link and looked at this on YouTube. The pilot already admitted that he was completely in the wrong. We know that he was at approximately 1100 ft AGL. He stated that his only guidance was the lack of restrictions in the GO app, so he was definitely not flying with any waivers under Part 107. If you don't think that you have enough facts to conclude, unambiguously, that this flight was reckless and illegal then I suggest that you do a little more research before you make any further posts on the subject because, right now, all you are doing is muddying the waters.

Thanks for the additional info. I didn't realize there was a link with more information. I had only viewed the video. I will take a look at the other info.

 

[2edgesword]

Thanks for the additional info. I didn't realize there was a link with more information. I had only viewed the video. I will take a look at the other info.

I did read the pilot commentary and he seem to have relied to much on the tecnology to keep him within the regulations. Of course he fell short a I hope he has hopefully learned an important lesson. It sounds like he heard somthing, saw something but couldn't process it fast enough to do anything about it.

 

[Ansia]

I don't think that you have actually followed the link and looked at this on YouTube. The pilot already admitted that he was completely in the wrong. We know that he was at approximately 1100 ft AGL. He stated that his only guidance was the lack of restrictions in the GO app, so he was definitely not flying with any waivers under Part 107. If you don't think that you have enough facts to conclude, unambiguously, that this flight was reckless and illegal then I suggest that you do a little more research before you make any further posts on the subject because, right now, all you are doing is muddying the waters.

Just because my car can go at 150mph does not mean I can go at that speed and say sorry. I will still get a ticket. I believe he should be reprimanded, even if he didn't know the rules at the time. Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[2edgesword]

Just because my car can go at 150mph does not mean I can go at that speed and say sorry. I will still get a ticket. I believe he should be reprimanded, even if he didn't know the rules at the time. Ignorance is not an excuse.

If the evidence shows he violated regulations he should be reprimanded. Absolutely.

 

[xspwhite]

I'm still a bit shocked that the geofencing allowed him to fly in that area.

 

[Ansia]

I'm still a bit shocked that the geofencing allowed him to fly in that area.

Probably didn't have it updated.

 

[Raptorman0909]

You think the helo pilot saw the drone?

No, it looks like the copter was ascending and if so the pilot would have had little chance to see it. Even if the copter was flying straight and level it would be easy to miss a drone, particularly one that is just sitting there. This same a$$hat used his drone to chase/harasses two Bald Eagles. This makes me so mad...


Brian

 

[Kristina Fowler]

I haven't seen this one posted on the forum yet so here goes....

This UAS operator pulled a maneuver that I would love to see him go to jail, get fined heavily, and forbidden to ever own any type of UAS ever again.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Please discuss but do so with respect and decency.

Allen

I'm guessing he's at least 1,500 - 2,000 feet.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I thought he put the video backwards, not caught up to it.

If you look closer, the helicopter is hovering ... the ground is stationary. Probably looking back, in disbelief, to see what he almost crashed into. Meanwhile, the sUAS pilot found it necessary to fly closer to the hovering helicopter rather than descend and leave the airspace ASAP.

I think the real issue here is how high is the drone or how low is the helicopter. Which is in violation of altitude guidelines.

 

[Ansia]

If you look closer, the helicopter is hovering ... the ground is stationary. Probably looking back, in disbelief, to see what he almost crashed into. Meanwhile, the sUAS pilot found it necessary to fly closer to the hovering helicopter rather than descend and leave the airspace ASAP.

I think the real issue here is how high is the drone or how low is the helicopter. Which is in violation of altitude guidelines.

Just looked at the video again. To me, the drone isn't moving forwards, just in it's own Aixs. I do see the helo moving in relation to the ground.

 

[sar104]

I'm guessing he's at least 1,500 - 2,000 feet.

He was at approximately 1100 ft AGL.

 

[sar104]

If you look closer, the helicopter is hovering ... the ground is stationary. Probably looking back, in disbelief, to see what he almost crashed into. Meanwhile, the sUAS pilot found it necessary to fly closer to the hovering helicopter rather than descend and leave the airspace ASAP.

I think the real issue here is how high is the drone or how low is the helicopter. Which is in violation of altitude guidelines.

I think you need to watch the video more closely. The P4P is stationary. The helicopter flies underneath it, heading east. Don't be confused by the slow motion and reverse replays in the video.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

I think you need to watch the video more closely. The P4P is stationary. The helicopter flies underneath it, heading east. Don't be confused by the slow motion and reverse replays in the video.

This is the correct answer.

 

[skymonkey]

So whos at fault? According to 14CFR 91.119 - the helicopter operator.

Whether he was at 400 or below or 5000 and above...It doesn’t matter.
sUAS “HAVE” to give way to ALL manned aircraft.

 

[Ansia]

BOOOM!!!!

*mic drop*

 

[sar104]

Take a look at the Airmap zone there: AirMap Web App

Looks clear to fly, as long as you dont take-off and land from Niagara State Park and out of Colonial Airport airspace?

Lets make some assumptions.

Lets assume that the UAS operator was at or below 400' AGL.

So whos at fault? According to 14CFR 91.119 - the helicopter operator.

______________________

In reality - the drone operator was way above 400' AGL, this is the violation in my mind.

Alternatively you could simply refer to the law, which prohibits all UAV flights over Niagara Falls:

§ 93.71 General operating procedures.​

(a) Flight restrictions are in effect below 3,500 feet MSL in the airspace above Niagara Falls, New York, west of a line from latitude 43°06′33″ N., longitude 79°03′30″ W. (the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge) to latitude 43°04′47″ N., longitude 79°02′44″ W. (the Niagara River Inlet) to latitude 43°04′29″ N., longitude 79°03′30″ W. (the International Control Dam) to the United States/Canadian Border and thence along the border to the point of origin.​

​

(b) No flight is authorized below 3,500 feet MSL in the area described in paragraph (a) of this section, except for aircraft operations conducted directly to or from an airport/heliport within the area, aircraft operating on an ATC-approved IFR flight plan, aircraft operating the Scenic Falls Route pursuant to approval of Transport Canada, aircraft carrying law enforcement officials, or aircraft carrying properly accredited news representatives for which a flight plan has been filed with Buffalo NY (BUF) Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS).​

 

[skymonkey]

sUAS PIC are required to scan the airspace around them for other aircraft so that they can give way to all other aircraft approaching them. Obviously this guy was not doing so.
Remember that..if you haven’t taken your part 107 yet you will see it there.

Part 107 makes reference to certain part 91 rules that are required to be read by part 107.

Can you show me where part 107 makes reference to part 91.119.

 

[Osmosis]

Alternatively you could simply refer to the law, which prohibits all UAV flights over Niagara Falls:

§ 93.71 General operating procedures.​

(a) Flight restrictions are in effect below 3,500 feet MSL in the airspace above Niagara Falls, New York, west of a line from latitude 43°06′33″ N., longitude 79°03′30″ W. (the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge) to latitude 43°04′47″ N., longitude 79°02′44″ W. (the Niagara River Inlet) to latitude 43°04′29″ N., longitude 79°03′30″ W. (the International Control Dam) to the United States/Canadian Border and thence along the border to the point of origin.​

​

(b) No flight is authorized below 3,500 feet MSL in the area described in paragraph (a) of this section, except for aircraft operations conducted directly to or from an airport/heliport within the area, aircraft operating on an ATC-approved IFR flight plan, aircraft operating the Scenic Falls Route pursuant to approval of Transport Canada, aircraft carrying law enforcement officials, or aircraft carrying properly accredited news representatives for which a flight plan has been filed with Buffalo NY (BUF) Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS).​

Draw it out - from the whirlpool to the international dam