Because the gentleman they are quoting is not the gentleman who was piloting the drone in question."Just puts a bad name for all of us you know and that's the tough part, you got all these people breaking the rules."
That statement above, by the "drone enthusiast" just doesn't make any sense - "Just puts a bad name for all of us you know and that's the tough part," (ok and thanks for that since you are part of the "bad name" we get) and then, "you got all these people breaking the rules" (ah, duh - including yourself)?
He flies for fun and keeps his drone below 400 feet to protect his investment and to avoid a collision (so, when does he do that - allegedly, not this time)!
The whole article is too weird - sounds like it was written by a 4 year old!
Flying over 150 feet above recommended, and not registered. Should be a good first test-case for the FAA to make an example out of him.
Then again, why was a heli hovering 500 feet over a neighborhood?!
Makes more sense. The way it was written in a way made it sound like Scott Barnes was the pilot. Personal interpretation I suppose.
This guy appears to be fresh meat for the FAA. He clearly and blatantly "endangered the safety of NAS." He did exactly what we have all been told repeatedly not to do. FAA has the power to "pursue enforcement action." So why wouldn't they? I can't imagine any reason why they would choose not to go after him.
That wasn't a quad style drone, but a large RC airplane from what appears in the video... why do they keep saying 'drone' when clearly it's not?
Please google the definition of "Drone."That wasn't a quad style drone, but a large RC airplane from what appears in the video... why do they keep saying 'drone' when clearly it's not?
View attachment 42801