Proof cops lied about GWB Drone flight!

[sar104]

I'm afraid that on the basis of the reports so far, I have to side with the skeptics here. It looks to me like the NYPD misjudged what they were seeing, overreacted, and then invented what they may have mistakenly thought to be a credible version of events to explain their actions. Except it isn't credible.

The eyewitness and quad pilots accounts are mostly consistent and believable. The NYPD account is simply not possible on the key points given the limitations of the equipment involved.

 

[ianwood]

NYPD—LaGuardia we are 800 feet and he is level with us at this time.
...
Tower—All right what altitude were you guys at.
NYPD—These things were well over 2,000 feet. They were above us at 1,000.

It may not be easy to judge relative height when something is above or below. I've already made that point and discounted the 2,000ft suggestion. But when something is level with you, it's much easier to be accurate about relative height.

I think there is enough there to tell you they were at 800ft and most likely 1,000ft or even more. Eyewitness accounts, even video from the ground won't tell you anything about their altitude unless it contains a visual reference point. Your average person sucks at judging height. Even your above average person is no good at it either.

Bottom line, 1,000ft is way too **** high. High-traffic area, sandwiched by restricted airspace, nighttime, right next to major infrastructure. It's about as stupid as you can get. Had they been below 400ft, it would be a very different story.

 

[QYV]

NYPD—LaGuardia we are 800 feet and he is level with us at this time.
...
Tower—All right what altitude were you guys at.
NYPD—These things were well over 2,000 feet. They were above us at 1,000.

It may not be easy to judge relative height when something is above or below. I've already made that point and discounted the 2,000ft suggestion. But when something is level with you, it's much easier to be accurate about relative height.

I think there is enough there to tell you they were at 800ft and most likely 1,000ft or even more. Eyewitness accounts, even video from the ground won't tell you anything about their altitude unless it contains a visual reference point. Your average person sucks at judging height. Even your above average person is no good at it either.

Bottom line, 1,000ft is way too **** high. High-traffic area, sandwiched by restricted airspace, nighttime, right next to major infrastructure. It's about as stupid as you can get. Had they been below 400ft, it would be a very different story.

apparently your average nypd police pilot sucks at judging height at night too I'm astounded how you're cherry picking certain facts out of their statements, discounting others and drawing your own conclusions that neither side is claiming.. THEY are the ones who claimed it was 2000+ feet up, not me... you quoted it! so if they were wrong about that, what else were they wrong about? the logic center of my brain hurts. but again, this isn't about how high they were or where the Phantoms were. This is about the police pilots claiming the Phantom pilots were acting without regard to human life in regard to the police helicopter... and because the police have been proven to have been mistaken about some of the facts involved in this situation, it stands to reason they're wrong about other facts too.. back that up with not 1 or 2 but a dozen+ eyewitness accounts all contradicting the police version of events and that's why I'm on the side I am. I also believe the Phantom pilots when those guys say they wouldn't be flying at 1000+ feet without FPV because I was one too and I've been there. If I'm eventually proven wrong with radar or other evidence I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. I hope it happens (either way) but I doubt we'll ever get real closeure about it.

anyway I guess my math or verbal skills just aren't sufficient to explain this convincingly so I'm just gonna stop and agree to disagree... the last thing I want to do is sit and argue on this forum, it's almost the weekend!

ianwood and I are aligned on 99% of our opinions and advice all over this forum 1000ft is too **** high especially around a major metropolitan area and/or airports. We should be nowhere near any type of other full size aircraft. We should politely comply with reasonable law enforcement requests. We should fly safely and responsibly and especially not over people.

 

[CarlJ]

I'm sorry Carl, but under what authority do you have to conclude what constitutes a checkmate?
Opinions do not have a valid "checkmate"

They are like assholes, everyones got one!
And I think QYV made a very well stated point. And your only reply is that he is a Klingon... awesome bro. Awesome.

And in an area where there is arguably no laws (or lack thereof), there is no checkmate.
There is no proof that they went above 400ft, at least not yet.

I'm sure we will see who was "right" in a couple of weeks or months when we see some sort of report about a lawsuit.

I'm actually surprised the police dont have a camera on their chopper. I thought they normally had those things for chases and stuff. I know they have those bright search lights.

Authority? It's an expression, you're reading too much into it. Now if you think that I believe Ian made a well worded and articulate argument which left little doubt in my mind where the right and wrong was...you're right. This wouldn't be the first time we haven't seen eye to eye, but we're always respectful. I never said you were a waste of skin, in fact I've come to hold you in some regard, but on this we're not going to agree.

If they did not fly above 400 feet, the cops are pissing up a rope.

Good point about the camera on the chopper, who knows...maybe they do.

 

[BMEWS]

They will likely have quite detailed flight recorders on the aircraft and the ATC will also have quite detailed recordings too (if they keep them).

have you checked out the link in the original post of this thread? that's sort of what this is all about...

if you mean the soundcloud recording? yes. I've listened to it. However, I was actually referring to the additional recordings that are most likely accessible such as raw radar information (before the software strips out the spurious results) and of course the blackbox recordings showing gps positions, height, speed and the correlation between the two. that kinda stuff

But other than that. No I've not done much else on this one

Bmews

 

[CarlJ]

This is about the police pilots claiming the Phantom pilots were acting without regard to human life in regard to the police helicopter... and because the police have been proven to have been mistaken about some of the facts involved in this situation, it stands to reason they're wrong about other facts too.

You're right about that, it's at the very heart of the matter, and what we have here is a convoluted pile of crap with little in the way of facts. And that the police were mistaken does not lead to a series of mistakes, it leads to those mistakes. I'm still waiting on an answer to the question you posed, did they act with no regard to human life, and were they an impediment to the copter OR it's pilots? I think a lot is riding on that answer, and if they were above 400 feet they are screwed.

I think our only course of action is to wait and see, then we can tar and feather.

 

[dragonash]

We all have our own ways of seeing this.

I personally cant take anything the police say in this matter as fact, based on the 2000ft statement and believe it or not, Ian's argument about being difficult to judge height and size.

IMO, If the chopper wasn't close enough to determine how high it was and its size until the cops on the ground told them it was a small 4 propeller thing, then based on the difficulty to determine those facts, how far away were they from the phantom before they said they are level at 800ft? Maybe it "looked" level somehow.

This now gets into the credibility of the he police's side of the story and when they said the drone was coming at them. This was not true either. In fact, it was the opposite! Then they didnt even know what to charge them with when they found them.

My point is, their credibility is now thrown out the window and unless there is proof from either side, we wont know the whole story and probably never will.

HOWEVER, the only video evidence we have supports the phantom operators (along with bystanders)
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/07/30015/n ... ox-update/

It's not much, but it's more than the police have provided.

 

[steveeds]

This may have been posted, or not

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014 ... d-men-say/

the boys talking half way down the page

Cops are allowed to lie and are encouraged too to elicit any response that they can to use against you, the best reponce is to say "I don't answer questions" and have the phone on record when they beat the crap out of you.

 

[srandall25]

One thing that is clear, the cops did 'pursue' the drone. They admitted that by their own words. Does it make sense to pursue something that you perceive as a threat to your safety?

 

[Damon]

Get a life people. The fact of the matter is f@cktards are going to wreck this hobby by being stupid. I'm pretty sure most bridges and other high target areas after 9-11 are not a good place to fly especially at night!

 

[srandall25]

I do agree... legal or not legal, we all need to be smart about where we choose to fly. One might justify he/she has the right to fly in a certain area based on the current laws and regulations, but that doesn't necessarily mean it may be the smartest choice given the time/place/situation.. One thing I did notice about the two gentlemen providing their video news report about how they were pursued.. in the same video, they're shown standing in the middle of the street flying their phantom... this certainly doesn't help their case...

 

[CarlJ]

Get a life people. The fact of the matter is f@cktards are going to wreck this hobby by being stupid. I'm pretty sure most bridges and other high target areas after 9-11 are not a good place to fly especially at night!

I do enjoy a well worded and articulate post, and you sir are a master of the vernacular. I was particularly taken by your creative use of the @ sign, but it's the economy of verbage in your first (and may I say--spectacular) sentence where you boldly tell us to "Get a life people" that I have a question about.

Are you saying that you find the topic too trivial to discuss?

 

[Damon]

No not trivial, just tired of people putting the blame on anyone other than their selves.

Have a wonderful day Carl, may the sky be clear and wind calm.

 

[CarlJ]

No not trivial, just tired of people putting the blame on anyone other than their selves.

Have a wonderful day Carl, may the sky be clear and wind calm.

Peace and harmony for all your flights my friend, and you just keep on telling it like it is.

 

[dragonash]

No not trivial, just tired of people putting the blame on anyone other than their selves.

Have a wonderful day Carl, may the sky be clear and wind calm.

Peace and harmony for all your flights my friend, and you just keep on telling it like it is.

yeah... that guy didnt even deserve a response. Obviously he read nothing about what was going on.
You are a better man than I Carl lol

 

[CarlJ]

yeah... that guy didnt even deserve a response. Obviously he read nothing about what was going on.
You are a better man than I Carl lol

Gotta admire a man that jumps right in there with f@cktard, and I liked his post, but it left me wondering how he really feels. :lol:

I have an off sense of humor and really strong opinion strike me as funny, and like you I try not to take it personally.

 

[ProfessorStein]

I guess I have a problem with this thread in general, though. I read the transcript... and I fail to see any so called "proof" that anybody lied. Sure, there are some questionable decisions, and very poor understanding of how to judge altitude, but I just don't see any lying. So where is this "proof cops lied"??

 

[dragonash]

yeah... that guy didnt even deserve a response. Obviously he read nothing about what was going on.
You are a better man than I Carl lol

Gotta admire a man that jumps right in there with f@cktard, and I liked his post, but it left me wondering how he really feels. :lol:

I have an off sense of humor and really strong opinion strike me as funny, and like you I try not to take it personally.

yeah, dont get me wrong, I dont have a problem with you or anything either. We are all on the same side, I just feel fundamentally different on this specific situation.
Living in NYC, you tend to not trust people more than usual While I do respect nypd and fdny (i have family in both), oh boy you should hear some of the stories they tell. They don't exactly increase your faith in them (mainly nypd stories)

I guess I have a problem with this thread in general, though. I read the transcript... and I fail to see any so called "proof" that anybody lied. Sure, there are some questionable decisions, and very poor understanding of how to judge altitude, but I just don't see any lying. So where is this "proof cops lied"??

I believe (in one of the original articles), that the 2 were charged with reckless endangerment whch risked the lives of the 2 officers in the chopper by having their phantom go towards the chopper.

I believe that was the false report. Correct me if im wrong (I know someone will!) lol

 

[ProfessorStein]

I believe (in one of the original articles), that the 2 were charged with reckless endangerment whch risked the lives of the 2 officers in the chopper by having their phantom go towards the chopper.

I believe that was the false report. Correct me if im wrong (I know someone will!) lol

No... I believe you are absolutely correct. But I just don't get how this communication/transcript shows any PROOF that they were lying (I, too, believe they were... I just don't find any proof HERE). If anything it proves that, at the time, they felt they were threatened... and that the vehicle was a lot bigger and more powerful than it was.

 

[Monte55]

If anything it proves that, at the time, they felt they were threatened... and that the vehicle was a lot bigger and more powerful than it was.

So the pilots were men