Safe response to police officer who says to stop flying

jwuman said:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/pDId6Du-yoE[/youtube]
Now more knuckle heads causing the wrong publicity here in CT USA...police dont even know the law or lack of a law, but that being said,,,, flying over a crash scence with a dead body visible is plain wrong and piss poor judgement. this will certainly stir debate at the state govt level and will certainly cause one of our elected incompetent to create more knee jerk laws....

Pilots use your head when flying these, the more bad rediculous publicity we get will certainly end up ruining the hobby for everyone....Hartford, CT PD supervisor in video quotes "the PV2 pilot broke a federal law"? what federal law? the pilot should have been charged with interfering with police since they had to divert attention from the scene to this knuclehead flying a PV2 over the dead body sticking out of the mangled car, real smart guy,,,,,have some decency ,,,that was rediculous...total lack of common sense.....
Click to expand...

Interesting reactions already from the media and blogs. While I seriously doubt the drone operator violated any laws, they certainly violated common sense and decency. Here are three reaction so far:

http://foxct.com/2014/02/07/faa-investi ... ash-scene/
The headline for the above article, from the local CT Fox news channel, is "FAA Investigating Possible Illegal Use Of Drone At Hartford Crash Scene" . Note the operative word, "possible" illegal use...

http://themyrtlebeachpost.com/2014/02/0 ... ash-scene/
In the above link, the Myrtle Beach picks up the story, and without a thought, deletes the word "Possible" and unilaterally declares in their headline that the use of the drone was "Illegal": "FAA Investigating Illegal Drone Use in CT Car Crash Scene".

http://conservative-warriors.com/drones ... mment-6027
Then, a conservative blogger in the above article, probably reacting emotionally to the bigger issue of government domestic spying and the use of drones by governments across the nation, picks up the story and reacts with his own headline: " DRONES! AN INVASION OF PRIVACY!".

His thoughtful, reasoned article consisted of: "Drones are everywhere folks! Even at the scene of a fatal car crash in Hartford Connecticut! Is there no end to this horrendous invasion of Americans privacy!? An officer saw it flying overhead at the scene of the accident raising concerns about officer safety and the public’s privacy.
The unmanned aircraft come equipped with cameras and can hover virtually anywhere! Taking pictures of your home, your car, your face and even at a fatal crash site. The man that was operating the drone was questioned, but not arrested. Americans need to put a stop to this invasion and unjust behavior!"

I almost thought his article was satire, but sadly, I don't think it is. I posted a comment which is 'waiting moderation".

We need to be sensible and responsible pilots... if we don't fly and photograph with safety, common sense, and respect for others, the government will gladly step in and control us with their usual infinite wisdom.
 
http://foxct.com/2014/02/07/faa-investi ... ash-scene/

It's worth the time to read some of the comments below the above article.... including a few recommending that police should use drones for target practice whenever they see one, that all Americans should shoot them out of the air using birdshot, and various threats issued to anyone caught operating a drone over someone else's property.
 
I'm not completely au fait with all things American, but don't you guys have many TV stations who have their own helicopters that like to scramble in order to show live footage of police chases for example? Presumably waiting for a nice juicy accident, or innocent bystander getting run over, or a good zoomed in shot of the alleged suspect getting roughed up a bit (although innocent until proven guilty, right)...

Don't get me wrong, I think the pilot here was morally if not legally wrong doing what he did, but isn't it a touch hypocritical for the media to be up in arms given what they do with aerial video (not to mention print media's use of paparazzi long-lens shots, etc)?
 
Pull_Up said:
isn't it a touch hypocritical for the media to be up in arms given what they do with aerial video (not to mention print media's use of paparazzi long-lens shots, etc)?
Click to expand...

Fuhgettaboutit :lol:

Yes, that's very true, but also possibly the least hypocritical thing the US media is guilty of that day. Or hour.
 
The hysteria over this hobby is really getting disturbing. :shock:

I’ll post this here, though my altercation wasn’t with a police officer (actually the antithesis of such). I went out to the edge of town this afternoon to fly my P2V since there’s an ordinance against flying in city parks and I live on a man-made lake (not ready to fly over water if I can help it).

I set up on the edge of a field, fallow for the season. Took off and flew initially low patterns, for practice maneuvering and keeping orientation. Went up about 40m AGL briefly but then landed to change batteries. Went back up and flew out over an orchard at about 80m AGL. Was bringing the bird back when a rather large fellow approached me, yelling at me to “stop flying that <bleeping> thing near my pad!” (who calls their residence a “pad” anymore?).

Being the good coward that I am, I called out that I would land it and leave. He continued to loudly berate me (from about 10m away), including a variety of threats and racial slurs. I was a bit rattled and took a bit of time to bring the P2V in, which must have caused him to think I was ignoring him, but he eventually figured out I was leaving and returned to his balcony on the other side of a line of trees and a flood control levee (about 50 meters from my home point – the direction of my flight was away from his “pad”). Needless to say, I packed up and left.

Guess I need to find somewhere there are ** no ** “pads” within sight (not that I was very close to his). At worst I was trespassing on the field, which I’m certain is not his property People just assume that we’re somehow spying on them (with cameras that certainly can't spy very well from >50m).
 
I guess I'm lucky. I live in a very high density area here in SoCal and with that in mind I have to be super aware of my surroundings at all times. I have had the LEO's stop several times to watch and then after I've landed to replace the battery or download the footage I've collected they are the opposite of what others have commented about. They are interested in the hobby and want to know more about the airframe and how easy it is to control. It is rather fun to watch their faces when I've set the controller on the ground and turned to talk to them and it just hovers a few feet away and a few feet off the ground. :eek: Remember we are the ambassadors of this growing hobby and first impressions mean everything.
 
In my -limited- experience it very much depends on the pilot's attitude and demeanor. My general attitude with anyone, including LEOs, is to take them seriously and be polite. I fully agree with the "Let me first land safely and then we will talk." line in case things start to escalate. I will use it if the time comes.

I do not have any personal experience with LEOs in Europe - yet. While flying in the US I have had numerous talks with passers-by and most of them were just interested in what I was doing. Some made jokes about the NSA. Many of them took pictures of the P2V. Only one of them was seriously interested in his privacy and I assured him I wasn't posting any footage of his property anywhere. We had a very nice conversation after that.

In a total of about a dozen hours of flying in about as many locations I have spoken to two "officials". One was a lifeguard at a beach that adjoined some celebrity homes. He just wanted to make sure I was not there to get pictures of celebs on their private properties. After I assured him I had no such intentions and that I was taking care not to disturb other people on the beach we had a very nice conversation and I obtained some good advice on further sightseeing in the area.

The other time was just yesterday in downtown Atlanta, GA where the local law was very much interested in what this "thing" was and a rep of the property owner was just interested whether I was commercialising any footage. Once I explained I was a hobbyist and cogniscant of FAA recommendations regarding to what I was doing we had a very nice conversation between the three of us and I got some shots of both of them taking pictures of my P2V. The officer was immediately thinking aloud of the tactical use a P2V would have for him in various scenarios and I had a hard time not going into US politics ... ;-)

Bottom line: engage in a friendly way and try to see the other person's point of view. Re-assure them that you are not up to something that will cause any pain for them. Share your enthousiasm for the hobby! I found it to be contagious.
 
We have a very large sports complex near me, it has 6 football pitches, 4 baseball fields, and a large amount of 'green space' adjacent to it, and on the west side it butts up to a regional park, so there is lots of flying space. I was flying down by the creek in the marsh area, using a park bench to relax on while I practiced doing figure 8's and 360's with the camera pointed in. (much harder than I thought, wasn't pretty) when a park ranger shows up on his electric cart, he watches for awhile and I get a tad nervous so I bring her home and land. He walks over and looks at the bird, asks a few questions, then tells me not to fly over people and please do not harass the wildlife (like I would) and leaves :shock: . So I fly down 2 more batteries :D
 
UrbanLegend777 said:
jwuman said:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/pDId6Du-yoE[/youtube]
Now more knuckle heads causing the wrong publicity here in CT USA...police dont even know the law or lack of a law, but that being said,,,, flying over a crash scence with a dead body visible is plain wrong and piss poor judgement. this will certainly stir debate at the state govt level and will certainly cause one of our elected incompetent to create more knee jerk laws....

Pilots use your head when flying these, the more bad rediculous publicity we get will certainly end up ruining the hobby for everyone....Hartford, CT PD supervisor in video quotes "the PV2 pilot broke a federal law"? what federal law? the pilot should have been charged with interfering with police since they had to divert attention from the scene to this knuclehead flying a PV2 over the dead body sticking out of the mangled car, real smart guy,,,,,have some decency ,,,that was rediculous...total lack of common sense.....
Click to expand...

Interesting reactions already from the media and blogs. While I seriously doubt the drone operator violated any laws, they certainly violated common sense and decency. Here are three reaction so far:

http://foxct.com/2014/02/07/faa-investi ... ash-scene/
The headline for the above article, from the local CT Fox news channel, is "FAA Investigating Possible Illegal Use Of Drone At Hartford Crash Scene" . Note the operative word, "possible" illegal use...

http://themyrtlebeachpost.com/2014/02/0 ... ash-scene/
In the above link, the Myrtle Beach picks up the story, and without a thought, deletes the word "Possible" and unilaterally declares in their headline that the use of the drone was "Illegal": "FAA Investigating Illegal Drone Use in CT Car Crash Scene".

http://conservative-warriors.com/drones ... mment-6027
Then, a conservative blogger in the above article, probably reacting emotionally to the bigger issue of government domestic spying and the use of drones by governments across the nation, picks up the story and reacts with his own headline: " DRONES! AN INVASION OF PRIVACY!".

His thoughtful, reasoned article consisted of: "Drones are everywhere folks! Even at the scene of a fatal car crash in Hartford Connecticut! Is there no end to this horrendous invasion of Americans privacy!? An officer saw it flying overhead at the scene of the accident raising concerns about officer safety and the public’s privacy.
The unmanned aircraft come equipped with cameras and can hover virtually anywhere! Taking pictures of your home, your car, your face and even at a fatal crash site. The man that was operating the drone was questioned, but not arrested. Americans need to put a stop to this invasion and unjust behavior!"

I almost thought his article was satire, but sadly, I don't think it is. I posted a comment which is 'waiting moderation".

We need to be sensible and responsible pilots... if we don't fly and photograph with safety, common sense, and respect for others, the government will gladly step in and control us with their usual infinite wisdom.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the operator of this Phantom did nothing wrong legally, nor anything that would violate common sense or decency. He is a journalist and this was news. Journalists cover news. What is not mentioned in these news clips is that there were other journalists at the exact same scene doing the exact same thing from the ground. Were they also violating common sense and decency?

The other journalists were using video cameras that are capable of "zooming in" on the scene. The Phantom journalist was much farther away from the scene than the other journalists— 150 feet above the scene. And as we all know, his camera has no zoom capability. Moreover, his photos showed nothing graphic at all. (Incidentally, the body was not at all visible as erroneously stated above.) The police had no concerns with the other journalists.

Legally, the Phantom journalist had the same First Amendment right that we all have, to photograph or videotape anything that is in plain site when viewed from a public place, and the sky is a public place. In my opinion, if anything "wrong" occurred, it was the action of the Hartford PD, which decided the Phantom journalist had violated FAA regulations that do not exist, and then proceeded to complain to the Phantom journalist's employer, who suspended him. As a result the Phantom journalist is now reluctant to use his Phantom at an accident scene for fear that he might again be harassed and suspended.

In legal terms this is called a "chilling effect," which occurs when someone has an unfettered First Amendment right to do something, but because of the actions of a "state actor," (the police in this instance), places a self-imposed restriction on him or herself doing so because he or she fears the consequences.

This incident will not hurt the hobby, but will ultimately help it. Stay tuned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GadgetGuy
Interesting comments, my story involves a ranger at a National park. I was in San Diego and I love lighthouses, so I had planned to go out to Cabrillo National Monument to get some lighthouse shots. I went out early, as soon as they opened, on a weekday so there would be no other people walking around. I had been through the FAA regs and checked both the National Park website and Cabrillo website to see if there were any restrictions in UAV. I didn't find any. I checked for any signs regarding UAVs, but there were none. I went up to the lighthouse area and I saw what I thought was a ranger (turns out it was a maintenance guy. They wear the same shirts, but the rangers have a badge, which I had not noticed). I asked him if there was any problem with flying out there. He said he didn't know of any. I said "well I guess if someone has a problem with it they will ask me to leave". So I started flying and got some good shots. In a few minutes an actual ranger showed up (the maintenance guy had told him I was up there) and asked if I had a permit to fly the UAV. I told him that because the FAA has not come up with regulations yet a permit could not be obtained and that as far as I knew hobbyists were exempt. He then told me it was illegal to fly UAVs in National Parks. I told him that I was not trying to break any laws and that I had checked the websites and they don't mention anything about that. He said that he was going to confiscate the UAV until I showed up in court. I said well if you are going to confiscate the UAV can you show me the regulation that says it is illegal? At that point he said he would have to look it up, but didn't want to really give me a ticket and that if I would just erase the photos I could go. I said OK and we went down to my car where my laptop was. I showed him the pictures and videos and at that point he became interested in the Pahntom and said he had thought about getting one. He said that it wasn't really a "serious" law but that his boss didn't want a lot of UAV flying out there so he was to discourage folks. I said, well don't erase the photos. I will give them to you on a thumb drive and you can use them on your website. After a little convincing he took the photos. I gave him my e-mail address and he thanked me for cooperating and said that he would send me the regulation. He (Marty) did send one a few days later citing 36 CFR 2.17. I knew that only the FAA controlled airspace, but the regs say that aircraft cannot operate from the ground or water (and some other restrictions, see below for the reg). I then relayed this to a new friend of mine (met the next day while flying at a company event in San Diego) who is a federal prosecutor (and also happens to be a Phantom 1 pilot). This is what he said, "I looked up the regs. I'm saying this in my personal capacity on my personal time while eating lunch. The Ranger couldn't be more wrong. Did he ever bother to look at the definition of aircraft?

"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for human flight in the air, including powerless flight." 36 CFR 1.4(a)

So until the DJI is capable of lifting you they're wrong. Further 36 CFR 2.17(d) the very section they are relying on says that even if your DJI was an aircraft under their definitions the aircraft is subject to FAA rules. FAA has no rules on UAVs so they lose again. Personally I rarely go in National Parks. Too much officiousness."

So no real regulations for UAVs in national Parks (yet), but they can of course prevent you from taking off or landing there given that they control the ground and water. I'm sure asking permission would get a conservative "no" response. Anyway this has made me nervous about flying most places. I usually plan any shot and get up and down quickly so I don;t get hassled. I have also used this tactic: In LA this last weekend, I wanted to take off from a pier to get some over water shots at Redondo beach. So I asked the owner for permission and told them that I could also get them some shots of their facility for their website (no charge of course). That got me permission to fly there and I got some excellent shots (including some for them, which they loved). I also got permission tomorrow to go out on the whale watching boat they run and do some shots of the whales, but I don't think I'm brave enough yet to fly off of a moving boat without a home point, so I think I'll pass on that for now.

Here is the pertinent portion of 36 CFR:
36 CFR 2.17 - Aircraft and air delivery.

§ 2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.
(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.
(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.
(b) The provisions of this section, other than paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be applicable to official business of the Federal government, or emergency rescues in accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or to landings due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owners of a downed aircraft shall remove the aircraft and all component parts thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to: (i) Establish a reasonable date by which aircraft removal operations must be complete; (ii) determine times and means of access to and from the downed aircraft; and (iii) specify the manner or method of removal.
(2) Failure to comply with procedures and conditions established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is prohibited.
(3) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section or prohibit the removal of downed aircraft, upon a determination that: (i) The removal of downed aircraft would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life; (ii) the removal of a downed aircraft would result in extensive resource damage; or (iii) the removal of a downed aircraft is impracticable or impossible.
(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.
(e) The operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited.
(f) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.
 
petersachs said:
...
Legally, the Phantom journalist had the same First Amendment right that we all have, to photograph or videotape anything that is in plain site when viewed from a public place, and the sky is a public place. In my opinion, if anything "wrong" occurred, it was the action of the Hartford PD, which decided the Phantom journalist had violated FAA regulations that do not exist, and then proceeded to complain to the Phantom journalist's employer, who suspended him. As a result the Phantom journalist is now reluctant to use his Phantom at an accident scene for fear that he might again be harassed and suspended.

In legal terms this is called a "chilling effect," which occurs when someone has an unfettered First Amendment right to do something, but because of the actions of a "state actor," (the police in this instance), places a self-imposed restriction on him or herself doing so because he or she fears the consequences.

This incident will not hurt the hobby, but will ultimately help it. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...


Peter,

congrats on the great publicity you got with the quarry fire. That was brilliant.

[BTW: I found that recovering a phantom over adverse terrain is easiest by just catching it while hovering rather than landing. Just be sure to remain underneath the props and it can be done quite safely even in high wind conditions. Usually the spotter does it but I have also done it solo shutting down the props with my left hand.

As a US legel professional you are much more competent to assess the legal aspects of this than this European IT professional. What you say makes absolute sense to me and I support that we must defend our civil rights wherever and whenever they are threatened.

What I see happening here is that the police are, consciously or not, trying to protect their ability to control access to a crime or incident scene. They have this ability on the ground and I assume that there is a legal basis for it and enough case law to keep law students off the streets. They have it in the air as far as aircraft are concerned because there are regulations (FARs in the US) keeping the news choppers at a distance. As you point out they have nothing as far as our favourite toys are concerned. That is bound to change and here is why: everyone can be involved in a crime/incident scene. I personally welcome a reasonable level of protection from journalists in case that should ever happen to me. I believe that there should be no absolute right for the public or news organisations to show to the world close-ups of myself, or anyone else, coping with something horrible. And I am sure I am not alone. Our bahaviour as quadcopter pilots in such situations will have some influence on the shape future rules will have.

It occurs to me that the minimum the phantom journalist, pun intended, could have done is to confirm with his employer whether they supported this method of news gathering. The discussion about laws, regulation and ethics could have preceeded the action. This would have made it more likely that the police department would have gotten push-back when they took their chilling action to contact the employer.

When doing things at high profile locations and/or in the presence of journalists it is important not only to be sure of the legal situation and civil rights. But it is also important to have some support lined up in case other journalists or the law take an adversary stance like it happened in this case.

Daniel

PS: hindsight is always 20-20 ;-)
 
rotation said:
The hysteria over this hobby is really getting disturbing. :shock:

I’ll post this here, though my altercation wasn’t with a police officer (actually the antithesis of such). I went out to the edge of town this afternoon to fly my P2V since there’s an ordinance against flying in city parks and I live on a man-made lake (not ready to fly over water if I can help it).

I set up on the edge of a field, fallow for the season. Took off and flew initially low patterns, for practice maneuvering and keeping orientation. Went up about 40m AGL briefly but then landed to change batteries. Went back up and flew out over an orchard at about 80m AGL. Was bringing the bird back when a rather large fellow approached me, yelling at me to “stop flying that <bleeping> thing near my pad!” (who calls their residence a “pad” anymore?).

Being the good coward that I am, I called out that I would land it and leave. He continued to loudly berate me (from about 10m away), including a variety of threats and racial slurs. I was a bit rattled and took a bit of time to bring the P2V in, which must have caused him to think I was ignoring him, but he eventually figured out I was leaving and returned to his balcony on the other side of a line of trees and a flood control levee (about 50 meters from my home point – the direction of my flight was away from his “pad”). Needless to say, I packed up and left.

Guess I need to find somewhere there are ** no ** “pads” within sight (not that I was very close to his). At worst I was trespassing on the field, which I’m certain is not his property People just assume that we’re somehow spying on them (with cameras that certainly can't spy very well from >50m).
Click to expand...

Rotation i'm really sorry to hear about your bad experience. Some people are just nuts. I'm sure you were fully within your legal rights to fly it where you were flying but you probably made the right decision not to have a confrontation with the *******. Next time if you are threatened I would tell them just to call the police if they don't like it. If you are in the USA you will come out on top. The officer tells you to stop flying for some reason just politely ask him to site which law you are breaking.
 
RotorDan has it right,,,,my view of it all with the Harftford, CT incident: It just compounds the already adverse media attention and mis-information that continues to feed the media machine, they love this story and that will lead to more CT law makers crafting NEW LAWS to ban the outright use of the Phantom and the like. these are not DRONES, the are RTF model quad copters with an FPV camera, thats the first problem, they are being called drones,,,and regardless of whether he broke the law, violated this or that, who's right, who' wrong, no jurisdictiion etc...thats all irrelevent once the new laws are inacted,,,fly-away videos posted all over the web (whether mechanical or pilot induced) also will not help the cause and will eventually lead to the restricted use over populated urban areas and allowable only at designated flying sites. So enjoy the limitted time we have to use these the way you want to, its all coming to a head soon,,,,,AMA insurance will not cover you if your bird damages people or property outside of AMA designated flying feilds and locations or events....i try to avoid flying over people and private property as a basic common sense safety precuation. A crime\accident scence is all together out of the question and that will be the basis for the new laws that are coming, who cares what the FAA is gonna do, the states dont have to wait for the feds to act, ask our Governer how that works...
 
jwuman said:
RotorDan has it right,,,,my view of it all with the Harftford, CT incident: It just compounds the already adverse media attention and mis-information that continues to feed the media machine, they love this story and that will lead to more CT law makers crafting NEW LAWS to ban the outright use of the Phantom and the like. these are not DRONES, the are RTF model quad copters with an FPV camera, thats the first problem, they are being called drones,,,and regardless of whether he broke the law, violated this or that, who's right, who' wrong, no jurisdictiion etc...thats all irrelevent once the new laws are inacted,,,fly-away videos posted all over the web (whether mechanical or pilot induced) also will not help the cause and will eventually lead to the restricted use over populated urban areas and allowable only at designated flying sites. So enjoy the limitted time we have to use these the way you want to, its all coming to a head soon,,,,,AMA insurance will not cover you if your bird damages people or property outside of AMA designated flying feilds and locations or events....i try to avoid flying over people and private property as a basic common sense safety precuation. A crime\accident scence is all together out of the question and that will be the basis for the new laws that are coming, who cares what the FAA is gonna do, tha states dont have to wait for the feds to act, ask our Governer how that works...
Click to expand...

I can tell you for a fact that standard homeowners insurance will actually cover the loss of your machine and might actually cover your liability as well. Of course if you report the claim for the loss of your machine your standard deductible will still apply.
 
[quote/]
I can tell you for a fact that standard homeowners insurance will actually cover the loss of your machine and might actually cover your liability as well. Of course if you report the claim for the loss of your machine your standard deductible will still apply.[/quote]

+1

I discussed this at length with our insurance agent, and didn't hide anything. We ended up increasing our liability to $1M for $8 per year.

Like any other household property, it covers loss theft etc (with documentation), and liability. That being said, I'm also supporting the AMA and accepting their insurance coverage by being a member.

:)
 
For homeowners ...an Umbrella policy for each vehicle in your driveway registered to you and, to purchase additional liabilty coverage was what i was told would be the minimum coverage in the event u are sued from an accident..but regardless..thats mute if these are outlawed out of existance as a result of numbskull flying and reckless disregard of basic common sense operation...
 
if anyone wants to pull a stunt like this, get permission first from law enforcement as a basic common sense courtesy,,,,,

here is what i know:

1. the hartford journalist was not acting in official capacity as ajournalist with a phantom. thats why his employer is not happy since potentially they would bear some liability if it crashed,,,they do malfunction....and he stated he works for the tv station whether on the clock or not, they become involved,,,,,

2. the other tv journalist's were not flying a camera creating a DISRACTION TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AS THIS GUY WAS.....

3. He didnt use any common sense when he failed to request permission to fly over or near the incident which would have at least been a common courtesty to the incident commander, who would have likely had no problem since they would have known prior who is operating it and why, and he may have directed him to fly from a certain distance and location...

( I will bet that the Branford,CT FD guy didnt just willy nilly fly over the fire scene without permission last week, and if he did, he would have gotten the same treatment from law enforcement....)

4. It attracted negative publicity for the DJI Phantom and all who use it responsibly. ITS NOT A DRONE "PEOPLE NEED TO STOP CALLING THESE THING DRONES" this is a stigma that also projects the perception you have a spy camera....note the word perception.

5. there was a dead body covered partially with a blanket, it was partially ejected from the car which was visible for all to see including ground journalists with zoom camera's..... so what? the issue is not comparable, the DISTRACTION it caused because he failed to use common sense and lacked the forethought that the curiousity factor was about to bite him from police, who, not knowing whom, why or from where this RC HELO was being piloted have the duty to investigate and which are all valid concerns at an active scene or investigation,,,its just plain stupid and irresponsible no matter how you cut it,...

It would be a really different story if he lost control and it crashed into someone or something creating another incident,,,there is a personal injury attorney on every corner in hartford waiting for that client to walk thru the door...

i quarantee this WILL NOT help the hobby........Perception , theres that word again,,hmm?

as far as decency: there is no decency in journalism, this isnt about journalism, its about common sense,,,,some people have zero......
 

Similar threads

M
Sluggish response from drone to right stick input
Replies
3
Views
1K
Phantom 3 Standard
Swampdweller
S
B
Got myself in to deep
Replies
5
Views
1K
Introductions
RodPad
RodPad
C
Who will be the last P4P pilot?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Phantom 4 Pro Discussion
LindeSmac
L
jephoto
P4P v2 Flyaway - who do I report it to- Chicago area?
Replies
34
Views
4K
Phantom Crash & Flyaway Assistance
jephoto
jephoto
msinger
I'm building an application to download your flight logs from the DJI Cloud
Replies
6
Views
2K
General Discussion
msinger
msinger

Recent Posts

Members online

Total: 648 (members: 2, guests: 646)

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,602
Members
104,980
Latest member
ozmtl