Rant: Helicopter attacks drone
- Thread starter Droning About
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 11
- Age
- 70
It’s funny we don’t see anything in the news about this. I’m not a pilot, but it sure looked unsafe for that chopper to come down and blow the mavic out of the sky. I mean it could’ve slammed into someone in the water.
Both were unlawful. Drones are subject to the exact same laws of flight as the larger aircraft. The drone should not have flown over the people as did the helicopter. Although the drone was operating illegally, the helicopter pilot was not authorized to disable the other aircraft and endanger his aircraft as well as the people in the water. Willful endangerment carries a far greater level of seriousness since it shows intent to cause harm. Immediate suspension of his pilots license would be in order for that move. However, the problem I have seen is that most drone pilots are absolute idiots with very little respect for others or property. As a long time pilot I am fully aware of all the “what if’s” during flight. Both of those pilots violated many of the most basic rules of risk and the FARs governing flight here in the US.
(Didn’t watch video get, inappropriate viewing area). What was the drone doing illegally? Was it over people? Likely it was over water and occasionally someone on a jet sky might drive under it briefly, except for when they might intentionally. It’s plain that the drone pilots intention was to get video of the event, a public event. It’s far more likely that there is water below the drone for, what, over 95% of the time.
What the helicopter did, though, was clearly reckless endangerment. That low over the jet skiers and willfully pushing the drone down, out of control, was the most likely time it could have caused injury.
FAR section 107.39 Operations over human beings: At NO time is anyone allowed to operate a UAV over anyone that is not part of the required crew. The drone pilot was flying illegally. The ONLY non waiver exception to this is on a closed movie set. Considering that most drone “pilots” are hardly pilots at all, it is highly doubtful that that pilot obtained a waiver to fly where he did; which is available but difficult to get.
In reality, the helicopter, by the fact it is certificated, CAN fly over people as do certificated aircraft as long as the bank angle does not exceed 60 degrees or acrobatic flight. What made his action wrong was the intent and flying too close to another aircraft.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,612
- Reaction score
- 973
I generally agree with the post #3. But the drone almost sure was not over the people. If the organizers thought that the drone is a threat to the people in the water their action was far more dangerous to the people they want to protect. I think that the main reason for such an action was their preventing filming the event. I would like to see that somebody doing such things like that heli would be prosecuted as well.
The mystery is why the drone operator didn't fly away.
The mystery is why the drone operator didn't fly away.
You nailed it Andy. The "organizer" wanted the drone out of there to protect their "soon to be created" digital product.
It's almost "too easy" and could have even been staged.
There is no such thing as private ocean or private airspace. In the USA both are public and not subject to control by individuals or businesses.
The rule against flying over people applies to Part 107 flights. If the Mavic owner was flying for his or her own recreation it would not violate that rule. Moreover the "flying over people" rule refers to masses of people such as stadiums and outdoor crowds.
I think it's pretty obvious that the VLOS rule was written for traditional RC aircraft that don't include real-time FPV feedback to the pilot, or instrumentation and telemetry that give the aircraft's position, altitude, speed and direction in real time. The pilot of a manned aircraft is not able to keep his aircraft in VLOS from a point outside the aircraft, so is in pretty much the same position as a drone pilot flying by FPV and telemetry. The VLOS rule should be reconsidered in light of these distinctions between simpler RC aircraft and today's high-tech self-flying drones.
WRONG! Hobbyist aren't supposed to fly over people. Nothing is said about "masses" of people.
Directly from the FAA Hobby Guidelines:
- Do not intentionally fly over unprotected persons or moving vehicles, and remain at least 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property.
WRONG! VLOS is so you can maintain the one most basic rule for AVIATION Safety... it's called See & Avoid... if you can't see the aircraft and it's surroundings how in the world can you maintain See & Avoid?
You need to research just a little bit more before proclaiming such large incorrect statements my friend.
It’s been asked why the drone didn’t just fly away and suggested the operator didn’t maintain VLOS. Considering the environment I’d suggest that likely this operator was staring at the screen with a sunshade or using goggles. The point being that he (Or she) didn’t even notice the helicopter going above or the water craft people moving below his position and he was still filming the surfing action. Not likely a willing violation of VLOS but a practical matter over how hard it can be to look into the bright sun and reflective waters while also trying to maintain altitude and get the right framing for the desired shots. Not excusing; explaining.
What the chopper pilot did (intentionally interfere with another aircraft) was illegal. Was the UAS operator also violating 107? Perhaps, I don't know.
But as a certificated commercial pilot I do know that the chopper pilot was wrong by unilaterally deciding he was going to play Red Baron and "shoot down" Snoopy. I would not be surprised if the Hawaii FSDO had a little chat with him/her?
I totally agree. 2 WRONGS never make a RIGHT!
Surely someone from the FSDO has seen this video and there has been some "educational" action taken towards both parties.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2016
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 168
First of all please understand that I mean no disrespect here, but I do take exception to your comment that "most drone pilots are absolute idiots with very little respect for others or property."
I'm sure there are indeed many drone owners that aren't as responsible as they should be, but to paint "most" of us with the "idiot" brush without any actual proof, just isn't right.
Bud
I'm sure there are indeed many drone owners that aren't as responsible as they should be, but to paint "most" of us with the "idiot" brush without any actual proof, just isn't right.
Bud
I just don’t appreciate being called an “absolute” idiot. I mean there’s days or moments of being partial, but never absolute.
1st of all the MD500 helo weighs about 1,480# Not a ton but drama runs rampant. I agree that both operators were in the wrong, yet it does not appear from the video that the sUAS pilot was looked for or contacted by anyone. It appears that insead this is a violation of 14 CFR 91.13 Careless and Reckless - yet both operators are at fault. 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
What would the FSDO do? I knew some folks over in Honolulu FSDO. It might just be an educational meeting. Whom ever ordered the Helo to down the M2 is in deep water, and liable. Did anyone get the helo's registration number to file a 91.13 violation? Placing a helo so close to people in the water that is not performing rescue ican be successfully argued is in violation of 91.13.
As far as flying over people - it is clearly stated in the 107 regulations which have been stated above. Given that it was a surfing event with multiple jet skies it may be hard to determine exactly when the M2 was or was not over people.
To address our friends comments on Fire or Rescue not flying. Helo's are fragile equipment. Let's say it was a M210 or M600. What kind of damage can that do to a helo? To err on the side of safety is why those helos stand down. I can see in the near future a "traveling TFR" over FD/Rescue/PD like is enacted during VIP movement.
End of the day little will be done. The sUAS pilot lost the M2 and someone being a jerk could be held liable. Think of what could have happened when the helo came down that low over water? What disaster would that have been? The Magnum PI Helo crashed one time killing the pilot flying low level. Stuff happens.
What would the FSDO do? I knew some folks over in Honolulu FSDO. It might just be an educational meeting. Whom ever ordered the Helo to down the M2 is in deep water, and liable. Did anyone get the helo's registration number to file a 91.13 violation? Placing a helo so close to people in the water that is not performing rescue ican be successfully argued is in violation of 91.13.
As far as flying over people - it is clearly stated in the 107 regulations which have been stated above. Given that it was a surfing event with multiple jet skies it may be hard to determine exactly when the M2 was or was not over people.
To address our friends comments on Fire or Rescue not flying. Helo's are fragile equipment. Let's say it was a M210 or M600. What kind of damage can that do to a helo? To err on the side of safety is why those helos stand down. I can see in the near future a "traveling TFR" over FD/Rescue/PD like is enacted during VIP movement.
End of the day little will be done. The sUAS pilot lost the M2 and someone being a jerk could be held liable. Think of what could have happened when the helo came down that low over water? What disaster would that have been? The Magnum PI Helo crashed one time killing the pilot flying low level. Stuff happens.
Similar threads
