- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 21
- Age
- 80
I hope it had a registration number affixed so that the operator could be arrested for endangering the public.
Space Needle drone strike.
- Thread starter Sagebrush
- Start date
With as many drones that are flying around out there, isn't it interesting that (as far as I know)--there's been no deaths from drones falling out of the sky (we're talking drones falling, not hellfire missiles)? I mean, coconut trees dropping their coconuts are blamed for 150 deaths per year; but no one complains about them growing around beaches with large crowds of people...
Someone told me that the "400'" was 400' above vicinity buildings and/or obstacles. True?
I am wondering how much additional radio frequency interference he may have run into. Isn't that an antenna on the top of the Needle? He could have flown into an area where RF oversaturated the drone's electronics and cause an auto return.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 258
- Age
- 68
I've never had that problem when flying around the Space Needle.
The early reports are that the operator was on the ground at the base of the structure. Someone correct me if that's wrong, but if so:
When you're flying hundreds of feet directly overhead, you're not in an optimal antenna position. It's possible that if the op had the antenna in the normal "flat facing forward" position, the AC would have been in an antenna dead zone.
Instead, in such a case, the antenna should be parallel to the ground, flat facing up. Even then, it's still not a great signal.
On top of all of that, if the craft went behind the structure, there would have been no signal at all, so RTH.
Chris
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 378
- Age
- 47
There's all kinds of stuff at the top of the needle... radio antennas, cameras... etc. in this case fireworks and computers..
Obviously the cops or the needle or someone pulled the SD card from the Drone because I think the video posted came from the Drone?
There is a news story of a kid that was filming it with a iPhone as it hovered outside the O-Deck. He even got a prop piece that landed right next to him.
I guess the odds of this happening are slim, but I can't stop wondering what would have happened if it rolled off and onto people
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Obviously the cops or the needle or someone pulled the SD card from the Drone because I think the video posted came from the Drone?
There is a news story of a kid that was filming it with a iPhone as it hovered outside the O-Deck. He even got a prop piece that landed right next to him.
I guess the odds of this happening are slim, but I can't stop wondering what would have happened if it rolled off and onto people
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
I believe the the new WA law being proposed only makes it illegal to be over someone's property below 2 or 300 feet. As long as you are above that, its still ok.
Check that. I read the text of the bill in the above link and saw no mention of any altitude minimums, just you need permission over someone else's property.
"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 47.685RCW to read as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to launch an unmanned aircraft in Washington state without specific federal authorization unless the unmanned aircraft is clearly and prominently labeled with the name and phone number of the unmanned aircraft's owner and operator.
(2) It is unlawful for an operator of an unmanned aircraft to, without specific federal authorization, operate the unmanned aircraft over real property lawfully owned or occupied by a person, other than a public agency, without the consent of a lawful owner or occupant of the real property.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply if the unmanned aircraft is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield, or runway and the unmanned aircraft is lawfully in the process of taking off or landing, pursuant to specific federal authorization."
No doubt the knee-jerk reaction to the Space Needle crash will add some fuel to the proposed law. If this passes, may as well give up flying anywhere in WA state other than your own property. Might pay to get a signed property release otherwise.
The WA law appears to me to attempt to cut the FAA out of there rightful position as the one and only agency in charge of airspace. Imagine a world in which every state imposed there own set of rules -- there would be no commercial and certainly no private aviation if compliance required meeting all 50 states rules.
It's my guess that among the folks pushing these rules are business interests that would prefer that the public not be looking over there shoulder. Having regulators is bad enough but with them its often pretty easy to apply some pressure with a state or federal elected official and have them put pressure on the regulators to back off. But, controlling the public is harder and would require greasing a great many more palms and that can get expensive. A few years ago an environmental group flew a drone around a Texas ranch and caught the rancher dumping crap into a waterway -- was the rancher fined or in anyway punished, no, in fact the local authorities imposed an ordinance to prevent drones from flying over or near those areas.
Brian
It's my guess that among the folks pushing these rules are business interests that would prefer that the public not be looking over there shoulder. Having regulators is bad enough but with them its often pretty easy to apply some pressure with a state or federal elected official and have them put pressure on the regulators to back off. But, controlling the public is harder and would require greasing a great many more palms and that can get expensive. A few years ago an environmental group flew a drone around a Texas ranch and caught the rancher dumping crap into a waterway -- was the rancher fined or in anyway punished, no, in fact the local authorities imposed an ordinance to prevent drones from flying over or near those areas.
Brian
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 82
The person operating the drone was truly not aware of or not complying with the rules set by the FAA. It reads "500 feet from non-participating people and from buildings". It's just that simple. I'm sure we will hear about what the FAA is going to give that operator as a fine when they find him or her.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 82
As you are......
There is no such "rule" in the United States that says anything close to this.
He most likely will not be fined.
I could see the FAA pulling out the "Reckless endangerment" clause to go after the guy even if he flew within their current rules. There's always a gray law in the books somewhere to come up with something to charge someone with. Public opinion carries a lot of weight too in generating a gray law, and drones aren't high on the list with many as is.
Bad part is it will give the WA Rep. Morris (D) more fuel to push his anti-drone bills (He's got a couple.) through the WA legislature and curtail a lot of drone activity and also give the police more power to cite or make arrests without approval from the property owner's land that they fly over or encroach on. I can see them confiscating drones as evidence too or at least their cards.
Bad part is it will give the WA Rep. Morris (D) more fuel to push his anti-drone bills (He's got a couple.) through the WA legislature and curtail a lot of drone activity and also give the police more power to cite or make arrests without approval from the property owner's land that they fly over or encroach on. I can see them confiscating drones as evidence too or at least their cards.
The old myth about a coin dropped at high altitude could kill someone, is just that 'a myth' - you can read about the physics of that here Could a Penny Dropped Off a Skyscraper Actually Kill You?
However, a drone or drone battery falling on people from that height could be disastrous.
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 94
- Age
- 59
I'm going to take a guess that this guy was not a 107 certified flyer. If he is then he had better have called
KENMORE AIR HARBOR Phone: +14254861257
SEATTLE SEAPLANES Phone: +12063299638
otherwise he will be fined for not notifying (in addition to other things).
A clear violation for a commercial pilot.
right-of-way provision of § 107.37(a),
5.8.1.1 Remote PICs are prohibited from operating their small UA in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at airports, heliports, and seaplane bases
Also I can only imagine that there are a lot of people under the space needle at most times so he will be fined for that if he does not have a waiver to fly over people. 107.39 Operation over people
Somebody above mentioned "500 feet from non-participating people and from buildings". this is from the 333 and has no bearing on this case. That being said he did hit a structure and almost some people so he will probably be fined for that. 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
If he was flying with a 107 cert. then he could technically fly high enough around the tower to be where he was altitude wise, but as a non-commercial pilot 400 ft AGL would be the limit, so he will be fined for that.
107.51(b) Operating limitations: altitude (even as a non-commercial this will apply)
The city and state can not tell him he can not fly above a park, as long as he takes off and lands outside of the park, as airspace is ONLY controlled by the FAA. The city and state can pass whatever laws they want about the ground but the parts about flying will not hold up in court.
Of course with idiots like this though it will not be long before cities start to pass laws saying that you can't take off from anywhere on their land.
If he is a 107 certified pilot and did notify heliports and seaplane bases, fly from legal ground, and get a waiver for 107.39, or clear the area below where he was flying (I doubt all of this) then his operation would be perfectly legal and this is just an unfortunate accident. IF all that were true than the FAA would most likely not fine him for 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation if the aircraft was in RTH and unresponsive and he followed a plan of action i.e. calling the ATC to report the situation. But that would still be the FAA's call.
Most likely the pilot was just a ******* that did nothing but launch without a thought to where he was or who he was endangering and he should pay the price.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR Phone: +14254861257
SEATTLE SEAPLANES Phone: +12063299638
otherwise he will be fined for not notifying (in addition to other things).
A clear violation for a commercial pilot.
right-of-way provision of § 107.37(a),
5.8.1.1 Remote PICs are prohibited from operating their small UA in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at airports, heliports, and seaplane bases
Also I can only imagine that there are a lot of people under the space needle at most times so he will be fined for that if he does not have a waiver to fly over people. 107.39 Operation over people
Somebody above mentioned "500 feet from non-participating people and from buildings". this is from the 333 and has no bearing on this case. That being said he did hit a structure and almost some people so he will probably be fined for that. 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
If he was flying with a 107 cert. then he could technically fly high enough around the tower to be where he was altitude wise, but as a non-commercial pilot 400 ft AGL would be the limit, so he will be fined for that.
107.51(b) Operating limitations: altitude (even as a non-commercial this will apply)
The city and state can not tell him he can not fly above a park, as long as he takes off and lands outside of the park, as airspace is ONLY controlled by the FAA. The city and state can pass whatever laws they want about the ground but the parts about flying will not hold up in court.
Of course with idiots like this though it will not be long before cities start to pass laws saying that you can't take off from anywhere on their land.
If he is a 107 certified pilot and did notify heliports and seaplane bases, fly from legal ground, and get a waiver for 107.39, or clear the area below where he was flying (I doubt all of this) then his operation would be perfectly legal and this is just an unfortunate accident. IF all that were true than the FAA would most likely not fine him for 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation if the aircraft was in RTH and unresponsive and he followed a plan of action i.e. calling the ATC to report the situation. But that would still be the FAA's call.
Most likely the pilot was just a ******* that did nothing but launch without a thought to where he was or who he was endangering and he should pay the price.
I know the one time I set my altitude higher than 396 ft, I did not fly and I was in the country, my DJI app was more than happy to let me know that I would be exceeding FAA regulations.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
As a 107 pilot, this is not true.
1- 107 pilots DO NOT contact any airports for anything.
2- This area is in unrestricted airspace, therefore no airspace waiver is needed for a commercial flight.
3- There is no control tower of a paved runway airport with in 5 miles, so flight as a hobbiest in this area is fine.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Why are you adding additional details such as pavement and tower?
Where are those qualifications stipulated?
Where are those qualifications stipulated?
Similar threads
