SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666_
On September 21, 2017, just as dusk fell, Vyacheslav Tantashov launched his DJI Phantom 4 drone from a spot near Dyker Beach Park in Brooklyn, just southeast of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. Tantashov wanted to see some spectacular views, he said, and he flew the drone nearly 280 feet up in the air and well out of his line of sight. The drone hovered over the shipping channel near Hoffman Island, some 2.5 miles from the launch site. Tantashov maneuvered the craft a bit, watching the images displayed on his Samsung tablet, and then punched the "return to home" button. The drone, which had a rapidly dying battery, made a beeline back toward the launch site.
But it never arrived. After waiting 30 minutes, Tantashov assumed there had been a mechanical malfunction and that the drone had fallen into the water. He returned home. On September 28, Tantashov received a call at work. It was an investigator from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), calling to asking if Tantashov was the owner of a Phantom 4 drone. He was, he said, though he had lost it recently near the Verrazano Bridge.
Would Tantashov be surprised to learn, the investigator asked, that his drone had not crashed into the water? And that it had instead slammed into the main rotor of a US Army-operated Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter that was patrolling for the UN General Assembly in Manhattan? And that it had put a 1.5-inch dent in said rotor and led to the helicopter diverting back to its New Jersey base? Tantashov was surprised, and he agreed to a one-hour interview the next day, during which the full story came out.
[...] Tantashov didn't know about more detailed flight restrictions, such as the [temporary flight restrictions (TFRs)] around Manhattan and Bedminster, New Jersey, where the president had been staying. "He said that he relied on 'the app' to tell him if it was OK to fly," the investigator noted. "When asked about TFRs, he said he did not know about them; he would rely on the app, and it did not give any warnings on the evening of the collision. He said he was not familiar with the TFRs for the United Nations meeting and Presidential movement." (Both TFRs were apparently violated by the drone flight.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @05:16PM (6 children)
The drone may have been in violation, but the law is fucked up and the military failed pretty hard.
Temporary flight restrictions pop up at any instant, and somehow you are expected to perfectly obey them. That isn't reasonable at all, especially if you aren't told by air traffic control and you aren't told when you file a flight plan, neither of which apply to toys below 400 feet.
The military is supposed to be able to handle far worse. This drone was flying straight and predictable, nice and slow, without a warhead or any stealth. If the military can't handle that, how are they supposed to handle an enemy? If a military flight is going to be as unaware as a civilian flight, then it can damn well stay above 500 feet like a civilian flight.
(Score: 4, Informative) by IndigoFreak on Monday January 01 2018, @05:51PM (1 child)
All the drone pilot did was check an app on his phone on if it was safe to fly. The app itself has a warning/notification that it may be out of date and to check other sources. It's not the final authority. This was the drone pilots fault. These systems(air space control) have been in place for decades and pilots are required to do their part or face the consequences. The real issue here, is instead of being a certified pilot requiring licensing and days worth of training, any yokel can go buy a drone and fly it with 0 training required. And their lack of knowledge can lead to disaster, for them personally, and many other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @06:02PM
I'm saying that the law is really stupid, as is the military. The report is trying to lump all the blame on the drone pilot, and that isn't right, even if legally that happens to be correct.
These systems have indeed been in place for decades... with remote-control planes and model rockets and helium balloons. Toys (so-called "drones") are nothing new.
Heck, around 1990 I had a model rocket that went to 1200 feet. I flew it about a mile off the end of an active runway for Taunton Municipal Airport, at the Martin Middle School field. That was way worse!
Keep above 500 feet, preferably 1000 feet, if you aren't watching out for drones. Uh, maybe a bit higher, due to the Canada goose, which is even worse to hit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday January 01 2018, @06:10PM (2 children)
It seems to me that drone users want to operate in the same airspace as other users but do not want to be constrained by the same regulations. It isn't going to happen, and I'll bet every penny I have that the drone users don't win this argument.
TFRs exist all over the world, they are a recognised part of any responsible flight planning, as well as a host of other constraints such as flying in or near danger areas, operating near Search and Rescue operations etc. Responsible pilots have to do this day in, day out.
If you want to keep the freedom to operate a drone in the same airspace as others you will have to play by the rules, otherwise someone might just take that freedom away from you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @08:19PM (1 child)
The drone was below 400 feet, which is the normal limit. (that ought to be raised, given that buildings are taller now and plane engines are much better now)
If the flight restrictions apply there too, please inform the redwood trees. This drone was flying lower than a redwood tree.
Kites are also down there. What about kites? Does every kid with a homebuilt kite need to check for temporary flight restrictions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @08:56PM
Yes. It's one click in the browser. If you launch a vehicle into the air, it must behave in a safe manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02 2018, @12:51AM
At an absolute bare minimum, the drone operator failed to keep the drone within sight. Meaning that anything coming in from a side not covered by cameras would be completely missed.
The restrictions are a separate matter, but anybody operating a drone should be able to see where it is at all times so as to not contribute to these sorts of problems.