init4fun

Thank You for that link RG , and if it's true that the drones were twice flown at the police helicopters in a threatening manner as the article states , I wouldn't be surprised if additional charges aren't filed against the operators of the drones once the FAA gets a hold of it .

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Rupprecht Law P.A.

[TABLE="class: mcnTextBlock, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mcnTextBlockInner"][TABLE="class: mcnTextContentContainer, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mcnTextContent"]If you crash your drone, you could have up to 3 government agencies involved. Do you know which ones they are? Do you know who you need to report to? One of agencies requires immediate notification.

Find out about the 3 agencies and much more at What Are You Legally Required to do After a Drone Crash.

You can download the 4 page PDF infographic handout here which includes all the phone numbers and 3 flowcharts so you know what to do in the field. This is a perfect handout for students. You have permission to use the PDF for educational purposes (yes, even for money) as long as you don't alter it.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Ya Think that they had their Federal License with them and the number on their Drones ... Were they AMA members and automatically members of the only CBO?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

An interesting story for sure, and finally one that fits this AMA themed thread topic. lol. Odd that the police in the heli felt threatened by the drone above them, but then they or some other cops felt the need to fire something at the drones. Seems as if they might have endangered their own co-workers to make a point. I'm sure there is more to the story, like why one pilot would get charged with stalking, and one with reckless endangerment. Obviously there are both sides to the story, and then the truth. Regardless, it was probably reckless for the MR pilots to be up although it's not clear if they went up while the heli and aircraft were already up, or the LE aircraft showed up while the MR pilots were already there. Hopefully we get the full (or as much of the story) as possible at some point. It's not like the police have ever overstepped bounds in bringing charges they ultimately were unable to sustain in the first place.

init4fun

As something interesting to note , did you notice the wording of the very last paragraph where it said that the two had faced prior counts involving a previous protest where the reckless endangerment charges were brought due to one Pilot flying threateningly at a highway patrol plane and the stalking involved the second Pilot whose now involved in this new incident ? It sounds as if they haven't yet been charged in the new incident involving the helicopter because they're likely still trying to figure out what they can charge them with ? Also , shouldn't the FAA charge them with these incidents as well , beyond the local prosecution it sounds like they're facing ? If the police do have any kinds of video from inside the police heli showing with certainty that the drone's operator was actually flying at them in a threatening manner , "playing chicken" as it were (aim right at it and see who breaks off course first) or similar and turned them in to the FAA or whoever it is that would prosecute that on a federal level , then I'd bet all kinds of federal endangering an aircraft in flight charges would be levied carrying fines far stiffer than they'd face under the local prosecution ?

init4fun

Thank You for that link HoundDog , I will actually print and save that in my pile of plane papers . I got things like a copy of #336 , the infamous "400 foot letter" , the AMA Safety Code , that sort of thing .

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If they are repeat offenders....and are deserving, they should be jammed up as much as possible. Serious fines, legal fees, and maybe some time behind bars.

init4fun

Now see , this is something we agree on . You'd be surprised at how much "common ground" is out here if that's what your lookin for !

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i just hope that neither of them turn out to be AMA members.

rcmiket

The FAA announced what the fines would be for violators last year. There was recently a list posted of every violation and associated fines. EVERY ONE was settled for close to nothing. Now maybe if those caught were held to the full extent and made a example of that would send a clear message that they were not fooling around and possibly prevent future issues. I'll bet this latest account of irresponsibility will the same way as the others.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Compromise is evident here as it is with other criminal and civil matters. The courts would be completely deadlocked without this. Also, one would hope that the punishment fits the crime, and that each case be viewed on its own merits, rather than a one size fits all approach.

Keep in mind some of the compromised cases probably involved counsel negotiating with the authorities, rarely done free if charge. Hopefully the first time offenders learn their lesson, and the repeat offenders are left to deal with the full force of the regulatory body. And I wish they would release those results and publicize them as well.

rcmiket

https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/23/...drone-flights/

Interesting considering just how bad our government wants to be more like Europe.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Ya, but they don't have Amazon and Intel pounding away at them to keep commerce alive and well.

franklin_m

I know this technology has been reported to exist, but it appears it's now actually in use. IMO, I think it's just a matter of time until public agencies (and perhaps even private organizations) are getting the same capability for use here in the US.
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/24/air-force-zaps-isis-drone-with-electronic-weapon/?ref=yfp&mobile=1

However, as a life long EW guy, I can say that these systems are not magic laser beams. The beams are not clean, and even a relatively narrow 3dB beamwidth in 2.4 GHz is still going to have side and back lobes. Combined with an inherent 1/R^2 power advantage for the jammer, non-targeted sUAS in the area could see impacts - impacts that would be very difficult to trace back to the jammer.

Just sayin....

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Agree...and the concern about where the drone getting knocked out of the sky is going to land.

Hydro Junkie

I like the fact that this was included in the article linked on page 98, post 3910 by FLAPHappy:
A collision with even a lightweight drone could result in serious and expensive problems. A small drone impacting an engine would be unlikely to cause a crash, but it could easily cause the failure of that engine and millions of dollars of damage. Windscreens and other components are vulnerable as well. Small drones are invisible to air traffic control and onboard radar.
That is what Franklin and I said multiple times and were told we didn't know what we was talking about. Guess we did know what we were talking about since it's now been put in print by an unrelated source

init4fun

I agree 101 % that the fear of where an intentionally disabled anything it gonna Impact is a well founded fear indeed , can you imagine a jammer hitting that Jet in the video Franklin showed just as it hit 260 or whatever MPH it was going ? Freakin Yikes .

PS , you'll notice I used Impact rather than land , and that's cause to me when I think of successful return to earth I think of land , VS when I think of crash I think of , well Impact I guess . Yea I know , "crash landing" and all that , but I do think of the two words generally as separate ...

init4fun

You may remember I was firmly on the side of having said I've seen training films of small objects , smaller than what I would consider a "small drone" , cause very bad things to happen to a Turbine engine which is why I advocate that nothing remotely controlled should ever enter one .....

franklin_m

At 259 miles per hour, after loss of signal, that "unguided cruise missile" will travel almost 760 feet before the engine even shuts down - and that's IF it's programmed to do so as required by AMA rules. Just imagine the attention the hobby would get if it landed on that busy section of I-75.

init4fun

Yep , and just so it's reinforced for the record , that flight video did most certainly scare the heck outta me to see it going that fast in that close proximity to the highway . I don't just speak up about quad copter stuff that I see that worries me , that fixed wing jet as well as the B29 crash you showed months ago certainly back up your point that yes indeed , any of that had the potential to be just as ugly for the hobby as any quad copter antics might be !

franklin_m

And now this twist! DSMx appears to have been hacked. Any non-encrypted signal can't be far behind. A little scary that Horizon wouldn't comment.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31361...-hijacked.html

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Here we go, another thing to be worried/concerned about. What exactly is so scary about HH not immediately commenting on the issue when asked by a news reporter? God forbid they research the issue and maybe look into it a bit before a response? Nah....more "sizzle" when its made to look like they "won't" comment, like they are stonewalling.
Guess this will be the new concern. Wasn't there some talk a while back about hackers on an airline being able to hack via Wi-Fi into the controls of an airliner?

The fact that the almost every protocol out there can be hacked isn't as big a concern...or that the technology was reverse engineered almost immediately and more or less copied by Orange and Lemon RX?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'd say this is a tad bit more scary. Airbus didn't comment either.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/fbi...puter-systems/

rcmiket

Wow. Interesting along with being a bit concerning.

Mike

init4fun

Felt this post worked just as well here , and to be honest ever since I saw the countermeasures that are so easily used against any RC gear , from the beginning days of people with illegal 500 watt amps on their CB radios wiping out the 27 MHZ band right on up to this newest advancement of being able to "beat the TX to the RX" method of taking control of 2.4 GHZ gear , I've never even come close to 100% trusting any RC link . And before folks go getting all "Spektrum is junk caused it's been hacked" I'm sure with a tweak of a code or two this is gonna work with ALL 2.4 RC from every manufacturer .

Now since I don't fly in a way that would cause the authorities to have to use such a device on my UAS , I'm not all that worried if the government only uses it to remove UAS that are truly in the way of full scale manned flights . What I am worried about is when some idiot with a grudge against RCers gets a hold of one and decides to crash a bunch of RC aircraft for some kind of twisted revenge .