Slashdot Mirror
Civilian Drone Crashes Into a US Army Helicopter (nypost.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Post:
It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island -- when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood, authorities said Friday. The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when the drone struck the chopper at around 8:15 p.m. Thursday, causing damage to its rotor blades. The uninjured pilot was able to land safely at nearby Linden Airport in New Jersey... "Our aircraft was not targeted, this was a civilian drone," said Army Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, the spokesman for the 82nd Airborne... "One blade was damaged [and] dented in two spots and requires replacement and there is a dented window"... The NYPD and the military are investigating -- but no arrests have been made.
The same day a federal judge struck down an ordinance banning drone flights over private property that had been passed by the city of Newton, Massachusetts. But local law enforcement warned that "an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities," while the Post reports that drones have also crashed into a power plant and into the 40th floor of the Empire State Building.
"In February, a GoPro drone crashed through a Manhattan woman's 27th floor window and landed just feet away from her as she sat in her living room."
The same day a federal judge struck down an ordinance banning drone flights over private property that had been passed by the city of Newton, Massachusetts. But local law enforcement warned that "an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities," while the Post reports that drones have also crashed into a power plant and into the 40th floor of the Empire State Building.
"In February, a GoPro drone crashed through a Manhattan woman's 27th floor window and landed just feet away from her as she sat in her living room."
Send the drone pilot the bill.
Legal considerations aside: When I read "... over a residential neighborhood...", I would certainly not expect army choppers to fly there (at low altitude) - especially since they are probably producing much more noise than civilian drones.
It's hard enough getting a gun in Canada, even air rifles are crippled here. Now my quadcopters will be treated as a terrorist weapon?
I got used to the stares carrying model rockets in public transit in the '90s.... That stopped too.
Mostly random stuff.
Why is the US military flying at 500 ft over a residential area? Drones are legal to 400 ft and Helicopters are supposed to keep a floor of 800 ft, granted that is waived for the military, 500 ft is really low (no auto rotation) and not entirely safe for those below.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Maybe don't fly multiple helicopters 500 feet over a residential neighborhood after dark?
You think that's bad? You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Excuse me, but what is the Army doing flying over residential neighborhoods? That's what should be illegal.
I think civilian drone operators needs to be responsible. but the land, the air, everything in the US belongs to the people, not the military. If the military is going to operate, they need to be diligent and responsible, not jacking off while they are on duty.
I am afraid that this is going to be an excuse to limit our rights. What is going to be next? Are streets going to be closed because military drivers can't be responsible enough to not look at pictures of naked female military personal posed online while driving?
Again, the drone operator bears some responsibility, but if our helicopters can theoretically evade RPGs, what the hell was the helicopter pilot doing?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
we wouldn't need as many cows and our own methane would be less offensive when we cut the cheese? cease fire stand down,, there are moms & babys in all of our towns,, that's the spirit..
They were probably flying over the water. The only time I've seen helicopters flying that low in NYC is when they were picking someone up in town, or flying over the water.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I'm certain this was Chopper Dave.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think the drone situation should be better defined as to who is liable if injuries occur from a drone. Obviously this worked out without only mechanical damage but if the copter had crashed this would have become a bad situation for the operator. Personally, I have never flown a drone myself, but these are very light aircraft which means they can become very unstable and we don't seem to require much in operator training.
My understanding is that the helicopters were patrolling for the safety of the United Nations general assembly. The neighborhood is along the shore of Staten Island and the helicopters were following the shoreline. It's reasonable for helicopters to patrol the waterways around New York City for suspicious activity. I suspect there are plenty of other helicopters flown in the area by the Coast Guard and the Port Authority. I suspect they were flying low to get a better view of anyone out on the water. I don't view this as unreasonable behavior at all. They were flying at 500 feet, which is above where recreational drones are allowed to operate. The ceiling for those is 400 feet, so there should never have been a recreational drone at that height.
The chopper was low but seemed to be at at its legal flight altitude. Honestly, I'm don't see a need for your average consumer to fly more than 400 feet above the ground. Anything that flies higher should be required to be licensed and carry tracking transponders like any other aircraft.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Why is the helicopter flying so low?
For your drone-watching pleasure
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Defeat the US military with clouds of cheap civilian drones.
You think that's bad? You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
That's nothing, you should see the Bomb they dropped on a house.
Fact of the matter is, drones and laser pointers are trivial to produce with today's technology, and if air crafts can be potentially downed by such pathetic objects, that's a sign that their design needs to be changed.
An ordinance gets struck down, and immediately a military helicopter gets hit.
"What did we tell ya! There's gotta be a law!"
There is absolutely no reason for commercial or military helicopters to fly above private property or beaches at 500 ft. Instead of focusing on drones, we should to raise the lower limit for commercial and military flights to, say, 1000 ft, except near airports.
Ban that shit already!!
The original article states the chopper was "struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood". That would be a "congested area, in FAA speak.
91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
The chopper should have been at least 1,000 feet above the highest structure, so probably at least 1,100 feet. Had it been at a proper altitude, it would have experienced no danger from the drone.
Chopper pilots, particularly military ones violate this rule all the time. Go to a beach near a base and they will be flying up and down practicing, I mean sight seeing very low causing a huge racket and generally annoying folks. There's really no punishment unless enough people complain, which they rarely do. Now that drones are on the rise, they have a real, dangerous obstacle. But rather than follow the rules and be safe, they want to blame the drones.
Fine the chopper pilot and revoke his license for a while.
You must not live in an area that's anywhere near an airport.
Where in San Antonio do you live?
About 50 % of American taxes go to the military. They rule the USA, one way or another.
Germany.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Miniature chopper does major damage to military chopper.
The military is flying things that can't withstand the equivalent of a rock being thrown at it, you'd think they're a bit more robust for flying in military action.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Got a reference on that ceiling requirement?
All I've seen is a "safety guideline" that suggests model aircraft be flown under 500'. No absolute ceiling was provided: https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin...
My understanding is that the helicopters were patrolling for the safety of the United Nations general assembly.
Wouldn't that be a job for a police chopper rather than an army chopper?
Well, the US Army/Army Reserve operates aviation units in Long Island and New Jersey. They're supposed to fly around Staten Island because it makes you nervous?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Due to President Trump spending (yet another) weekend at his golf course in Bedminster NJ, there was a 30NM temporary flight restriction from 0-18,000FT: here from Friday night through ~5PM Sunday. Staten Island is wholly included.
The drone pilot should have gotten a flight briefing. The standard restriction for VIP TFRs, which this one shares, is:
C. The following operations are not authorized within this TFR: flight training, practice instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, seaplane operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, banner towing operations, sightseeing operations, maintenance test flights, model aircraft operations, model rocketry, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and utility and pipeline survey operations.
My emphasis. That's why the Blackhawk was around, by the way - obviously it's allowed in the flight restriction in support of the Secret Service. All non-military aircraft have to be outside the 10NM inner ring, on a flight plan talking to ATC and with a transponder code uniquely identifying them on radar, and even then there's a ton of restrictions over permissible activites - basically you can leave directly, or enter and land directly, or you can maybe get permission to fly though.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
FAA rule 107 provides the 400' ceiling requirement and a lot of other regulations covering both commercial and non-commercial drone flight.
The FAA has the special rule for model aircraft, which says you must adhere to community-based safety guidelines: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
Those safety guidelines clearly say that you can't fly higher than 400 feet, and are listed here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
Those guidelines aren't optional. They're a requirement, and the rule says that you have to adhere to the safety guidelines. I don't know where you're getting the 500 feet number from, either. The limit is definitely 400 feet.
Germany.
I'm not familiar with that part of town. :). I sympathize with your noise issue, San Antonio hosts a C130 training squadron.
You'll see a lot of people talking about rule 107 saying 400 feet, but they tend to omit that it's 400 feet above the ground OR WITHIN 400 feet of a structure. So it depends very much on the area where this happened...but as a residential area, it's very possible there was no height violation.
Although I support the drone operator in this, it may be the time of day that kills him. You can't fly drones after dark according to the same rule set.
The relevant pages are:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
Why on earth link to the NYPOST version of this story with all it's misinformation?
From that story: "In what is believed to be the first incident of its kind, a drone slammed into a packed British Airways jetliner in April 2016 as it was landing at London’s Heathrow Airport. The plane landed safely"
Bullshit! That was later deemed to almost certainly have been a plastic shopping bag, not a drone.
Facts seem to be of little interest to some "news" publishers and the NYPOST is (at least in this case) right up there at the front of the "fake news" purveyors.
ABC EyeWitness carried a much better report on this story and it even includes pictures of the damage.
If a drone from Hobby Lobby can bring down a military helicopter, there are bigger issues.
Nice deflection then counter. 5 points.
Nope. The helicopter isn't required to yield to a drone. However, FAA rules do require that drones yield to manned aircraft. The drone clearly failed to avoid the manned helicopter. The pilot of the helicopter might not have even been able to see the drone prior to the collision due to the small size of the drone. That's why the operator of the drone is given the responsibility to see and avoid manned aircraft and why the FAA has a line-of-sight requirement for drones. Rearranging the headline would imply that the helicopter was operating recklessly when, in fact, it was the drone that was being flown recklessly. The parent post shouldn't be modded up as insightful.
You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
Military cargo planes don't fly below 500ft for fun. Also, you mentioning that you live in Germany, tells me that you most likely moved near an existing airport because no new military airports have been built in a while.
So one of two things is true: either you willingly moved close to a military airport, or you are 95 and are the victim of a military airfield being built next to your house.
I think the chances that you knowingly moved next to an existing military airport are higher than you being 95 and on Slashdot. So, by the power of deduction, I conclude that you moved next to an airport and now complain about those pesky aircraft flying over your home.
You, good sir, are a hypocrite.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Drones are required to give way to manned aircraft. Even if it was legal for the drone to operate at that height, it was still required to give way and not interfere with the helicopter, because the helicopter was manned.
The only reasons an army helicopter should be ~500ft in a residential neighborhood is:
* it's engaged in combat in said neighborhood (during war)
* it's engaged in recon-Ops in said neighborhood (during war)
* it's landing in said neighborhood (emergency landing)
just another Whiskey Tango Foxtrot OP AFAICT.
In all likelihood, the near-near-miss probably actually happened > 500ft, but the pilot had to cover his/her ass. Someone should do a FOIA request for the flight plan to get the cruising altitude and flight path.
How does moving into a home near a military airport require you to enjoy noisy airplanes flying low over your new home?
Not only that question, but he wasn't expressing an opinion about the fly overs, only that the parent poster should observe them.
You, good sir, are an asshole.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
What you're asking is unreasonable. At 500 feet in a residential neighborhood it's impossible to see *where* the helicopter is coming from to begin with. 500 ft is a minimum altitude for all aviation and it's far more likely the choppers were much lower than that limit at the time of the incident.
I am waiting for the indictment of the drone footage showing the military craft @ 500 AGL.
You're technically right. I think everyone here got fixated on the drone height thing for some reason, and really it's the least of it. Possibly because it was the only apples to apples comparison that could be done with the law for manned helicopters.
Yes, according to the article and the law, the drone operator engaged in a whole heap of technical violations. Time of day, proximity to airport?, maaaybe height, NY regulations, not giving way, (although that would depend on how fast these helicopters were going).
But you know what I say? According to common sense, drones are quiet and the helicopter operators were being colossal dicks. 8pm at 500 feet over a beach community? Diiiiiiiickss.
So a $500 drone can take out a $60 million helicopter? Sounds like the best way to defeat helicopter gun ships is to just surround them with huge swarms of cheap drones... they can't shoot them all!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"We could have used that!" - Philly PD, MOVE compound c.1985
So how are they suppose to train? To prepare and stage operations? Entirely outside the US?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The special coating that the U.S. military developed for rotor blades is the clear rubber protective coating we all buy to protect our smartphone screens.
500 ft. AGL is the minimum for civilian manned aircraft over land, except in for takeoff and departure or approach and landing. 400 ft. AGL is the maximum for civilian unmanned aerial systems. Clearly the operator of the drone was in an airspace violation in addition to not yielding way to the manned aircraft.
Argo, so is anyone who ever says "you, good sir" in an ironic way.
The UN general assembly probably has some black people in it and they were worried the cops might kill some of them. Might create a bit of an incident, that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The nearest military airport (a base with a statue of a jet outside, anyway) I can think of is approximately 20 km away; it's a bit early to be going down that low, I'd think.
I live rurally, however, so I certainly can't rule out that the area is used for training exercises. I imagine it is kinda difficult to fence off an area large enough to do proper training with cargo planes.
Also, if I had to know that a military base 20 km away would result in huge ass planes flying overhead so low the noise actually makes glass rattle a bit, I apologize. No one ever told me about that.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
> 500 ft just makes it WORSE for the drone operator. Check your math.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Or the helicopter was below 500 ft. It's interesting that they used such an exact number. What the hell is a military helicopter doing flying that low near a residential neighborhood anyway?
When someone says "good sir" that way, it's a polite way of saying "asshole." The second "asshole" was redundant, just in case you didn't understand the first one. :)
Has it started already? First, it was the power plant, then the 40th floor of the Empire State Building, and later it was a Manhattan woman's 27th floor window. I am just wondering if these are practice runs and just a precursor to to what will really happen when Skynet finally has had enough of our pesky human existence.
There are proving grounds where this stuff can be done without endangering civilians.
FAA rule 107 (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516) pertains to non-hobbyist drone flight: "The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations – Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (PDF) – cover a broad spectrum of commercial uses for drones weighing less than 55 pounds."
Good luck getting birds to comply.
Odd. Maybe I'm blind, but in that first link you're quoting, there's a link to the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (P.L. 112-95, Section 336) (https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_arctic/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf)
The only reference I see to 400 feet in that document is 334.c.2.C, which address government public safety agencies operating UACs:
(C) allow a government public safety agency to operate
unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated—
(i) within the line of sight of the operator;
(ii) less than 400 feet above the ground;
(iii) during daylight conditions;
(iv) within Class G airspace; and
(v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport,
heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location
with aviation activities.
The closest I can see is 336.a.2: ... which then fails to define which "community based set of safety guidelines" should be followed.
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
Not that it matters all that much in this case, since 336.a.4 clearly states that the UAC operator must not interfere with manned aircraft, which this drone operator clearly did.
All I'm saying is that the "must not operatie above 400' AGL" rule being bandied about frequently doesn't exist in my eyes.
Patrolling the shoreline for a united nations event?
Two Blackhawks with the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina were in the city on duty for the United Nations General Assembly, WCBS 880’s Alex Silverman reported.
The Army said the choppers were flying low along the east shore of Staten Island when a drone slammed into the side of one of them.
How dare they do their jobs where and when they're supposed to!
The Army should be allowed to fly their attack military helicopters at 20 feet above the ground on city streets, hitting cars if they so desired.
* It's providing security for a United Nations General Assembly
Transponders are only required for aircraft flying above 10,000 feet. Good luck getting your drone that high.
THAT is the real question... why in the hell is a military bird flying only 500ft above a residential in what is most assuredly not a combat zone
You mean the assembly located twenty miles to the northeast needed two black hawks to be in that area at 500 feet? Yes, how dare they.
Wow, that's a painful TFR.
LOTs of folks impacted.
Probably lots of hours of lives paused for each golf stroke.
Tends too much towards an imperial presidency.
Definitely a sad story there.
But that's a separate issue from this drone.
The TFR lowered the number for flights around which improved the odds of this idiot's not hurting someone.
Flying a model aircraft at 500 feet AGL in an airspace with other manned aircraft is reckless.
Not avoiding the manned aircraft is even worse.
Causing a collision even worse.
Fortunately, no one was hurt.
I would expect to see some resources applied to find the pilot.
Perhaps there are some youtube videos for similar flights to start from?
"500 ft. AGL is the minimum for civilian manned aircraft over land"
I guarantee you the fucking local police don't even follow this shit (I see Riverside PD at fucking 150 feet AGL and that ain't for takeoff or landing, they're circling at that altitude.) What makes you think the military would be any smarter?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yeah the TFR is pretty painful. I'm a fixed-wing pilot based out of one of the airports in the outer ring. I'm working on my instrument rating, so I'd be on a flight plan, but since flight training is a prohibited activity we have two options -
1) fly to a nearby airport outside the ring on a visual flight plan (with me as pilot-in-command so it's not technically flight training yet) then start our instrument flight plan (since I can't be PIC under instrument rules until I'm rated, and I can't not be PIC since that'd be flight training), do our thing, come back, land, and go back visually.
2) Do the whole flight as instrument rules, under my instructor's authority, and pretend I'm just some guy - not a student - until we leave the outer ring, at which point he'll start training me
Neither is very good. From the rules the first is better, though it's not clear to me it'll actually make much difference. The FAA's busted an instructor who was present in the plane - in the back seat sleeping - while his fully-rated buddy was up front flying them back from dinner and broke a rule. The FAA seems to believe that any time an instructor's in the airplane he is - or should be - providing instruction. If everything's fine it's not an issue, but if there's a problem don't see how (1) keeps the instructor safe... though if the FAA's decided there's a problem it hardly matters what the text of the rules say, they have broad statutory privilege to interpret their own rules.
The school contacted the Secret Service, and to their credit they basically said "yeah we don't care what you do as long as you're not maneuvering near by and you're talking to ATC and have a transponder code". But the FAA has their blanket restrictions and you have to comply.
They've been reasonably accommodating... the Hudson River VFR corridor has been exempted from the TFR, which is nice (though it makes it even more dangerous than usual) and there's several cutouts for airports near the edge, and a special corridor for Morristown flights. It's much worse down in Florida at Mar-a-Lago because of the heavy flight training operations down there.
I'm no fan of Trump, but in fairness he - and any president - gets little say over their protection. Though I will say it would be nice if he stayed in either of the two mansions we're paying for for him a little more frequently.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
This exactly. I live about 20 miles from an airforce base and they buzz our neighborhood weekly.
If all it takes is a tiny ass civilian drone to threaten a military helicopter, we may as well give up on the warmongering.
If I were country X, I would just send up swarms of the damn things.
You mean the UN HQ, right on the edge of the East River? Yeah, how dare they patrol the waters leading to the East River.
According to Google, it's only 15 miles by car. Would be less by water. Staten Island to the UN HQ is less than 10 miles by water.
This is still civilian airspace. The drone operator may have been patrolling his property when the military aircraft ran into him. Did the helicopters request clearance from neighborhood watch? I'm sure we'll never find out.
They should just be happy that me and my dad didn't scramble our ducted fan fighter jets. We'll be patrolling more frequently from now on.
Yeah, I meant < ... which is what I had before manually mistyping the html esape code .... slashdot- only the ads are updated
ba ching!
Why do you need to replace a blade and window? Surely a militarised helicopter should be able to withstand a knock like this. Otherwise a large bird would put this out of action, as would any munitions strike.
That depends. My local airport has residential neighbourhoods right up to the fence surrounding the airport. Those residential neighbourhoods grew up AFTER the airport was built. Bottom line is that it's entirely possible the helicopter being at 500 ft is perfectly reasonable for that locale. The article doesn't provide details for either side of the argument.
linquendum tondere
This is not possible, because flying drones in NYC is illegal, except for 5 spots in the city (Including ALL of Manhattan) - Only allowed in PARTS of Flushing Meadow Park (and no where near citifield or LGA),Forest Park, Queens, Calvert Vaux Park, Brooklyn, Marine Park, Brooklyn, and LaTourette Park, Staten Island
So there is NO way a drone crashed into a building in Manhattan, or the Empire State Building (also Manhattan) or a Power Plant in Brooklyn, or was hovering out my rear window about 2 months ago looking in. NOT possible, because laws STOP people from doing things (and people NEVER drive over the speed limit...)
Midland beach is the name of a neighborhood. It has a beach, but regardless, it's 20 by car, 13-15 as the quadropter flies (I'm eyeballing this.) It's somewhat moot though. It's way past several choke points that look like better candidates for scrutiny. The patrol was too low, too late at night, and outside of a useful area. Look at the topography of the area; it's pure sillyness. Even if they wanted to be that far out, maybe it's smarter to patrol waterways, with....I dunno...boats?
If you can damage a multi-million US$ military helicopter with a 200 US$ drone, then it is time to change paradigm.
when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone
If it flies then it's not an "Army chopper". I saw Echo Company's XO ride a "chopper" regularly, it had two wheels, a noisy muffler, and "Fuck You" laser cut in the chain guard. I'm surprised the base commander didn't chew his ass for having a vulgarity on the bike. I guess since he wore his helmet and a reflective vest when riding the Colonel didn't give a damn.
If it's got a big propeller on the top, and flies, then it's a "helo". Even then it's rare to hear anyone call a helicopter a "helo". It might be a "Huey", a "Blackhawk", "Apache", or "my ride out of here". It's not a "chopper".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Anecdotally I agree. I spent some time vacationing in SE Florida and noticed there were many helicopters flying too low and close to buildings. I believe these regulations are regularly disregarded.
It's reasonable for helicopters to patrol the waterways around New York City for suspicious activity.
Not military craft on US soil during peace time. And not at low altitude.
This is still civilian airspace. The drone operator may have been patrolling his property when the military aircraft ran into him. Did the helicopters request clearance from neighborhood watch? I'm sure we'll never find out.
They should just be happy that me and my dad didn't scramble our ducted fan fighter jets. We'll be patrolling more frequently from now on.
In the US, it's ALL civilian airspace.
The FAA has a charter to regulate airspace for safety, availability, etc. General shit, and that's it.
The TFR's (and many of the permanent no fly zones) the FAA issues are outside their charter and illegal.
How does moving into a home near a military airport require you to enjoy noisy airplanes flying low over your new home?
I wouldn't say you are required to enjoy them but you are required to acknowledge that as a condition of buying the home. The prices of homes reflect things like their proximity to airports, train tracks, schools, churches, highways, hospitals, and so much more. If you want a house that doesn't have cargo planes flying low overhead then you'd have to choose a different house, and likely pay more for it.
I'm reminded of a bunch of people that complained of a navy base near them that would shoot off a ceremonial canon everyday. They've been doing this for something like 150 years. So, some people buy a retirement home near this base and complain about the noise. Well maybe they should have considered that before buying the property.
You say it happens every couple weeks? It's probably pilots getting their training. How bad can this be? Seems like a pretty minor thing to complain about.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
According to this article:
Nikki Leynor, Senior Vice President of Remarkable Media, the imagineering company who constructed the unique ship, told IGN the machine was made out of 'a truss skeleton and a custom built network of LEDs for this event,' and would be disassembled following the flight.
The colorful LED lights were attached to spaceship, which was said to be roughly 50 feet in length and assisted by a Black Hawk helicopter.
I wonder if this drone strike occurred during a practice run?
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Well, no because foreigners in foreign countries most often do not want drunk US military personal rampaging all over the place. Military training should not take place over residential neighbourhoods outside of times of real war, not fake for profit wars. So rural locations, national parks and forest and out to sea and of course specifically established military reserves, this should be obvious. Plus civilian law should take precedence over military law, including on military bases, especially foreign military. Also military spending should be massively cut and that money spent far more soundly on turning of control law enforcers into smart police officers with university degrees and more of them (they could serve are extremely skilled military personal in times of real wars, instead of paying for soldiers in peace time, pay for more 'peace' officers, the police and whole lot fucking more sensible). Then cut military spending ever further to have the best possible infrastructure from roads to broadband and education to medical services (all far better spent on that, than on the military). Then further cut military spending just fucking because.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island -- when an illegally low flying Army chopper struck a flying civilian drone over a residential neighborhood, authorities said Friday. The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when it struck a civilian drone around 8:15 p.m. Thursday, destroying the drone, and causing damage to the chopper's rotor blades. The uninjured pilot was able to land safely at nearby Linden Airport in New Jersey... "Our aircraft was not targeted, this was a civilian drone," said Army Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, the spokesman for the 82nd Airborne... "One blade was damaged [and] dented in two spots and requires replacement and there is a dented window"... The NYPD and the military are investigating -- but no arrests have been made.
GET TO DA HELO!
That doesn't quite work as well...
Military cargo planes don't fly below 500ft for fun.
They certainly do and do so illegally, but who is going to stop them?
I live "near" a military base as in 200 miles up the coast, but that does not stop their "training exercises" in their designated airspace ten miles off shore from encroaching over the city at whatever height the fighter pilots want to chase their simulated target. And guess how fast and how low fighter pilots like to go?
Sure, go ahead and pay to move the stat's militia to another state?
How about NY give up on the national guard and just not get any help when you have your next hurricane.
So long, commercial drones
Sayonara, flying cars
Sorry, they are just keeping tabs on the unconvicted criminals living in the community.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
US soil during peace time
When was the last time the US experienced "piece time"?
A helicopter by right can legally fly 1" above your property. They have no altitude minimums nor are restricted from flying over populated areas.
The military can and does designate a flight area off limits, a TFR, and prevent any other aircraft from flying in its limits. There was a TFR in place during this Staten Island flight, so no drone should even have been in the air. Completely irresponsible.
But you have it all ass backwards.
The military should never have been operating in that space, and they should not even have the opportunity to restrict civilian operations via this "TFR" business.
What is wrong with everyone? Do you enjoy living in a military state?
Then the military craft was in violation and responsible for the crash, due to flying below minimum altitude....
Why the hell is my post at -1? From the FAA's site (https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/), it says:
the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
The helicopter was a manned aircraft. The drone was required to give way to the helicopter. Regardless of whether the helicopter should or should not have been operating there, the drone operator was violating FAA rules.
I get it that some Slashdot readers might be drone hobbyists and would want to defend their hobby. More likely, many of the readers here are generally opposed to government regulation that they see infringes upon their freedom, and therefore will support the drone operator over a military helicopter. Moderation isn't the place to be pushing those biases. It isn't a like/dislike or an agree/disagree button, nor was it ever intended to be. Why bother posting the relevant FAA rules if they're simply going to be modded down to -1 by a single moderator because he or she disagrees with the post?
I actually am involved with flying fkxed-wing drones for atmospheric research. It's not for recreational purposes, so the rules are slightly different, and we have obtained COAs to allow us to fly higher than 400 feet. However, many of the rules still apply. We have to keep the drone in sight and we have to yield to manned aircraft. If another a manned aircraft like a helicopter enters the area, we either fly out of that area or land the drone. It's inconvenient, for sure, but demonstrating that we can operate safely and follow the current rules probably works in our favor (and that of other drone operators) when we ask the FAA for more flexibility with new COAs.
I, too, would like the FAA to reduce the restrictions on drones, to give drone operators more flexibility on where and how they can operate. But that's not going to happen if drone operators don't follow the current see-and-avoid rules. Furthermore, even if the helicopter pilot shouldn't have been there, and the details aren't entirely clear, it doesn't change the fact that the drone operator was breaking some rules. I agree that current FAA rules are somewhat draconian, and I'd like to change them. But the best way to do that is to follow them now and then request additional privileges based on a safe operating record. Reckless drone operators are counterproductive. The relevant FAA rules cover drones weighing up to 55 pounds. A collision between a 55 pound drone and a commercial aircraft would quite possibly cause serious damage to both, and quite possibly endanger lives. Disobeying the rules isn't the way to get them changed in our favor.
Agree or disagree? Great, there's a tool to express that. It's the reply button. Don't moderate based on whether you agree or disagree.
It probably makes sense to patrol from the air because you can see a much wider area and see details looking down from above that wouldn't be visible from the water. You can probably also cover more area from the air than from the water. I'd imagine they were flying low to get the best view of anything or anyone on the water. It also doesn't rule out that there were other patrols closer to the UN. I'd be surprised if there weren't. There may well have also been boats on patrol. The benefit of patrolling from a distance is, if you see suspicious activity heading in the direction of the UN, you have time for boats to intercept the suspicious activity before it reaches the UN.
Here's an idea. The Port Authority ceased air operations and sold their two helicopters a few years ago. They were expensive and the Port Authority couldn't justify the cost. Why not use drones to patrol the waterways and fly at 400 feet? At the very least, it's cheaper than flying helicopters. It's probably less visible to anyone acting suspiciously on the water. And it's probably safer than the helicopters.
It is a bleak day in this world where things flying into other things (the latter being American) are not being labelled acts of terrorism anymore.
Are we growing complacent? Have we forgotten our fear?
Next time, this drone could be carrying a nuclear warhead, and it could be flying into a formation of F35s flying out to protect the great United States.
I say we put this drone terrorist in jail for 99 years AND make his mum pay for the damages to the helicopter.
Depends whether they're seeking to prevent military or criminal action.
An assault on the UN would almost certainly be inherently military in nature.
probably assigned that flight level by ATC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Because they can? Because that is perfectly legal? Any helicopter can fly 500ft above a residential area. But I guess you would have blamed the owner of a civil helicopter like an S300 or an R22 also, even if their lightweight helicopters had been damaged to the point of killing someone. Just so long as rich children (of all ages) can fly their toys (laws meant to keep people safe be damned) wherever they want. Frankly, irresponsible shit like this is how we are going to get even more draconian laws shoved down our throats.
The military can operate on US soil during peace time, just generally not for the purpose of enforcing domestic laws. This is the result of the Posse Comitatus Act, which specifically does not allow the military to "execute the laws." There are several exceptions to this, and it also doesn't apply to the Coast Guard. It is questionable whether it would be legal for the Army to act in a support role, providing surveillance of the area while leaving intercepting anything suspicious on the water to the Coast Guard, Port Authority, or another entity with jurisdiction. My understanding is that it probably isn't legal, even in a support role. However, if the President the military to act in such a role, then it is legal for them to do so. Basically, if President Trump authorized them to conduct the surveillance or even more directly engage in federal law enforcement, then it is legal for them to do so.
The real question for me is why is the Army tasked with providing this security? Based on where the helicopters were operating, I believe they were patrolling the waterways around New York City. It would be absolutely legal for the Coast Guard to do this, and it makes more sense than involving the Army. It may be that the Coast Guard simply doesn't have the aircraft to carry out such a mission, in which case they should be allocated the funding to do so. Trump has considered cuts to the Coast Guard to help fund his border wall, even though the Coast Guard has an important role in border security. They may just be underfunded. I also have an easier time supporting the Coast Guard than other military entities because they routinely provide service to civilians through search and rescue missions.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the Army Clause of the Constitution...
love is just extroverted narcissism
What was a military helicopter doing flying at 500 feet over a populated area? That is below the 1000 foot minimum altitude. I guess laws don't apply to the military. If the helo had been where it was supposed to be, there wouldn't have been a problem.
Not according to sec 14 cfr 91.119 it can't. Helicopters are not exempted from minimum altitude requirements except in specific circumstances. And when operating below minimums helicopters must not cause a hazard to persons or property.
Except a drone must still give way to manned aircraft and remain in view of the operator. If it can't do this or you can't do this, fly lower, get better controls or don't fly at all. Even if the chopper is hovering 3 inches above your backyard when hit by a drone, the drone pilot is still 100% at fault for the damage.
Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Unless there was an airport next to the residential area, those blackhawks were the ones illegally flying, 500 feet agl is a violation of FAA rules... fuck you blackhawks!
"Though I will say it would be nice if he stayed in either of the two mansions we're paying for for him a little more frequently."
Or if he picked an unpopulated part of the country to play in.
The question is, does how his play choice affects others even cross his mind when he chooses where to go?
Given the place is chosen, the SS does a great job of balancing safety for him with trouble for others.
I wonder how thinking about others enters into his thoughts.
Again this is a side issue, just glad nobody got hurt from the idiot drone pilot.
to do like they always do. When somebody breaks the law, it means we need more laws, more laws and more laws.
And when there are so many laws you are forced to break at least one of them to do anything, you have already stepped over the line and will not care about the rest. We see this all the time.
What politicians need are to enforce the laws already in place. Ramming one drone is fine, now they need to find it and the SD card, so they can find and bill the owner, bill him for a prop blade, and fine him for the violation.
The heli likely has a good position fix on the collision point. The question is how far the prop slung the DJI quad.
I know a lot of drone enthusiasts aren't good at critical thinking, but much how police are allowed to run red lights and speed in certain situations, there are exceptions for the minimum height requirements as well.
Tons of chopper above our heads with no failure option but on our heads, is much more disturbing. Some days many fly over our house.
We live close to a line from Ellington Field to Galveston USCG station. Military choppers could stay over water or above 600 meters to have some options of where to crash. Instead they fly low over our heads and often do tight circles over a square mile of houses.
Locals think the aircraft are looking for drug production houses.
Maybe we could fly enough drones to keep the dangerous choppers away?
Why a military copter was flying at 500 ft over a residential zone? THIS IS THE QUESTION WE SHOULD BE ASKING!!!!
In no way, shape or form is the US all civilian airspace. There is no basis for this statement in any government document. The Air Commerce act of 1926 was the first regulation of airspace and covered both civilian and military use. The civilian air authority split from the military in 1938. The military operates on it's own rules and can regulate it's own airspace. Areas where they conduct live fire exercises are restricted from use by civilian aircraft for safety. Military Operation Areas where they practice maneuvers can be used by civil aircraft without permission, but is recommended that you don't.
The TFRs prevent you from being shot down by an F-16. This is definitely a regulation for safety. The FAA absolutely, positively has authority to regulate and restrict airspace. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 established the FAA, and does not have the restrictions you claim. The TFR authorizations can be found in 14CFR Part 91 .137 (disasters) .138 (Hawaii volcanoes) .141 (Presidential) .143 (Space flight) .145 (sporting events), and Part 99.7 (special security).
When they are protecting Marine 1 when the president is in NYC they do. There were Blackhawks and Ospreys orbiting at low altitude over New York harbor waiting for Marine 1 to take off.
I'm a civilian helicopter pilot, and the regulations allow us to operate below 500 feet. Single engine helicopters have some restrictions when flying at those altitudes (basically that if we have an engine failure we can land without endangering any of the people or their property on the ground). Twin engine helicopters (like the Blackhawk in this article) do not even have that restriction.
When we have to operate at low altitudes (there are plenty of missions that require it) we try minimize the annoyance factor for the people on the ground. Along a coastline, a common way is to fly slightly over the water - in the article summary it claims this happened over Midland Beach, so it's possible that the crew was trying to minimize noise.
from Friday night through ~5PM Sunday
Perhaps, but TFA says that the collision occurred on Thursday night.
I'd be curious to see what the FAA's radar records say about this. I believe there was an incident a few years back in NYC where a police helicopter encountered an "erratic drone that came at them out of nowhere", later it was shown (I believe via the radar logs) that the police helicopter chased down the drone. I don't think most people grasp how high 500' is, most large cell towers are only about 250'. Consumer drones don't tend to fly more than 400' normally out of shear necessity, a lack of flight time, limited camera resolution, limited pilot visibility, etc. If I had to place a bet on what happened I'd say that the helicopter was hotdogging and flying low (200-400') and hit the drone, since there was damage to the aircraft they had to write it up and since it would look bad for them to have been breaking the law they wrote it up as encountering the "above 500ft". I think helicopter pilots are well known for playing below the legal limits, I've personally seen one flying at about 200' for no apparent reason.
You are correct that 91.119 prescribes the minimum altitudes for aircraft, and that the requirement is that a helicopter must not cause a hazard to persons or property when flown below the minimums that would apply to fixed wing aircraft.
In practice the way this is interpreted by the FAA for a twin engine helicopter (like a Blackhawk) is that as long as the operation itself doesn't provide a direct hazard (say, by the downwash of the helicopter damaging stuff on the ground) and the aircraft can fly away if one of the engines should fail, the operation would typically be approved.
When the operator determines whether the operation can be conducted without hazard, they would not be considering things like "what if the pilot has a heart attack" or "what if the aircraft suddenly explodes and heavy pieces should fall onto the people below".
Certainly I have seen the Massachusetts State Police hovering over crowds on the Boston Commons at altitudes as low as 50 feet. When you have two engines, the FAA is pretty forgiving about what you do with the aircraft (even though I personally would not operate directly over the public at such low altitudes).
I believe it's only a matter of time before a helicopter is brought down by a collision with a drone. I believe it's reasonable for the FAA to require ADSB participation by drones, and that drones have some kind of "land now" feature when a manned aircraft is approaching...
Not currently. But letâ(TM)s ban helicopters from arbitrary flying around in cities outside of designated routes and use drones for everywhere else, which are lightweight and less likely to cause serious damage or injury when they crash. The faster we switch to drones the safer and better for everyone. We can have more air coverage and less serious accidents.
A Google Maps search, around Staten Island, will give you the potential for to/from where this was going.
Considering recent UN General Assembly, and potentially other public, not so public meetings, a US Army Helicopter flying that low doesn't really strike me, since I grew up in a flight path for one of the largest US Army bases in the US. It was quite common to see trios of Black Hawks, several F-* whatever's, or Ospreys flying over head mid day. Didn't really care what altitude, since they are all loud as hell.
So this scenario? What Drone, excuse me QUAD COPTER operator, thought flying that above 400 ft in his neighborhood, in NEW Freaking YORK, thought that was a good idea?
I'm honestly surprised Homeland Security wasn't all over him within 15 minutes if low altitude identification. Even if he was on Staten Island.
What kind of failures are you worried about? If you're worried about engine failures, the helicopters that are operating over your house are twin engine. If they have an engine failure they're going to fly back to an airport and land.
The number of failures other than complete engine failure that results in the crashing of a helicopter is vanishingly small. If you are really worried about the risk of something so improbable, you should first consider banning all cars, no electricity in your house, etc. etc. The general public has a misconception about the actual risk - probably partly because of how Hollywood portrays helicopters - they always seem to be spinning out of control etc. in the movies. News flash: they don't do that in real life.
Personally, I've been Mr. Nosebleed at every helicopter company I've worked at - I try to fly high mostly because of noise reasons - trying to minimize noise for people on the ground. Still, in places like New York, there is often airspace above me that limits how high I can go, so even if I wish I could be at 2,000 feet I may be held lower by ATC.
THAT is the real question... why in the hell is a military bird flying only 500ft above a residential in what is most assuredly not a combat zone
If you read TFA (I know, I know), you would have seen that they are providing additional security for the United Nations General Assembly. Perhaps they were patroling the coastline.
Also, helicopters are supposed to be above 500 ft and drones below 400 ft, so the drone was 20% above its maximum operating altitude, if you believe the report.
Also, it's pretty hard to miss hearing a Blackhawk approaching you at an altitude of 500 ft. They often fly over my house and are quite loud, especially when flying as a pair, even if they are coming at you. If you were actually operating a drone or other RC aircraft and were not observant enough to to keep track of the TWO super loud helicopters flying by your airspace, then you probably are not qualified to be operating a drone at that altitude.
Maybe someone was tired of military helicopters buzzing their residential neighborhood at night. I've thought about kamikaze missions with drones before, or using mortar style fireworks to send a little message to asshole pilots.
I live along the river, there is a Naval Base on the Ocean and one up river. Coast Guard and Navy helicopters often travel between the two bases, moving stuff, patrolling, whatever. They often (many times per day) fly less than 300 feet above my house (I live near a bend in the river). When you are outside, you cannot hear the person next to you talk.
But it is all good. They pass very quickly and they give me a sense of security.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
The TFR's (and many of the permanent no fly zones) the FAA issues are outside their charter and illegal.
They can cut up the airspace in whatever ridiculous way they choose, but, more importantly, they can pull my ticket without good cause, and I can get it back only if I dump a load of cash on a lawyer. I'll stay out of their way, plenty of nice air in the other direction.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Thank you for your armchair commentary of how the department of defense should operate. You must be much better at this than them, after all, your condescension and confidence in your ignorance are right up there.
You might be surprised at how many National Guard "training missions" include communicating what they can see to local law enforcement. As long as they don't actually do anything it doesn't invoke Posse Comitatus.
Most part time soldiers or even active duty actually like the idea of helping search for lost people and don't object to reporting drug gardens or hot spots on infrared that could be a meth lab.
And strictly military training missions... the purpose of a helicopter is to be able to fly low and slow. Part the training involves a lot of touch and go practice and navigation drills through and landing in various terrains. To quote my cousin, the USMC chopper pilot, "If you didn't get the wheels muddy, you didn't train." He also says it is polite to the Crew Chief to drag the wheels through a body of water to rinse them off before returning to base too.
I'll wager the closest airport had that helicopter on radar and knew what they were doing. A drone coming up that doesn't register on radar worth a crud; wild card. And, if the drone pilot had been operating legally, he would have gotten the drone out of the way when the chopper approached.
NRRPT/RCT
Or the military had an approved flight path for low flight under visual flight rules.
Do you think the local TV station chopper stays above 500 feet? Or police and rescue helicopters for that matter.
You just don't go below 500 feet until in touch with a controlling tower.
NRRPT/RCT
Both manned aircraft and drone pilots should be more careful. Common sense says manned aircraft shouldn't be flying so low over neighborhoods, parks, crowds, etc., especially now that drones have become so prevalent and so many drone operators consistently disregard the regulations and recommendations.
But just because a manned aircraft pilot is being unsafe or is below their minimum altitude doesn't remove the drone operators' responsibility to yield and get out of the way. If your visibility is so low that you can't see incoming aircraft, you should probably find somewhere else to fly your drone where you have better visibility.
I fly a drone and think it is completely reasonable to require the unmanned drone to yield to the manned aircraft. I have personally seen several drone operators fail to yield to manned aircraft, despite having plenty of visibility and plenty of time to do so. None of those resulted in collisions, but a couple were relatively close. And you can easily watch thousands of youtube videos (casey neistat, etc.) of people who consistently and knowingly ignore height limits, etc. Additional restrictions and regulations will come because too many people ignore the current regulations and recommendations and fly their drones irresponsibly.
Oh. That would be this TFR (7/8422) instead, from 3:30pm Thursday through 5:30PM Friday. The other was 7/8426.
(There's been a lot of TFRs.)
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
To be honest it's a big inconvenience wherever the president goes. Obama's 2-week vacation in Martha's Vineyard always coincided with my yearly week on Cape Cod and the outer ring put a big wall through that airspace as well. The difference IMO is that Obama mostly was at the WH (or Camp David, both of which have permanent - and charted - flight-pain zones) and his yearly vacation, with the occasional excursions typical of any president - whereas it's a rare weekend Trump isn't at one or the other golf course. His presence will directly put several small businesses out of business - flight schools, FBOs, and maintenance shops - at airports in Florida, specifically KLNA, which has had multiple closures and businesses moving away since it's within the 10NM no-fly zone where basically nothing but air ambulance and military flights are permitted even with a flight plan.
I don't think it's even on Trump's radar (so to speak) though. While they were both still candidates, the AOPA sent them questionnaires about their view of general aviation - HRC answered with the standard "economic engine, best in the world, keep it going safely, fund the FAA" thing some staffer prepared, but Trump didn't even bother to respond.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I have the unfortunate situation of living near an air force base where the pilots have a habit of flying their helicopters very low and close to residential communities. In my opinion, they do it very much on purpose. They're beating their chests. With every pass they're daring you to complain. To put this in perspective, your entire house shakes like there's an earthquake. And it's every single day.
I know better than to speak up in public, but just between you and me, this doesn't make me respect the military -- this makes me resent the military. Is that their goal? To make the community they're supposedly protecting resent them? Because that's exactly what's happening. I don't see these people as noble protectors. I see them as arrogant chest-beating thugs.
luckily the FAA mandated drone registration so it is easy to find the pilot, right?