It's a risk, but realistically not all that much of one; it'd take an amazingly unlucky tail-rotor hit to really imperil the aircraft. On the other hand, a dro

It's a risk, but realistically not all that much of one; it'd take an amazingly unlucky tail-rotor hit to really imperil the aircraft. On the other hand, a drone which can climb high enough to almost hit a cruising police helicopter is a drone which can climb high enough to get sucked up by a commercial jet during takeoff or landing. Jet turbines are actually quite fragile, and something the size and mass of a bird or a drone can easily wreck one. (Ever see that video where the guy feeds a brick to a washing machine? It's like that, only much more energetic and not nearly so funny.) Bird strikes in such circumstances have been known to result in fatal crashes; a drone strike could easily do likewise. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if that fact had more to do than any other with the heavy penalties apparently being contemplated in this case; despite there having been no harm done this time, I imagine some of the people involved in deciding what to do about it are thinking it'd be good to try to deter anyone from doing something similarly stupid around an airport, where it might well actually kill people.