7 ms·

Brooklyn man arrested for flying drone over Manhattan

62 points by apaprocki 13y ago

jamesbritt 13y ago
Seems he was arrested for crashing it near a pedestrian, not simply for flying it. He was charged with reckless endanderment for is inability to control the device.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  To me, I think either way this activity should be banned. Though the activity should be allowed in some rural area with permits. Especially in a dense, metropolitan city like NYC, flying a robotic copter or drone can pose dangerous. especially if everyone were to fly one.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    "Ban all the things"… How would one envision something like that to be enforced in NYC (or anywhere): Stop and frisk for drones? House to house, apartment to apartment sweeps?
    - chronic25 13y ago
      Shoot them down
    - BariumBlue 13y ago
      By checking to see whether there's any unauthorized drones in the sky?
      - danjayh 13y ago
        And if you find one, and the owner doesn't post his face in a video, how do you track it back to him? My greatest concern with this is that they'll destroy RC aircraft as a hobby. There are many experienced RC helicopter and airplane pilots out there who have been flying these safely for decades. The problem is now that prices have come down (they used to cost an order of magnitude more), every idiot thinks they can do it. That being said, the 'drone' this man was probably flying doesn't really pose a danger to anyone. They're typically made of foam or lightweight plastic and have very little kinetic energy. A full speed hit to the head with one wouldn't cause much harm (this is pretty much true for anything 100 sized and smaller - anything larger and you can start to hurt people with direct hits). For instance, something like this: http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/blade-nano-cp-x-bnf-BLH3380 http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/blade-nano-cp-x-bnf-BLH... weighs 29 grams. That's ~1/30th of a kg. This quadcopter: http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-safe-technology-BLH7680#t2 http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-safe-t... weighs 16.5 grams. Banning stuff like that would be a huge overreaction. My largest helicopter (I fly RC stuff, if you haven't already figured it out) is ~750 grams, which is definitely large enough to hurt someone, but requiring me to have a license to fly it in my back yard would be crazy - I have 12 acres, which is ample space. Besides that, I've never crashed it, because unlike that buffoon, I know what I'm doing :) (edit - never crashed this one. As stated by another poster, components do fail, even on real aircraft, so it does happen). That being said, because I know what I'm doing, I'd never try flying it off a balcony in NYC. TLDR; Responsible/skilled people should be allowed to fly, irresponsible people should be held accountable. If they can nail him for reckless endangerment, I think the current laws are strong enough.
  - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
    As a RC plane flying hobbiest my greatest fear is from over reaction to fools like this one. Yes he did the wrong thing. And he's been charged. The present laws seem fine. The big danger is from over-reaction and then just a law outright banning all civilian use. This is my worst case scenario. When me and my friends fly it's a day trip. We travel to a remote location, or a large open flying field. We don't fly over people, or sporting events. We check local regulations over places banned from model flying. Where I am (Australia) there are areas where it is not allowed at all. All the inner city areas are off limits except for a few allocated fields. It's all handled at the local council level. Different councils are different. We fly under the 400ft ceiling and give way to all other aircraft (Hear a real plane? Bring yours down.) We don't need any permits. I usually don't crash but I have in the past, and I know that I might. Components fail. Radio links can have issues. And then there's the wind and the elements. So we take all the due precautions. I don't want people to ban my hobby because some fools take this new piece of tech and without much experience act recklessly with it. It's a danger with anything. There are young hoons who burn their tyres in the middle of the night on some corner. Don't ban driving. Or the car. Or all civilian uses of the car. Let's all keep our heads screwed on.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      Please before raging at me look at what I said. Flying in a dense area is dangerous. Flying in a rural area (or if you want, open field somewhere remote) is fine. So you took the wrong direction. My comment is not foolish at all. We just need to ban in the city. Even 100 ft is dangerous. This is not foolish. And importing the argument "ban driving" is certainly foolish because we do have regulations on driving. You can't drive above certain speed and can only drive if you have a permit (if you get caught without a license you get into trouble). You can only drive in a specific designated area called roads. In essence, if you want to fly within the city like central park. Okay. But it needs to be regulated. Why? Anyone can build a monster copter flying and the next thing is either this copter cut someone's head off or a crash. It is like 3D printing a gun. Without regulation we don't really know who is responsible for what. So a permit seems reasonable. A little law enforcing the consequence, classifying the accident is crucial. Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? If you do that in an open field the danger can be minimized (more space to run away), but in a dense metro area (think about 42th street) is harder. So No. Read my comment carefully before you make your comment (part of it on ban flying copter in the city).
  - baddox 13y ago
    > To me, I think either way this activity should be banned. Define "this activity." I hope you don't mean all flying of remote control aircraft, which is a decades-old and historically extremely safe hobby.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      "This activity" = "the flying of powerful RC aircraft (i.e., at substantial risk of major injury if it collides into a person - it's a quad carrying a GoPro, not a supermarket RC heli), by an unqualified operator (watch the feed from the quad, the guy crashes it five times into buildings before losing control permanently), in an area where there is a guaranteed swarm of people directly below the flight path". My understanding is that RC aircraft as a hobby, up until recently, has been small enough and hard enough to get into that most newbies get schooled by the old-timers, and as such learn proper safety and how to not be a complete cockup. With the advent of incredibly cheap RC aircraft, it seems more and more people are getting into the hobby who have no idea WTF they should/shouldn't be doing, have no one to teach them, and aren't aware of their own ignorance. If RC aircraft becomes much more popular than it currently is, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if hard regulations become the norm.
      - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
        > With the advent of incredibly cheap RC aircraft, it seems more and more people are getting into the hobby who have no idea WTF they should/shouldn't be doing, have no one to teach them, and aren't aware of their own ignorance. This is very much it. I see the solution as education and mentor-ship. I would recommend anyone interested to get in contact with clubs and activities that are happening in their area. Even indoor flying is an option in the big cities!
        potatolicious 13y ago
        The problem is that these people don't know what they don't know. We have extremely powerful RC aircraft being sold without so much as a "so listen, you should really get properly trained on the operation of this potentially dangerous machine". I'm all for lack of regulation. I'd love for people to be able to fly over the skies of NYC and create beautiful works, but not if the people doing it are completely ignorant like the guy in this case. It's hard to expect people to seek out clubs and mentorship when they don't even know these organizations exist, or the importance of seeking out proper training. There is an attitude change required here I think.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dingaling 13y ago
    Imagine how dangerous it is for everyone to drive two tons of steel at 40 mph through the city streets, too. But somehow that's just fine, even though in NYC: - 27% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved driver failure to yield - 79% of crashes that kill or seriously injure pedestrians involve private vehicles - Traffic crashes cost the City’s economy $4.29 billion annually ( 2009 data ) Sounds like driver regulation isn't working. Let's ban cars, except under permit in remote rural areas. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/pedsafetyreport.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/pedsafetyreport...
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    In the UK I think that if you fly a remote control aircraft through a video feed rather than through line of sight then you need a pilots licence and then normal flying rules apply. Banning new classes of flying things is hardly neccessary when you have a licencing and training regime readily available with a century of experience in dealing with airbourne vehicles.
- apaprocki 13y ago
  Meta-comment: read this one thread replacing "flying a drone/RC" with "shooting a gun" and see similarity to current debate.
brokentone 13y ago
Interesting story, but this particular "article" appears to just be a transcript of the video, but isn't noted as such, in which case text like "the small helicopter drone similar to this one" is unhelpful. Also the video isn't well clipped, including some other updates at the beginning. Also the "read original story" link is quite broken. Alternate source?
robbyt 13y ago
There are things you should do differently in densely populated areas like NYC. Flying consumer drones around without any permission or training is just not a good idea.
- angersock 13y ago
  Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you here. You know how you get training? By doing, by practicing. There's no need to nanny people--if they're not careful and if they end up causing damage, deal with it then; otherwise just be cool.
  - robbyt 13y ago
    Yes, but go outside of the city to practice where you don't risk hurting other people. Handguns are also illegal in NYC- if you want to get handgun training you need to go outside of the city where people won't get hurt.
NelsonMinar 13y ago
I'll be curious to read by what theory NYPD thinks they have jurisdiction over national airspace.
- gettheyayo 13y ago
  That could have hit someone in the window or fallen down and kill someone walking down the street. They can do serious damage
- bri3d 13y ago
  This particular incident sounds more like NYPD thinking they have jurisdiction over "people dropping things on pedestrians," which I'm pretty sure they do. They charged the guy with reckless endangerment, not some kind of airspace-related violation. Seems pretty darn reasonable to me, to be honest.
jcl 13y ago
A couple years ago, a guy used an RC plane to record a video of a New York flyover, including the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. The police were pretty cool about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1966336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1966336
- tensafefrogs 13y ago
  The police were, but the FAA isn't a fan: http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pilot-fights-faa-fine-could-change-drone-rules http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pi...
alayne 13y ago
How is this going to end? All radio-controlled planes will require aviation licenses? Maybe they will need tracking devices too? I think I will enjoy watching people scramble to deal with the disruption.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
elstevo 13y ago
I don't really agree with calling an RC helicopter a drone. It sounds way more malicious that way. But then again, "Local man found to be bad at flying RC helicopter" isn't nearly as attention-grabbing.
imsofuture 13y ago
A remote controlled aircraft is not a 'drone'. At least not in the breathless sensationalist sense we're supposed to read into that title.
triplesec 13y ago
This points to the sadly much more likely FAA and law enforcement attitude and responses to the advent of rc copters than encouraging the licensing of useful things and tacocopters.
zzleeper 13y ago
Slighlty related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBM-JLNyBg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBM-JLNyBg After seeing this video, I do see why people love drone flying so much, it's amazing how much can you see from there that you can't with any other means. (They have other very nice videos, from the costa concordia to Angkor Wat)
noonespecial 13y ago
Oh look. Its the system actually working for a change. A guy did a stupid thing that might have endangered someone else with his property. He was arrested and may be charged for a crime that if convicted would lead to a fine large enough to deter him and others from doing something this stupid again. Seems like a perfectly rational reaction to me despite the overhyped news story. (Slow news day no that there's no 'shutdown' to breathlessly go on about?)
- po 13y ago
  Except for the end where they say the NYPD is now investigating it and the person who reported it said he had a sense they didn't know how to handle it. That's why he brought the story to the media. So, yeah the system works if you include media/social networks and the 'overhyping' of attention in to the loop. Would he have been arrested if this story didn't have attention? It seems that the police have no strategy and have not yet thought about how they are going to enforce this FAA rule which is clearly going to be more and more relevant in the future.
whyenot 13y ago
There was a teenager in New York who died recently when his RC helicopter sliced off the top of his head[1]. Flying these things in heavily populated areas is going to be an issue, whether there is a human being at the controls or it is some future autonomous "tacocopter." [1] http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/ http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-contr...
- sounds 13y ago
  Personally, this sounds like what people said when cars first appeared in the US: "Responsible parents would tell their children, 'Go outside, and play in the streets. All day.' "And then the automobile happened. And then automobiles began killing thousands of children, every year. - New York Times, Nov 23, 1924 [1] Perhaps it would make sense to license drone operators just like other pilots, and certify drone equipment for safe use? [1] http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-...
- reustle 13y ago
  That was a much more powerful helicopter, not a simple consumer quadrocopter. The blades on my ar.drone spin just fast enough to sting a bit when it catches a finger.
- mapt 13y ago
  This is a "toy" with a single reinforced carbon fiber main-rotor blade 5 feet in diameter, which is flown pretty much exclusively by people like this for the purpose of pulling very physics-defying stunts, flipping and turning and changing direction faster than a dragonfly could, two or three maneuvers a second in directions that are not aerodynamically favored. It is designed to accelerate very fast, and that means spinning its rotors many times faster than is necessary to hold it up in the air, so it can bleed off that velocity in a 100ms maneuver. These are not a new innovation - they use dirty 'nitro' (liquid fuel) engines, and have been around for decades. They are inherently dangerous, adult toys, and anyone flying them without binoculars on assumes a certain degree of risk. Even so: it requires a very unlucky shot to kill a person with a 700-class helicopter, and I find the concept that it 'sliced off the top of his head' sensationalist garbage. Tens or hundreds of people out of the tens of thousands operating these machines end up with deep scratches or partially amputated fingers (you can see them on Youtube), but the time since the last fatal accident is about a decade. These are completely unlike the safety issues posed by various categories of planes and multirotors, or by remote camera-driven operation of those aircraft. There are very real advantages to a society in which these things are legal, and with a lot of the useful ones, I would be comfortable flying one into my face to demonstrate; The larger examples that can fly heavy DSLRs, perhaps aim for a limb. It's more like someone demonstrating their finesse with a hobby of medieval flail weapons paid $1000 to buy an authentic one, put on shows entertaining people with it for a few years, and then in a slip-up gored themselves in the back of the neck. The risk and speed is literally the draw with these things.
jsilence 13y ago
People in Egypt started using drones to document the rogue and brutal activities of the police. So for a government civil drones are a threat. Better make it illegal to fly them in urban areas. And to enforce that drones have to be registered. How convenient.
robomartin 13y ago
I am glad this happened. People like this guy are lacking something very basic: common sense. As someone for whom model airplanes have been a life-long hobby that I am now passing on to my children I am very ciponcerned about the idiots playing with these "drones". These are the guys who are going to bone those of us who conduct these activities with common sense as well as respect and consideration for the safety of others. I recently ran into this at a "fun fly" organized by our club. These are rvents where modelers come from all over to enjoy a day of flying --usually with a theme, such as helicopters, flat planes, gliders, scale, etc. This guy showed-up with a plane equipped with GPS and FPV (onboard video with downlink). He proceeded to fly the thing over people, roads and even over a local campground half a mile away. All of this while I and other club members went from asking for this to stop to almost yelling and screaming at the guy. As things went he ended-up crashing the plane. Thankfully this happened well away of people and property. Yes, these people are idiots and they need to suffer the consequences of their actions when warranted.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  You say idiots, I say your cognitive bias is rearing its reality distortion field. Read up on fundamental attribution error and you'll see what's wrong with your comment.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    My comment is actually fairly objective. I happen to think it might actually be too nice a characterization of people who might be inclined to do such things. Here's the problem. Let's assume you are right and I am wrong. The person is not an idiot. The person in question is a very intelligent man, highly accomplished in his chosen profession and perhaps even holding an advanced degree from a top university. In other words, someone who would be almost impossible to characterize as an idiot. OK. Excellent. With that establish, let's examine what this person did: They are doing the equivalent of placing a six to eight pound (or more) incendiary device 200 feet above people or property. Yes, LiPo's catch fire when seriously damaged, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to characterize them as incendiary devices. The potential energy of a 6 lbs object at 200 ft is 1,629 Joules. The potential energy of an 8 lbs object at 200 ft is 2,174 Joules. OK, what does this mean anyway? The muzzle energy of a 44 Magnum round is approximately 1,400 Joules. The muzzle energy of a 50 AE (Desert Eagle) is approximately 2,000 Joules. Not an apples-to-apples comparison, of course, rather one to develop a sense of proportion. We can probably say that flying a 6 to 8 pound object 200 feet above people or property is roughly equivalent to potentially shooting a 44 Magnum or Desert Eagle at those people. Again, a rough comparison only for the purpose of trying to evaluate how dangerous it might be to engage in such an activity. And so, this really smart and considerate person goes ahead and flies such a gizmo above people. What's the thought process and what is the motivation? You see, if the person is an idiot when it comes to making such decisions the answer is easy: It's just another idiot. However, if they are not. If this person is doing this with full command of the facts and full understanding of the risks involved then, well, we might justly be able to characterize his actions as being intentionally and negligently criminal or worst. My point, in many ways, is that calling them "idiots" might actually be kind. In fact, IANAL but I would suspect when the day comes that someone kills a person with a toy drone we are going to see a temporary insanity defense. Being an idiot, in that case, might actually be an asset. Not one of these people is going to go up in front of a judge and claim to have been fully aware of the risks and issues while deciding to purposely fly a device into the position that ultimately caused someone's death. To change the frame of reference in order to make it even clearer: What do we call someone who goes to a public park full of people and kids and starts shooting a gun up in the air in random directions. Well, at best. At best. An idiot. In reality, they would be arrested and charged criminally. So, again, calling them "idiot" is actually being kind. The scenario is indistinguishable from that of flying a heavy drone on top of people. They can kill, just like a bullet. Unlike a bullet, they can start fires which can, in turn, easily kill tens or hundreds of people. So, yeah. I don't see any way to agree with your perspective.
Mikeb85 13y ago
I used to fly remote control planes. There ARE rules for where you can fly them, because many of them (the ones with turbine engines) are capable of 200+ mph (actually faster, but it's hard to keep track of them) and can weight 10-50 pounds (some of the bigger propeller-powered ones are 100-200+ pounds, though much slower). They are dangerous in the wrong hands, and require quite a bit of training to fly properly and safely. This guy broke the law, did something dangerous, and deserves a fine. Period.
- mapt 13y ago
  Turbine engined planes in the 10-50 pound range are a subset of remote control planes with a penetration on the order of 0.1 - 0.01%. Prop-powered 100-200 pound planes are even less common. A 12ft wingspan Senior Telemaster, made of old-fashioned wood with an internal combustion engine, weighs in at 31 pounds, and is not something you can reasonably transport without a commercial truck or trailer. For the simple majority of people, fixed-wing RC planes involve ARF EPO foam models in the 1 to 2.5 meter range that are ridiculously safe in a direct collision. Other niches may be somewhat riskier, but few equal the things you like to do (aerobatic stunt heli flying with large models is one of them that does). There is an ongoing problem that such people have with the turbine & super-heavy class hobbyists trying to legislate based on reasonable voluntary safety provisions for what is essentially payloadless guided missile testing, to apply to an FPV Easy Star foamie or a 5lb quadrotor. They are not the same thing, and they do not pose the same danger. A GoPro-carrying quadrotor is recklessly endangering the people on the ground to an injury on the level of an open-handed slap, an open-handed slap that misses and scratches fingnernails across the cheek if it's unlucky and hits using the rotors. A bruise or scratches, worst-case scenario. A carbon fiber / fiberglass / aluminum jetfighter model sporting a turbine engine that flies 400mph is an entire other world of danger, akin to hitting someone with a full-size Cessna.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    > Turbine engined planes in the 10-50 pound range are a subset of remote control planes with a penetration on the order of 0.1 - 0.01%. Prop-powered 100-200 pound planes are even less common. Less common for sure, but plentiful enough. At the club where I used to fly (it had a grass field, on a large ranch in the country), the average plane had a 10-12 foot wingspan (I personally learned on an 8 foot trainer). The biggest planes had around a 20-25 foot wingspan, the one I specifically remember was a B-17, powered by 4 large gasoline engines. The club in the city had quite a few turbine/fan powered planes, and there even was a hobby shop that specialized in RC jets. > There is an ongoing problem that such people have with the turbine & super-heavy class hobbyists trying to legislate based on reasonable voluntary safety provisions for what is essentially payloadless guided missile testing, to apply to an FPV Easy Star foamie or a 5lb quadrotor. They are not the same thing, and they do not pose the same danger. They aren't the same thing, but if people get annoyed with them, it could be bad news for hobbyists, and those who actually do fly RC planes safely. I'd hate to see anti-'drone' legislation that is too broad and hurts responsible hobbyists.
001sky 13y ago
Correct title: Brooklyn man arrested for crashing (not flying) drone in/to (not over) Manhattan.
terravion 13y ago
To clarify some of the discussion, there are two separate regulatory regimes at play here. Navigable airspace is regulated by the FAA and the FAA has recently begun to enforce its rules for UAS or drones (see tensafefrogs's comment). The FAA's view is that the difference between RC and a UAS/drone is whether the operator gets paid. They mostly ignore the RC community. Then there is a state/local regulation of reckless behavior in general. This is not related to flying, per se. It is related to endangering others. The pattern of prosecution is the feds going after operators who are getting paid for violating the rules for aircraft (any aircraft piloted or not must maintain separation from buildings, etc.) and the state/local authorities going after RC operators who endanger others through recklessness. All in all, it seems like we're moving towards a rational system where RC operators can play in safe spaces and eventually we'll have licensing and regulation of commercial operators to work in more challenging environments.

62 points by apaprocki 13y ago

Seems he was arrested for crashing it near a pedestrian, not simply for flying it. He was charged with reckless endanderment for is inability to control the device.

yeukhon 13y ago
To me, I think either way this activity should be banned. Though the activity should be allowed in some rural area with permits. Especially in a dense, metropolitan city like NYC, flying a robotic copter or drone can pose dangerous. especially if everyone were to fly one.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  "Ban all the things"… How would one envision something like that to be enforced in NYC (or anywhere): Stop and frisk for drones? House to house, apartment to apartment sweeps?
  - chronic25 13y ago
    Shoot them down
  - BariumBlue 13y ago
    By checking to see whether there's any unauthorized drones in the sky?
    - danjayh 13y ago
      And if you find one, and the owner doesn't post his face in a video, how do you track it back to him? My greatest concern with this is that they'll destroy RC aircraft as a hobby. There are many experienced RC helicopter and airplane pilots out there who have been flying these safely for decades. The problem is now that prices have come down (they used to cost an order of magnitude more), every idiot thinks they can do it. That being said, the 'drone' this man was probably flying doesn't really pose a danger to anyone. They're typically made of foam or lightweight plastic and have very little kinetic energy. A full speed hit to the head with one wouldn't cause much harm (this is pretty much true for anything 100 sized and smaller - anything larger and you can start to hurt people with direct hits). For instance, something like this: http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/blade-nano-cp-x-bnf-BLH3380 http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/blade-nano-cp-x-bnf-BLH... weighs 29 grams. That's ~1/30th of a kg. This quadcopter: http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-safe-technology-BLH7680#t2 http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-safe-t... weighs 16.5 grams. Banning stuff like that would be a huge overreaction. My largest helicopter (I fly RC stuff, if you haven't already figured it out) is ~750 grams, which is definitely large enough to hurt someone, but requiring me to have a license to fly it in my back yard would be crazy - I have 12 acres, which is ample space. Besides that, I've never crashed it, because unlike that buffoon, I know what I'm doing :) (edit - never crashed this one. As stated by another poster, components do fail, even on real aircraft, so it does happen). That being said, because I know what I'm doing, I'd never try flying it off a balcony in NYC. TLDR; Responsible/skilled people should be allowed to fly, irresponsible people should be held accountable. If they can nail him for reckless endangerment, I think the current laws are strong enough.
- retrogradeorbit 13y ago
  As a RC plane flying hobbiest my greatest fear is from over reaction to fools like this one. Yes he did the wrong thing. And he's been charged. The present laws seem fine. The big danger is from over-reaction and then just a law outright banning all civilian use. This is my worst case scenario. When me and my friends fly it's a day trip. We travel to a remote location, or a large open flying field. We don't fly over people, or sporting events. We check local regulations over places banned from model flying. Where I am (Australia) there are areas where it is not allowed at all. All the inner city areas are off limits except for a few allocated fields. It's all handled at the local council level. Different councils are different. We fly under the 400ft ceiling and give way to all other aircraft (Hear a real plane? Bring yours down.) We don't need any permits. I usually don't crash but I have in the past, and I know that I might. Components fail. Radio links can have issues. And then there's the wind and the elements. So we take all the due precautions. I don't want people to ban my hobby because some fools take this new piece of tech and without much experience act recklessly with it. It's a danger with anything. There are young hoons who burn their tyres in the middle of the night on some corner. Don't ban driving. Or the car. Or all civilian uses of the car. Let's all keep our heads screwed on.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Please before raging at me look at what I said. Flying in a dense area is dangerous. Flying in a rural area (or if you want, open field somewhere remote) is fine. So you took the wrong direction. My comment is not foolish at all. We just need to ban in the city. Even 100 ft is dangerous. This is not foolish. And importing the argument "ban driving" is certainly foolish because we do have regulations on driving. You can't drive above certain speed and can only drive if you have a permit (if you get caught without a license you get into trouble). You can only drive in a specific designated area called roads. In essence, if you want to fly within the city like central park. Okay. But it needs to be regulated. Why? Anyone can build a monster copter flying and the next thing is either this copter cut someone's head off or a crash. It is like 3D printing a gun. Without regulation we don't really know who is responsible for what. So a permit seems reasonable. A little law enforcing the consequence, classifying the accident is crucial. Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? If you do that in an open field the danger can be minimized (more space to run away), but in a dense metro area (think about 42th street) is harder. So No. Read my comment carefully before you make your comment (part of it on ban flying copter in the city).
- baddox 13y ago
  > To me, I think either way this activity should be banned. Define "this activity." I hope you don't mean all flying of remote control aircraft, which is a decades-old and historically extremely safe hobby.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    "This activity" = "the flying of powerful RC aircraft (i.e., at substantial risk of major injury if it collides into a person - it's a quad carrying a GoPro, not a supermarket RC heli), by an unqualified operator (watch the feed from the quad, the guy crashes it five times into buildings before losing control permanently), in an area where there is a guaranteed swarm of people directly below the flight path". My understanding is that RC aircraft as a hobby, up until recently, has been small enough and hard enough to get into that most newbies get schooled by the old-timers, and as such learn proper safety and how to not be a complete cockup. With the advent of incredibly cheap RC aircraft, it seems more and more people are getting into the hobby who have no idea WTF they should/shouldn't be doing, have no one to teach them, and aren't aware of their own ignorance. If RC aircraft becomes much more popular than it currently is, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if hard regulations become the norm.
    - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
      > With the advent of incredibly cheap RC aircraft, it seems more and more people are getting into the hobby who have no idea WTF they should/shouldn't be doing, have no one to teach them, and aren't aware of their own ignorance. This is very much it. I see the solution as education and mentor-ship. I would recommend anyone interested to get in contact with clubs and activities that are happening in their area. Even indoor flying is an option in the big cities!
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        The problem is that these people don't know what they don't know. We have extremely powerful RC aircraft being sold without so much as a "so listen, you should really get properly trained on the operation of this potentially dangerous machine". I'm all for lack of regulation. I'd love for people to be able to fly over the skies of NYC and create beautiful works, but not if the people doing it are completely ignorant like the guy in this case. It's hard to expect people to seek out clubs and mentorship when they don't even know these organizations exist, or the importance of seeking out proper training. There is an attitude change required here I think.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dingaling 13y ago
  Imagine how dangerous it is for everyone to drive two tons of steel at 40 mph through the city streets, too. But somehow that's just fine, even though in NYC: - 27% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved driver failure to yield - 79% of crashes that kill or seriously injure pedestrians involve private vehicles - Traffic crashes cost the City’s economy $4.29 billion annually ( 2009 data ) Sounds like driver regulation isn't working. Let's ban cars, except under permit in remote rural areas. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/pedsafetyreport.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/pedsafetyreport...
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  In the UK I think that if you fly a remote control aircraft through a video feed rather than through line of sight then you need a pilots licence and then normal flying rules apply. Banning new classes of flying things is hardly neccessary when you have a licencing and training regime readily available with a century of experience in dealing with airbourne vehicles.
apaprocki 13y ago
Meta-comment: read this one thread replacing "flying a drone/RC" with "shooting a gun" and see similarity to current debate.

brokentone 13y ago

Interesting story, but this particular "article" appears to just be a transcript of the video, but isn't noted as such, in which case text like "the small helicopter drone similar to this one" is unhelpful. Also the video isn't well clipped, including some other updates at the beginning. Also the "read original story" link is quite broken. Alternate source?

robbyt 13y ago

There are things you should do differently in densely populated areas like NYC. Flying consumer drones around without any permission or training is just not a good idea.

angersock 13y ago
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you here. You know how you get training? By doing, by practicing. There's no need to nanny people--if they're not careful and if they end up causing damage, deal with it then; otherwise just be cool.
- robbyt 13y ago
  Yes, but go outside of the city to practice where you don't risk hurting other people. Handguns are also illegal in NYC- if you want to get handgun training you need to go outside of the city where people won't get hurt.

NelsonMinar 13y ago

I'll be curious to read by what theory NYPD thinks they have jurisdiction over national airspace.

gettheyayo 13y ago
That could have hit someone in the window or fallen down and kill someone walking down the street. They can do serious damage
bri3d 13y ago
This particular incident sounds more like NYPD thinking they have jurisdiction over "people dropping things on pedestrians," which I'm pretty sure they do. They charged the guy with reckless endangerment, not some kind of airspace-related violation. Seems pretty darn reasonable to me, to be honest.

jcl 13y ago

A couple years ago, a guy used an RC plane to record a video of a New York flyover, including the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. The police were pretty cool about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1966336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1966336

tensafefrogs 13y ago
The police were, but the FAA isn't a fan: http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pilot-fights-faa-fine-could-change-drone-rules http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pi...

alayne 13y ago

How is this going to end? All radio-controlled planes will require aviation licenses? Maybe they will need tracking devices too? I think I will enjoy watching people scramble to deal with the disruption.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

elstevo 13y ago

I don't really agree with calling an RC helicopter a drone. It sounds way more malicious that way. But then again, "Local man found to be bad at flying RC helicopter" isn't nearly as attention-grabbing.

imsofuture 13y ago

A remote controlled aircraft is not a 'drone'. At least not in the breathless sensationalist sense we're supposed to read into that title.

triplesec 13y ago

This points to the sadly much more likely FAA and law enforcement attitude and responses to the advent of rc copters than encouraging the licensing of useful things and tacocopters.

zzleeper 13y ago

Slighlty related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBM-JLNyBg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBM-JLNyBg After seeing this video, I do see why people love drone flying so much, it's amazing how much can you see from there that you can't with any other means. (They have other very nice videos, from the costa concordia to Angkor Wat)

noonespecial 13y ago

Oh look. Its the system actually working for a change. A guy did a stupid thing that might have endangered someone else with his property. He was arrested and may be charged for a crime that if convicted would lead to a fine large enough to deter him and others from doing something this stupid again. Seems like a perfectly rational reaction to me despite the overhyped news story. (Slow news day no that there's no 'shutdown' to breathlessly go on about?)

po 13y ago
Except for the end where they say the NYPD is now investigating it and the person who reported it said he had a sense they didn't know how to handle it. That's why he brought the story to the media. So, yeah the system works if you include media/social networks and the 'overhyping' of attention in to the loop. Would he have been arrested if this story didn't have attention? It seems that the police have no strategy and have not yet thought about how they are going to enforce this FAA rule which is clearly going to be more and more relevant in the future.

whyenot 13y ago

There was a teenager in New York who died recently when his RC helicopter sliced off the top of his head[1]. Flying these things in heavily populated areas is going to be an issue, whether there is a human being at the controls or it is some future autonomous "tacocopter." [1] http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/ http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-contr...

sounds 13y ago
Personally, this sounds like what people said when cars first appeared in the US: "Responsible parents would tell their children, 'Go outside, and play in the streets. All day.' "And then the automobile happened. And then automobiles began killing thousands of children, every year. - New York Times, Nov 23, 1924 [1] Perhaps it would make sense to license drone operators just like other pilots, and certify drone equipment for safe use? [1] http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-...
reustle 13y ago
That was a much more powerful helicopter, not a simple consumer quadrocopter. The blades on my ar.drone spin just fast enough to sting a bit when it catches a finger.
mapt 13y ago
This is a "toy" with a single reinforced carbon fiber main-rotor blade 5 feet in diameter, which is flown pretty much exclusively by people like this for the purpose of pulling very physics-defying stunts, flipping and turning and changing direction faster than a dragonfly could, two or three maneuvers a second in directions that are not aerodynamically favored. It is designed to accelerate very fast, and that means spinning its rotors many times faster than is necessary to hold it up in the air, so it can bleed off that velocity in a 100ms maneuver. These are not a new innovation - they use dirty 'nitro' (liquid fuel) engines, and have been around for decades. They are inherently dangerous, adult toys, and anyone flying them without binoculars on assumes a certain degree of risk. Even so: it requires a very unlucky shot to kill a person with a 700-class helicopter, and I find the concept that it 'sliced off the top of his head' sensationalist garbage. Tens or hundreds of people out of the tens of thousands operating these machines end up with deep scratches or partially amputated fingers (you can see them on Youtube), but the time since the last fatal accident is about a decade. These are completely unlike the safety issues posed by various categories of planes and multirotors, or by remote camera-driven operation of those aircraft. There are very real advantages to a society in which these things are legal, and with a lot of the useful ones, I would be comfortable flying one into my face to demonstrate; The larger examples that can fly heavy DSLRs, perhaps aim for a limb. It's more like someone demonstrating their finesse with a hobby of medieval flail weapons paid $1000 to buy an authentic one, put on shows entertaining people with it for a few years, and then in a slip-up gored themselves in the back of the neck. The risk and speed is literally the draw with these things.

jsilence 13y ago

People in Egypt started using drones to document the rogue and brutal activities of the police. So for a government civil drones are a threat. Better make it illegal to fly them in urban areas. And to enforce that drones have to be registered. How convenient.

robomartin 13y ago

I am glad this happened. People like this guy are lacking something very basic: common sense. As someone for whom model airplanes have been a life-long hobby that I am now passing on to my children I am very ciponcerned about the idiots playing with these "drones". These are the guys who are going to bone those of us who conduct these activities with common sense as well as respect and consideration for the safety of others. I recently ran into this at a "fun fly" organized by our club. These are rvents where modelers come from all over to enjoy a day of flying --usually with a theme, such as helicopters, flat planes, gliders, scale, etc. This guy showed-up with a plane equipped with GPS and FPV (onboard video with downlink). He proceeded to fly the thing over people, roads and even over a local campground half a mile away. All of this while I and other club members went from asking for this to stop to almost yelling and screaming at the guy. As things went he ended-up crashing the plane. Thankfully this happened well away of people and property. Yes, these people are idiots and they need to suffer the consequences of their actions when warranted.

vdaniuk 13y ago
You say idiots, I say your cognitive bias is rearing its reality distortion field. Read up on fundamental attribution error and you'll see what's wrong with your comment.
- robomartin 13y ago
  My comment is actually fairly objective. I happen to think it might actually be too nice a characterization of people who might be inclined to do such things. Here's the problem. Let's assume you are right and I am wrong. The person is not an idiot. The person in question is a very intelligent man, highly accomplished in his chosen profession and perhaps even holding an advanced degree from a top university. In other words, someone who would be almost impossible to characterize as an idiot. OK. Excellent. With that establish, let's examine what this person did: They are doing the equivalent of placing a six to eight pound (or more) incendiary device 200 feet above people or property. Yes, LiPo's catch fire when seriously damaged, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to characterize them as incendiary devices. The potential energy of a 6 lbs object at 200 ft is 1,629 Joules. The potential energy of an 8 lbs object at 200 ft is 2,174 Joules. OK, what does this mean anyway? The muzzle energy of a 44 Magnum round is approximately 1,400 Joules. The muzzle energy of a 50 AE (Desert Eagle) is approximately 2,000 Joules. Not an apples-to-apples comparison, of course, rather one to develop a sense of proportion. We can probably say that flying a 6 to 8 pound object 200 feet above people or property is roughly equivalent to potentially shooting a 44 Magnum or Desert Eagle at those people. Again, a rough comparison only for the purpose of trying to evaluate how dangerous it might be to engage in such an activity. And so, this really smart and considerate person goes ahead and flies such a gizmo above people. What's the thought process and what is the motivation? You see, if the person is an idiot when it comes to making such decisions the answer is easy: It's just another idiot. However, if they are not. If this person is doing this with full command of the facts and full understanding of the risks involved then, well, we might justly be able to characterize his actions as being intentionally and negligently criminal or worst. My point, in many ways, is that calling them "idiots" might actually be kind. In fact, IANAL but I would suspect when the day comes that someone kills a person with a toy drone we are going to see a temporary insanity defense. Being an idiot, in that case, might actually be an asset. Not one of these people is going to go up in front of a judge and claim to have been fully aware of the risks and issues while deciding to purposely fly a device into the position that ultimately caused someone's death. To change the frame of reference in order to make it even clearer: What do we call someone who goes to a public park full of people and kids and starts shooting a gun up in the air in random directions. Well, at best. At best. An idiot. In reality, they would be arrested and charged criminally. So, again, calling them "idiot" is actually being kind. The scenario is indistinguishable from that of flying a heavy drone on top of people. They can kill, just like a bullet. Unlike a bullet, they can start fires which can, in turn, easily kill tens or hundreds of people. So, yeah. I don't see any way to agree with your perspective.

Mikeb85 13y ago

I used to fly remote control planes. There ARE rules for where you can fly them, because many of them (the ones with turbine engines) are capable of 200+ mph (actually faster, but it's hard to keep track of them) and can weight 10-50 pounds (some of the bigger propeller-powered ones are 100-200+ pounds, though much slower). They are dangerous in the wrong hands, and require quite a bit of training to fly properly and safely. This guy broke the law, did something dangerous, and deserves a fine. Period.

mapt 13y ago
Turbine engined planes in the 10-50 pound range are a subset of remote control planes with a penetration on the order of 0.1 - 0.01%. Prop-powered 100-200 pound planes are even less common. A 12ft wingspan Senior Telemaster, made of old-fashioned wood with an internal combustion engine, weighs in at 31 pounds, and is not something you can reasonably transport without a commercial truck or trailer. For the simple majority of people, fixed-wing RC planes involve ARF EPO foam models in the 1 to 2.5 meter range that are ridiculously safe in a direct collision. Other niches may be somewhat riskier, but few equal the things you like to do (aerobatic stunt heli flying with large models is one of them that does). There is an ongoing problem that such people have with the turbine & super-heavy class hobbyists trying to legislate based on reasonable voluntary safety provisions for what is essentially payloadless guided missile testing, to apply to an FPV Easy Star foamie or a 5lb quadrotor. They are not the same thing, and they do not pose the same danger. A GoPro-carrying quadrotor is recklessly endangering the people on the ground to an injury on the level of an open-handed slap, an open-handed slap that misses and scratches fingnernails across the cheek if it's unlucky and hits using the rotors. A bruise or scratches, worst-case scenario. A carbon fiber / fiberglass / aluminum jetfighter model sporting a turbine engine that flies 400mph is an entire other world of danger, akin to hitting someone with a full-size Cessna.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > Turbine engined planes in the 10-50 pound range are a subset of remote control planes with a penetration on the order of 0.1 - 0.01%. Prop-powered 100-200 pound planes are even less common. Less common for sure, but plentiful enough. At the club where I used to fly (it had a grass field, on a large ranch in the country), the average plane had a 10-12 foot wingspan (I personally learned on an 8 foot trainer). The biggest planes had around a 20-25 foot wingspan, the one I specifically remember was a B-17, powered by 4 large gasoline engines. The club in the city had quite a few turbine/fan powered planes, and there even was a hobby shop that specialized in RC jets. > There is an ongoing problem that such people have with the turbine & super-heavy class hobbyists trying to legislate based on reasonable voluntary safety provisions for what is essentially payloadless guided missile testing, to apply to an FPV Easy Star foamie or a 5lb quadrotor. They are not the same thing, and they do not pose the same danger. They aren't the same thing, but if people get annoyed with them, it could be bad news for hobbyists, and those who actually do fly RC planes safely. I'd hate to see anti-'drone' legislation that is too broad and hurts responsible hobbyists.

001sky 13y ago

Correct title: Brooklyn man arrested for crashing (not flying) drone in/to (not over) Manhattan.

terravion 13y ago

To clarify some of the discussion, there are two separate regulatory regimes at play here. Navigable airspace is regulated by the FAA and the FAA has recently begun to enforce its rules for UAS or drones (see tensafefrogs's comment). The FAA's view is that the difference between RC and a UAS/drone is whether the operator gets paid. They mostly ignore the RC community. Then there is a state/local regulation of reckless behavior in general. This is not related to flying, per se. It is related to endangering others. The pattern of prosecution is the feds going after operators who are getting paid for violating the rules for aircraft (any aircraft piloted or not must maintain separation from buildings, etc.) and the state/local authorities going after RC operators who endanger others through recklessness. All in all, it seems like we're moving towards a rational system where RC operators can play in safe spaces and eventually we'll have licensing and regulation of commercial operators to work in more challenging environments.