Manhattan drone pair cuffed for NYPD chopper near miss A pair of Manhattan residents were cuffed in the early hours of yesterday morning after allegedly endangering a NYPD police helicopter with a quadchopper. According to the New York Daily News, cops claim Remy Castro, 23, and Wilkins Mendoza, 34, were "remotely piloting a DGI [sic] Phantom 2 drone" on a flight over the Spuyten …
The range of a quadcopter is dependent on its radio signals. If FPV is used, then distance is a lot shorter than without as the video return signal needs better quality than just the control signals. Building also affect radio reception. So a boosted signal with high quality aerials in the open will have a better range than a standard radio in an urban heavily built up area.
If a police helicopter pilot, who has had hundreds of hours of flights beneath his belt, considers a situation dangerous it holds a lot more weight (in everyones eyes) than a guy with no training, other than passing a simple civilian test, getting scared because a better trained, more experienced driver passes them faster than they would dare to drive.
The guy was flying a large bit of metal filled with fuel in an heavily populated area, anything that could cause them to potentially crash (like a quadcopter hitting the tail roter and damaging it) is cause for concern.
No. Not everyone's eyes. Some will consider the pilot may or may not just have taken the piss, "get off my lawn" style, or purely on principle, "a butterfly in China is in theory a hurricane hazard for Americans" style. Sure, flying that thing that high was not a good idea, but people who get others convicted based on their "impressions" get no love from me. When he comes back with a drone-shaped hole in his chopper that he didn't himself cause, I'll reconsider.
"The guy was flying a large bit of metal filled with fuel in an heavily populated area, anything that could cause them to potentially crash (like a quadcopter hitting the tail roter and damaging it) is cause for concern."
I look forward to the felony charges against geese and other aviating wildlife damn them.
Also...
"...than a guy with no training, other than passing a simple civilian test, getting scared because a better trained, more experienced driver passes them faster than they would dare to drive"
In my experience there are few police drivers who are really better trained and more experienced (not that it particularly means anything) out on the roads. Sure there are plenty that drive at totally unsuitable speeds in urban areas and have caused plenty of otherwise avoidable accidents and civilian deaths with their well trained egos overruling their insect sized computational units, but better? Hmmm, not too many of them I'm afraid. Likewise police helicopter pilots aren't generally better than civilian ones, who would typically fly more often, unless they're ex-military. Then there's a difference.
"So the offense is that the pilot of the police chopper thought that they were endangered?"
So the judgement of a professional pilot isn't good enough for you? what do you want exactly to enforce the law: For the helicopter to have been fitted with a laser rangefinder to determine in a strict yes/no sense if the aircraft *flying over a heavily populated area* was in danger?
If you fly near another aircraft and the other pilot considers your flying a risk to the point that they escalate the matter, you can be in deep sh!t. And rightly so. Drone pilots aren't excepted from this.
Dear Sirs,
never mind that police reports are always exegarated and never really state any facts, I would hope and assume that the coppercopter has vidfeeds that clearly show the oncoming quadcopter nearly colliding with said coppercopter.
Also, it would seem unreasonable that a flimsy (in comparison) quadcopter can do serious harm to coppercopter. I'm obviously no aviation expert here (or anywhere else for that matter - apart from in my dreams maybe, I don't remember them too often) so I might be wrong to assume that the quadcopter would be demolished by coppercopter without the coppercopter so much as noticing that.
Oh well, police ey...
Regards,
Guus
PS: I opted for the non-word coppercopter instead of copperchopper, simply because writing copperchopper might already be a crime nowadays.
PPS: No, I do not intend for coppers to be chopped
PPPS: Did you see my PPS? Get me off that list!!
I'm no expert either but if I was flying a copter I would not like even a "comparatively flimsy" piece of metal flying too close to my tail rotor. Or too close to the turbine inlet for that matter: I doubt a quadcopter could do too much damage to the protective grid, but I'm not sure I would want to find out.
By this logic I assume that raptors and other decent sized birds will be charged with endangerment in future?
Sure, if I was flying around NYC I would not want to hit a small drone or bird but I'd be willing to bet, Silent Spring not withstanding, that there are a lot more birds in NYC than drones. This is a storm in a teacup, the whole thing smells like the usual American Police mentality of "I am the Law and if I say it's a crime then it's a crime"
> By this logic I assume that raptors and other decent sized birds will be charged with endangerment in future?
Birds do cause accidents, yet they are
-very agile in-flight, which is not the case for drones
-very good at avoiding aircrafts, which is not necessarily the case for amateur drone operators
-made of soft flesh and flimsy empty bones*, which is definitely not the case drones.
*to lighten the structure, bird's bones are filled with an air compartment that is, developpmentally speaking, an extention to their lungs)
Playing Devil's Advocate, there is some issue to be taken with the alleged offence. The police helicopter was only endangered after it began following the quad-copter, (wild speculation follows) tracking it by observing it from above. The quad-copter operators, unaware of the police helicopter following above them, raised altitude, which alarmed the police operators and they took avoiding action.
> The police helicopter was only endangered after it began following the quad-copter
Where did you get that from? The article I found only mention that the plods observed the drone circling the area, and that at some point they had to change course to avoid it. Police helicopter are usually up there to observe traffic, not to follow gnats all day long.
The way I first interpreted it was that the plods were up there looking at Washington bridge and its surroundings, when they noticed the drone. I presume that both the drone and the copter were circling the area, not on a straight course, because that's what drone operators do (Yay Youtube!) and that's also what police copters do (Yay speeding tickets!). So it stands to reason that the drone almost hit the copter, perhaps without even seing it; that would be because the copter's pilot is inside the machine with an almost omnidirectionnal awareness of its surroundings, while the drone operator only sees what is in front of the camera.
Birds also generally don't fly that high - why would they, there's nothing up there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
is the plane that struck a flock of Canada Geese at 2818 feet over New York City and landed in the Hudson River. The "Aftermath" section of that article describes the genocide carried out against that race of evil migratory ground-avoiders. So, no, birds aren't tolerated.
Probably a single bird or a drone could be shot from the police helicopter, but then the people responsible wouldn't be caught.
By the way, here in Scotland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Glasgow_helicopter_crash
Helicopters crash a lot: in a city centre is particularly disagreeable. But, police vehicles crash a lot, too. If it wasn't that special vehicles are involved in the story then it wouldn't be presented as interesting. Like "Thunderbirds".
> Think about what would happen when a large pigeon hit the windscreen of your car if you are travelling at around 120mph.
Then multiply by 10-100, surely? a large pigeon is 400-500 g, the Phantom 2 is ~1.3 kg (including camera). A pigeon is bouncy flesh, the Phantom 2 is 2/3 lithium battery. I'd assume the protective grid on the turbine inlet is pigeon-proof; the more I think about it the more I think it's probably not completely Phantom2-proof. In any case, I certainly had failed to factor in forward speed; I'm now quite certain a rogue Phantom 2 is definitely a very credible threat to the copter.
"While police claim the DJI Phantom 2 soared to 600m (2,000ft), a defence attorney insisted "the model used can only fly at heights of 300 feet"."
From what people are claiming, although 300 feet is the recommended maximum altitude, it's documented that people have taken these things to 1000 feet "easily". 2000 feet might be pushing it, especially since you're dealing 5Ghz comms, and even though you may have a clear sky, a slightly directional antenna will cause it lose comms (where it gradually floats to 20 feet and waits for a signal).
Looks like both sides are telling porkies, and both sides have some "right" even if it's not a legal right. You shouldn't be flying that high in a built up area, and at the same time, the only interesting footage is *in* built up areas. I predict enough idiots will abuse the priveledge till they're banned outright.
Much like piggy backed mains plugs - thanks to all the dickheads that electrocuted themselves, depriving those of us who know what we're doing from using a very useful tool.
"The NYPD helicopter spotted the vehicle flying at around 240m (800ft), and say that at one point the pilot "had to veer off course to avoid being struck by the drone"."
That seems to imply to me that the chopper saw the drone and flew towards it then had to veer off course to avoid being struck. Surely, if they fly over to something then it's their fault if there is nearly a collision?
Sounds like a trumped up charge to me. Seems to be the American way.
My assumptions, which may well be complete shite, but here goes.
#1 The pilot of the PD helicopter, will have a significant amount of training and experience to be allowed to fly over the city at the low level (800ft) that the PD require without crashing/putting the general population at risk.
#2 The pilot, will be keeping a good lookout for other ‘stuff’ around him - to the left and right, above and below, things like other aircraft, skyscrapers, not just stuff in the direction he is heading in.
#3 So the pilot has ‘seen’ the ‘vehicle’, to one side/a little above/a little below, and then at some later point considers it to be in such close vicinity and/or changing direction that he veers off to avoid a mid-air collision.
I’m not sure how close the helicopter and the quad drone where, nor do I know what shade of smelly brown the pilot’s keg’s were afterwards, but I assume they became smelly enough to follow the quad drone, and explain the facts of life to the dim-witted owner.
The moment one of these things steps into some other manned aircraft it will be over. Not to mention what creative uses of the technology Joe Jihad is thinking about.
RC flying has been a minority hobby and people were able to keep it safe by using common sense and applying a few basic rules: don't do it near an airfield or power lines, don't do it over people, have some insurance. It was a minority hobby because building one of these required some skills (basic ones, but Joe Idiot does not bother to follow a few simple directions) and having a somewhat high entry level price that kept most casual people away from it.
Now anyone with a bit of cash can purchase a ready to fly beast that can be used anywhere. Worst part is that those having fun with RC drones and using them responsibly will have to bend to the same rules as the idiots. Which will take most of the fun away from it.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm with you except for the following bit: "Not to mention what creative uses of the technology Joe Jihad is thinking about.".
The max payload for these things is about 300 g, so unless you're thinking about jamming it in a plodcopter's tail rotor on purpose there's not much you can do*. Even dispersing some harmful biological agent such as the Ebola virus would be easier to do from a rooftop than from a drone.
*The danger of this happening by accident is too high to be ignored, but the chances of managing that on purpose is to low for it to be a credible threat.
> High explosive? Surrounded by shrapnel? Sounds like a pretty effective weapon to me!
Not sure about that. First, that would be 300 g all-comprised; Shrapnell has to be pretty dense to be effective, and that entails weight. Then there's the issue of detonating it at the right altitude and in the right place! Precise bombing from above is an extremely delicate matter. Historically the accuracy problem has been solved by carpet-bombing (why do you think bombers where made so huge?). With a single payload you'd miss with almost certainty (especially a relatively light payload, as winds up there are quite powerful); and for altitude you'd have to affix a complex detonating machinery to the payload. That leaves so little efficacy to the device that a Molotov cocktail would almost certainly beat it in all possible aspects (including the range/accuracy ratio, as strange as it may seem: there's pretty few places above which you can accurately fly a drone to which you couldn't more accurately catapult a molotov cocktail or ten with a pretty simple mechanical implement). Now if you could get a RPG launcher...
TL/DR: civilian drones are not terribly threatening.
Why you need to detonate it from above when you can lower it to the floor? In case you've not read the specs, the Phantom can keep itself in a few cubic meters of air using GPS when instructed.
If you're afraid of missing your target in that cube, let me create a new concept here: "carpet droning" (all rights reserved, patent pending, etc) where you send a few of these just in case one misses its target.
Agree with you however that there are simpler ways of inflicting more damage, but all the above helps to fuel the "security theater" that likely will lead to the complete ban of drone tech. This, ironically, in a country where one of the most polarizing debates is the right for anyone to own firearms.
> This, ironically, in a country where one of the most polarizing debates is the right for anyone to own firearms.
Right. The country where a full-auto cal .50 rifle is standard home equipment but boarding a plane with a carpenter's nail in your pocket gets you in Gitmo. Yai freedom.
(OK, I'm pushing it a bit. A Cal. 50 rifle will land you in trouble even in the most gun-happy places. Better use a smaller caliber )
Remember the basic rule of air space: security is above all else.
You are not cleared to take off an airport unless you have a flight plan saying where you're going to fly and by which route. Anything making you to change this course has to be reported back. So a pilot that has to steer off its path no matter why is creating a risk for other pilots or for the people below.
And they have that on the Phantom drones. The GPS has a restrictor on civil aviation designated fly zones - the drone would not take off close to Heathrow, for example, and would only go up to a certain altitude within a radius of the airport. But I bet someone could re-engineer that.
Anyhow, they would probably ban the use of the drones in London anyway. Most aircraft are flying at well under 2,000 feet over London when they start their letdown into Heathrow or City Airport (I think it is a minimum 1000ft safe clearance over the tallest building with 500m side clearance). I am still getting used to seeing people in the Shard looking down on the aircraft as it comes into LCY ...
> I am still getting used to seeing people in the Shard looking down on the aircraft as it comes into LCY...
And then you realize that most of them may be new-gen cybermen, too! Remeber to check the number of earsets on these plane-gazers next time.
I have checked the manuals at http://www.dji.com/product/phantom/download and found nothing about flying restrictions.
According to these manuals it seems that GPS can be disabled at will from the transmitter hence no restrictions even if they were programmed in, that is, assuming you've installed the GPS module. Or you can even simply disconnect the compass from the main body and that will disable the GPS module.
So apparently you don't need to hack anything to use it wherever you want. Anyone better versed please correct me if I'm wrong.
> The GPS has a restrictor on civil aviation designated fly zones
It also has a mode that turns all the nanny features off, including the airspace restrictor IIRC.
There is a lot of intelligence in a DJI Phantom. There is a review (I wish I could remember where I read it) that goes through all the different modes, including one that changes the flight controls to be relative to where it started from 'Backwards' is always towards it's start point even if that is not the way the craft is pointing. Very cool.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
