

Brooklyn man arrested for flying drone over Manhattan - apaprocki
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=9292217

======
noonespecial
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
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.

------
jamesbritt
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
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
"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?

~~~
BariumBlue
By checking to see whether there's any unauthorized drones in the sky?

~~~
danjayh
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-
BLH...](http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/blade-nano-cp-x-bnf-BLH3380)
weighs 29 _grams_. That's ~1/30th of a kg. This quadcopter:
[http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-
safe-t...](http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-safe-
technology-BLH7680#t2) 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.

------
elstevo
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.

------
robbyt
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
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
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.

------
Mikeb85
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
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
> 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.

------
brokentone
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?

------
whyenot
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-
contr...](http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-
toy-helicopter/)

~~~
mapt
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.

------
jcl
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
The police were, but the FAA isn't a fan:

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-
pi...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pilot-fights-
faa-fine-could-change-drone-rules)

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

------
alayne
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.

------
jsilence
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.

------
terravion
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.

------
zzleeper
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)

------
triplesec
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.

------
robomartin
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
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
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.

~~~
vdaniuk
At first I wanted to commend you on your long answer since you put a lot of
work to explain your position. As I was writing a reply I understood that you
have spent so much time to explain in detail why some subset X of humans are
idiots, while attributing the motives of their actions to their innate
qualities. (read: their idiotism)

This is an exact demonstration of the fundamental attribution error I've
posted before.

Moreover, your comment is perfectly applicable to guns and cars with same
fancy calculations and characterizations. And I definitely wont get into the
discussion about personal responsibility, determinism vs free choice, etc. At
least not in this discussion.

~~~
robomartin
I don't understand. How would you characterize these people? You are quick to
defend them and criticize my position yet offer nothing in the way of
understanding how society should view them. Good folk who should be allowed to
play with their toys at the playground where your kids play?

------
001sky
Correct title: Brooklyn man arrested for _crashing_ (not flying) drone _in
/to_ (not over) Manhattan.

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

~~~
bri3d
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.

