Civilian Drone Crashes Into a US Army Helicopter (nypost.com) 270
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."
What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chopper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
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 m
Re:What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chopp (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. :)
Re: What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chop (Score:3, Insightful)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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... [faa.gov]
Re: What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chop (Score:4, Informative)
FAA rule 107 provides the 400' ceiling requirement and a lot of other regulations covering both commercial and non-commercial drone flight.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
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/... [faa.gov]
https://ww [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
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 go
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chop (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chop (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chopp (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
So how are they suppose to train? To prepare and stage operations? Entirely outside the US?
Re: (Score:2)
There are proving grounds where this stuff can be done without endangering civilians.
Re:What's more disturbing.. the drone or the chopp (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 500 ft just makes it WORSE for the drone operator. Check your math.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* It's providing security for a United Nations General Assembly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It only 'brought it down' in the sense that the pilot decided to head to the nearest airport and land to inspect the damage done. Kinda like how a small rock hitting your passenger side window stops your car.
Re: (Score:3)
Rotor blades are expensive, stressed and delicate.
They, at very least, need inspection and repair. That isn't just some dude running his hand over them and slapping on some bondo.
It landed, per protocol for any blade impact. Would have been the same if the pilot had caught some branches.
Re: (Score:3)
The blades can take quite a bit of punishment and keep flying. Military helicopter blades are typically able to take several hits from fairly large ordinance (50 cal?) and keep flying. And yeah, you can hit smaller tree branches and not get knocked out of the air.
However, once you land the mechanic is going to compare the damage to the blade against some tables in the maintenance manuals and if the damage exceeds what is allowed (which is typically just some very very small dings) the blade would be replace
Why so low? (Score:2, Informative)
Beach (Score:3)
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.
Re:Beach (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it above, but I'll say it again: do you have a reference on that 400' ceiling for drones? All I'm seeing is that it's a "safety guideline": https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin... [faa.gov]
Alternate solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe don't fly multiple helicopters 500 feet over a residential neighborhood after dark?
Re: (Score:2)
The law is "within 400 feet of a structure or the ground." So maybe/maybe not. The "large aircraft" rule is 1000 feet, not 500. Helicopters can go to 500 within certain guidelines, although not being noisy jerks after dark is apparently not included in said guidelines. This could easily come down to inches, and the assumption of illegality is just that.
Re: (Score:2)
The helicopters were patrolling the eastern shoreline of Staten Island, so probably not even over land.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read some more, and the drone operator was certainly violating some laws. However the height thing that was being discussed is ambiguous, and I don't know how you expect someone to give way to something with a cruising speed of 170MPH. "Oh, I better mo..crunch."
Illegal Drone? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible this was an improved stealth variant that they were testing to explicitly find out if anyone noticed the noise. Which means they very well may have been flying below 500 ft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible this was an improved stealth variant that they were testing to explicitly find out if anyone noticed the noise. Which means they very well may have been flying below 500 ft.
That's pretty unlikely. I used to work at an airfield that had one (or more) of those in a hanger and they closed the doors any time anyone wandered anywhere near it. There's absolutely no reason to do something like that over Staten Island. This airfield was in a relatively populated area and, from experience of "watching" it fly around, I can tell you that you can hear it from several thousand feet away. You just can't very easily tell where it is or which direction it was heading. The only reason I
Re: (Score:2)
The Blackhawk was around because the President is spending the weekend ~20 miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
I always assume that most of the money the military spends is bribes and kickbacks, which is why I never fell for things like Nigerian scams and flipping.
I do think we have radar and software to avoid collisions, or at least we would if generals were not busy banging journalists.
Heeyooooo! (Score:2)
I'm certain this was Chopper Dave. [youtube.com]
Amazing drone flight (Score:3)
For your drone-watching pleasure [youtube.com]
New terrorist strategy (Score:2)
Defeat the US military with clouds of cheap civilian drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the helicopter apparently survived the impact enough to safely land, and just got a couple of dents. Clouds of drones? No different than building a thousand target-tracking slingshots with rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Dents in rotor blade != dents in fuselage.
let's raise lower flight limits (Score:2)
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.
Re:let's raise lower flight limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there are. There are plenty of reasons. Was there a airport near? Police helicopters providing support or on the ground operations. Military, Police, and Civilian helicopters involved in search and rescue operations. There are plenty of reasons for this.
Where there is no reason for a civilian drone to operate above more than 400 ft above the ground. There is plenty of reasons for commercial drones to operate above that limit but they should require licenses and transponders. There could even be a special license to allow civilian drones to operate above that limit if they wanted too.
Aircraft carry people, drones do not. Some of these drones weight 40 pounds. That is enough to bring down many aircraft in a strike. If a few 10 pound ducks can bring down a 737, what can a couple of 40 pound drones to do to one?
Time to stop treating these like toys and start treating for what they are, aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where there is no reason for a civilian drone to operate above more than 400 ft above the ground."
Sure there is. My entertainment. You may not see it as a valid reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. It's also fairly hard to accurately gauge height AGL without telemetry... and hard to prove any hobbyist is flying above 400' AGL without telemetry, unless they hit an aircraft. Which is also the issue at hand: the drone operator in this incident clearly failed to remain clear of a manned aircraft.
He's already
Re:let's raise lower flight limits (Score:4)
Sure there is. My entertainment
An if you will notice I specifically said as long as you are properly licensed and you drone is carrying a transponder I have no problem with you flying your drone above 500 feet for entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument is b.s. since military and police operations already are exempted from normal private property limitations. On the other hand, Joe's Millionaire Air Taxi does not need to fly over my property at 500 ft: commercial flights should be restricte
Re: (Score:3)
Joe's Millionaire Air Taxi does not need to fly over my property at 500 ft
But we are not talking about Joe Millionaire Air Taxi are we? We are talking about legitimate reasons for aircraft to be below 500 feet. An to correct you, yes every reason I mentioned is perfectly valid and legal. And thank God/Zeus/Cthulhu they are. Civilian helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are routinely involved in search and rescue of downed aircraft .
Re: (Score:3)
You have no ideal what the helicopters where doing or why they where at that altitude. That air space around where they where flying is some of the most congested airspace in the world. They may have been flying that low because they where told to fly that low. In class C airspace, you fly where you are told, not where you want too.
And if they where on final approach then its perfectly acceptable to be that low. You don't like aircraft flying over your head, don't live next to a airport.
Re: (Score:2)
They have to fly low so the door gunners [youtube.com] can identify their targets.
Copper violating FAA Regs (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [risingup.com]
(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.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow you didn't even read what you linked:
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;
Basically that means if there's a helicopter route or altitude restriction published you should use it (usually they follow highways or rivers) but otherwise you can fly low.
Re:Copper violating FAA Regs (Score:4, Informative)
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
The 1000 ft altitude requirement does not apply to helicopters.
Re: (Score:2)
...to persons or property on the surface. A drone that’s in the air is, by definition, not on the surface. The helicopter pilot appears to have been operating with the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
A residential area is not necessarily a "congested" area.
Better news headline: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
guess you never played Civ III?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it could probably take quite a beating - consider that the pilot went and landed without incident. It's just that you don't RELAUNCH a helicopter with a dented propeller.
There's a flight restriction, drones not allowed (Score:2)
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 [faa.gov] 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
Re: (Score:2)
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 sin
Wait... (Score:3)
Uh oh (Score:2)
What a crappy copter! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It did withstand a knock like that. They replace the window and blade because it's a flying vehicle with a tendency to fail catastrophically, and they want it operating at 100% all the time, otherwise they put the pilots and passengers at unreasonable risk.
Military helicopter got irrelevant (Score:2)
If you can damage a multi-million US$ military helicopter with a 200 US$ drone, then it is time to change paradigm.
Chopper? Oh, you mean "helo" (Score:2)
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
Re:This is why we can't have nice things (Score:4, Insightful)
The droning community needs to do a much better job of policing itself or we are going to lose our nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
The droning community needs to do a much better job of policing itself or we are going to lose our nice things.
Yes, because one air collision accident in the entire history of aviation & drones proves that the firgen world is about to end.
Seriously, golf balls are more of a danger. Don't get all hysterical because of one accident (ever).
Re: (Score:2)
Says it all really [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the first drone-aircraft collision and it will not be the last. There a five identified in this report (one fatal): https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/... [atsb.gov.au]
There has since been one reported potential collision in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... [abc.net.au]
In any case, it does not require a collision for an unmanned aircraft to be a safety threat that needs to be mitigated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Nobody wants to wait until irresponsible use of unregulated aircraft brings down a high capacity
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to entertain you, what more would you suggest past what is currently done?
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, the first document you claimed said there have been 5 collisions, one fatal ACTUALLY says "To date, there have been no reported collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft in Australia."
Your second link was followed up with THE “drone strike” that sent a shiver through the aviation safety industry this month was in fact a bat strike, investigators have revealed. [adelaidenow.com.au]
The video link had this in int's summary:
i guess 30 metres is a near miss, looks more like 50-100 to me, and if thats a near miss than i guess the virgin jet also nearly crashed into the trees on the approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
It is not hard to get a gun in Canada, you take a safety course, pass the test to get your license, and go buy a gun.
Now if you personally think it is hard, then I'm inclined to wonder why and think maybe the system is working as it should.
Re: Illegal Drone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The National Guard is a branch of the Army and Air Force.
Either way, it's all part of the Department of Defense
Re: Solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
More like quit flying military helicopters over our neighborhoods.
Who are you defending us against? Quit crashing into our stuff while claiming to be protecting us when you can't even win a war anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is correct. The military craft was in civilian airspace (all US airspace is civilian airspace) covered by a temporary flight restriction (which is rubber stamped, unenforceable, bullshit).
Re: (Score:3)
if it wasn't a military helo it would have been a civilian one.
the problem isn't the military helo.
its the irresponsible drone pilot.
Re:Solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not send the military a bill for the drone?
Re: (Score:3)
Just because someone is doing something legal doesn't mean they have absolved themselves of all liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Solution. (Score:2)
We already have laws to punish that drone pilot as well. I don't believe we need more laws and regulation to punish the other R/C hobbyists who haven't interfered with a full size aircraft in their pursuit of happiness.
Re: Helicopter crashed into Drone (Score:2, Informative)
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 t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Helicopter crashed into Drone (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
So they can use their eyes to look at the water they're patrolling?