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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Firstly, your comment is not what I called foolish. I was referring to the original act. Secondly, I'm not raging at all. I'm quite calm. That is what I'm actually asking for. Calmness.
With regards to driving not being related because of it 'having regulations', RC model plane flying has regulations too. Ones I abide by. You say it needs to be regulated. Guess what? It is. I've even talked to my local ranger about the regulations.
I think if you look at it you're actually over reacting a little. If you are worried about "copter cut someone's head off", what about someone who chops someone's head off without first getting "a permit"? What will you do then? There will always be foolish people doing foolish things. And there are laws and consequences.
Have you actually looked at your local regulations regarding RC plane flying?
In both accident, a giant, powerful RC aircraft killed people. Is this the kind we should ban? From the veteran perspective, how do we go about regulating these? Should these be regulated?
Wow. Those stories are shocking! I notice they're both helicopters. I've always found quads and helis scary (dangerous combined with difficult to fly) and I fly RC planes exclusively. The regulations need to recognise both ends of the continuum. The regulations applying to a high powered RC model helicopter should be quite different to those that apply to something like a parkzone mini vapor. But both are considered RC aircraft.
The regulations are outdated too. But not only in the high-powered end, but also the low powered and new micro end. I am not allowed to fly the mini vapor (or any other RC aircraft) in any park in my electorate. But there are many of small park flyers that are very safe.
As is often the case, the law struggles to keep up with the pace of technological change. It's really modern lipo battery tech that has enabled this change. Both at the high end, with large craft using 12 cell lipo batteries (50 Volts and capable of delivering hundreds of Amps for short periods), and at the low end with minture 1 and 2 cell micro lipos.
Regulations could have categories based in part apon things like:
- peak power output of battery/motor system
- material of craft's construction (EPO foam vs balsa or even aluminium)
- size, orientation and exposure of propellors and blades (ducted fans vs multiple large horitonal rotors)
Very simply, the odds of a drone falling out of nowhere and beaning me on the head are quite small, even if once they become popular.
Now, banning drones above a few hundred feet in a landing path for an airport, sure, but let's not kid ourselves that we're significantly helping anyone else.
Regulating urban drone usage by hobbyists doesn't do anything significant to help, and just dissuades people from having fun and learning.
Besides, you're not going to stop the cops or people with enough money/pull from doing it anyways. I'd rather not let the .gov cite FAA regs when nailing protesters, for example.
You don't want regulations on RC aircraft, you want to ban them. But you know nothing about them. I have a small RC helicopter, I could run it into a baby's face at full power and it'd barely tickle.
You've gotten your ideas from media sensationalism of extreme incidents. I could just as easily use your arguments to say "ban bicycles" because someone fell off one and died, or ran into a little old lady and killed her. That's actually far more common than anyone being injured by RC aircraft.
You're not quantifying correctly. Car accidents and bicycle accidents are currently more common than RC aircraft accidents partly because RC use is so uncommon. If you throw in a denominator of operator-hours, the picture likely changes. You should also account for the foresight and preventability afforded to potential victims. From the perspective of a pedestrian or property owner on the ground, it is a lot easier to anticipate and avoid an accident with something moving horizontally than something falling out of the sky. I can avoid stepping into a crosswalk if I anticipate a taxi will run the red light. I can't anticipate something falling on my head.
There are many reasons you might want to ban RC in an urban area besides safety. There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example; I don't think residents of apartment buildings would be amused by drones with cameras tapping on their windows. There's noise considerations. If there are drones flying unexpectedly between buildings and down streets, it's unsightly and distracting. Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities.
Not really. Unlike a water treatment plant, tunnel, power station, etc. that provides benefit to many residents, flying RC aircraft only provides benefits to the users and come with a host of externalities for everybody else. You might as well say "nimby" about guns or drugs.
One benefit you may not have considered is that there is one group for whom flying model aircraft is very common and that is those people who design planes. You may find it an annoying hobby, but it is also much of the childhood inspiration for the next generation of aeronautical engineers.
Most externalities of drug use are a consequence of prohibition.
Meanwhile, blanket gun bans in the US are clearly invalid per two recent Supreme Court decisions. Gun laws in New York City specifically are currently under challenge in federal court, a challenge likely to be somewhat successful.
Few things that don't involve direct and specific harm to another person are subject to blanket prohibition. Rather, we use varying levels of regulation to avoid or minimize harm. Crying for a ban whenever you see a potential harm in an activity is a gross overreaction, and will merely cause people like me to consider you a NIMBY quack.
If this thread had opened with "we need clear rules about operating RC aircraft in heavily populated areas, let's talk about what would be reasonable", the thread would never have existed in its current state.
But that's not what happened. Instead, there was a knee-jerk cry for banning entirely. The irony is that it is your reaction that is emotional -- specifically, the emotion of fear. You cower in the face of things unfamiliar, while accusing those without fear of being emotional. Projection.
How do you anticipate a bicycle hitting you from behind?
> There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example
There is nothing reasonable about an expectation of privacy when your curtains are open.
> There's noise considerations.
More ignorance, more overreaction. Many RC aircraft are nearly silent, and we have noise ordinances for the rest. But I promise, you won't hear most RC aircraft over the din in Manhattan anyway.
> unsightly
According to whom?
> distracting
Oh look, an actual problem to be addressed. Why not talk about that? Oh, right, because it's just a post-hoc rationalization for an initial knee-jerk reaction.
> Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities.
You mean where the majority of people, especially children, will have no opportunity to play, experiment, and learn.
We already have laws to control the externalities. The NYPD is investigating this guy for reckless endangerment. That should be more than enough.
Your emotions are coloring your ability to seriously consider how the 99% of urban dwellers who couldn't care less about being able to fly RC aircraft would feel about them being ubiquitous. I don't need to anticipate a bike hitting me from behind on the sidewalk because they are illegal there, and in the street, I look around (horizontally!) like every other pedestrian. I think that you also fail to understand how things like space, privacy, quietness, accountability, and yes, aesthetics are shared resources in a city that have to be carefully balanced among ALL people, not just an emotional or sarcastic 1%. To manage those concerns take resources, like police, city council members, and licensing.
Perhaps you would volunteer to test and license every operator and RC aircraft in the NYC for noise, safety, and flight-worthiness? And to respond to all of the reckless endangerment complaints that will happen anyway? No? Then I guess it will eventually cost me money. And no, I don't think every future reckless operator of an RC aircraft will be dumb enough to record his face on takeoff. It would seem that being able to control them from thousands of feet away, operator unseen, makes it a little harder to police than, say, a hit and run motorist, and the police already have plenty of problems catching them. But perhaps you are ready to volunteer your time and money to solve that problem as well.
Many people choose to live in the suburbs and rural areas (many more than in places with the density of Manhattan, for sure). There are already many different opportunities for kids there that don't exist in the city (why, my kid would like to ride his pony and his ATV on the streets, and go skeet shooting! why can't he?) I shed no tears for the sad future children of Manhattan who will be utterly deprived of the opportunity to fly their RC drones down avenues with hundreds of pedestrians. There are literally millions of square miles in the rest of this country where you can do that at a fraction of the risk. And if their parent really cares, they can drive ten miles into Jersey or upstate and do it in a large open park, the way any responsible person already does today.
Your comment is full of factual errors, erroneous assumptions, and evidence of living in a privileged bubble.
Bicycles are not universally illegal on the sidewalk -- in fact, they're specifically legal on the sidewalk where I live, and yes it's in the US. Not that illegality stops people anywhere.
If you want permits, those are generally funded by fees. Talk about that, rather than a knee-jerk ban. As you've already indicated: Enforcement can be difficult. So how are you going to enforce a complete ban, anyway?
A lot of my money goes to things I don't like. For example, your protection by police, fire, military, and the courts. I'd very much like a refund on that. Just for the portion that covers you, you understand. I'm fine with it going to everyone else. Since you're just one person, that's well below your apparent threshold of 1% for number of people that actually matter, so it shouldn't be a problem, right?
Horses can be lawfully ridden on many if not most city streets, including New York City.
It is probable there is some motorized vehicle your son would be permitted to operate in Manhattan. Electric-assist bicycles are often legal on city streets. Not being able to ride an ATV is a consequence of regulation of vehicular traffic, rather than a blanket ban on wheeled transport, as you wish for RC aircraft. And certainly when your son reaches the appropriate age, he will be able to obtain a license to operate a wide variety of motorized vehicles in New York City and across the country. Again, regulation, not prohibition.
80% of the US population is urbanized. Suburbs are largely for a privileged class, and the extreme rural poor would generally be better served if they could live in a city.
Getting out of an urban environment requires the parent to be privileged enough to have the time to do it, and the money to afford the car and gas. You may think this is no problem for most of the people who can afford to live in Manhattan, but Manhattan is not the only urban area in the US. Banning RC aircraft from urban areas covers many high-population areas that I don't believe you have visited or understand in the least.
Try spending some time outside wealthy uptown areas for a while. There's a country full of urban areas you have obviously not seen or experienced. People living lives vastly different from your own. People you want to rip privileges away from because you think Manhattan is America.
Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter?
There is a weight class. There are already regulations. People have been flying RC aircraft for fun in cities perfectly happily for a long time and accidents are rare. Most of the aircraft weigh very little. If flying RC aircraft were a particularly dangerous activity then you would expect there to be many injuries when people gather to fly them, but there are not and certainly I have never heard of anyone getting their head cut off.
"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.
> 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!
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.
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?
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... weighs 29 grams. That's ~1/30th of a kg. This quadcopter: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?)