Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
Another Stupid Pilot
1234Next >
13802 155 2017-7-15
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
Shahar
lvl.2
Flight distance : 3199 ft

Hong Kong
Offline

Mountaindrone Posted at 2017-7-16 02:29
as in France,
Dji NFZ are not the same as official and legal NFZ ...

I think also in Israel. If you go to the CAA web yo can find the detailed NFZ.
This is in Hebrew but you can see the coordinates

BTW, I saw in the news he was sent to 5 days in house arrest
2017-7-16
Use props
STST
Second Officer
Flight distance : 734882 ft
Israel
Offline


use google translate
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4990240,00.html
2017-7-16
Use props
dancopter
First Officer
Flight distance : 17901030 ft
  • >>>
United Arab Emirates
Offline

STST Posted at 2017-7-16 23:56
use google translate
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4990240,00.html

Google translates 'drone' as a skimmer/hovercraft.
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

UCBarkeeper Posted at 2017-7-16 14:53
dude, are you somehow slow? the law defines, where you are allowed to fly. not dji. not dji's NFZ.
you as a drone pilot have to know the law and where you are allowed to fly.

Dude, are you a lawyer? Do you know precisely what the law says? Do you have an example of an indictment in a similar case?
If not, then go away and "dude" someone else!
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-16 15:39
NFZ around airports are set by aviation authorities, not Mavic not by dji not by you or not by me, 100 meters many airports have been closed down for a lot less. I'm sensing a lot of ignorance here.

Are you saying that the DJI NFZ maps in our Mavics are useless and cannot be trusted?
Shouldn't DJI (number one builder of civilian drones in the world) correct this error, if indeed it is an error?
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 00:29
Are you saying that the DJI NFZ maps in our Mavics are useless and cannot be trusted?
Shouldn't DJI (number one builder of civilian drones in the world) correct this error, if indeed it is an error?

I'm saying pilots are responsible, it doesn't take a lot of common sense to realise you are within 100 meters of a manned aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers.
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-17 01:08
I'm saying pilots are responsible, it doesn't take a lot of common sense to realise you are within 100 meters of a manned aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers.

Common sense is extremely subjective, so what does the law say?
My own common sense would make me avoid flying my drone within 1 km of a manned aircraft, and then I am only a very careful guy, but certainly not the law!
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 01:31
Common sense is extremely subjective, so what does the law say?
My own common sense would make me avoid flying my drone within 1 km of a manned aircraft, and then I am only a very careful guy, but certainly not the law!

Aviation law is very clear about this. A pilot is ultimately responsible for his actions and AC, and that includes you and I , aviation treats all drones as AC, this law is very clear .

While you might want to defend what you see, not many will , this is common sense, I believe most sensible people will see this video as wrong and totally irresponsible, and looking to hang the blame on others for the stupid actions of this guy is futile.
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-17 02:31
Aviation law is very clear about this. A pilot is ultimately responsible for his actions and AC, and that includes you and I , aviation treats all drones as AC, this law is very clear .

While you might want to defend what you see, not many will , this is common sense, I believe most sensible people will see this video as wrong and totally irresponsible, and looking to hang the blame on others for the stupid actions of this guy is futile.

OK, fair enough, I'll do my own research.
I do not like discussions on a very important subject where vague terms like "this law is very clear", "common sense", "most sensible people", etc. are being used.
I want to know the precise wording of the law regarding this situation being discussed here.
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 02:52
OK, fair enough, I'll do my own research.
I do not like discussions on a very important subject where vague terms like "this law is very clear", "common sense", "most sensible people", etc. are being used.
I want to know the precise wording of the law regarding this situation being discussed here.


If you honestly in anyway think this flying was legal, you are showing great ignorance.

The question specifically asks about FAA regulations, so I will try to provide specific citations.

Summary

For a commercial airliner (as the question asked), separation will usually be at least 3 miles laterally, or 1,000 feet vertically. In the enroute environment -- at higher operating speeds above 10,000 feet and based on the type of Radar and distance from the antennae -- a 5 mile rule is applied laterally.

2017-7-17
Use props
Alx
lvl.2
Flight distance : 8238 ft
Russia
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 02:52
OK, fair enough, I'll do my own research.
I do not like discussions on a very important subject where vague terms like "this law is very clear", "common sense", "most sensible people", etc. are being used.
I want to know the precise wording of the law regarding this situation being discussed here.

There are least 2 violated local rules:
•Do not fly your drone higher than 50 meters (165 feet)
•Do not fly your drone within 2km of airports or in any area were aircraft are operating

He was operate over 50m and near then 900m from airport during this flight.
2017-7-17
Use props
Exib
First Officer
Flight distance : 153760 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Online

Cant believe this what an idiot
2017-7-17
Use props
DroneNut51
lvl.2

Mexico
Offline

A few things on this...not that I condone this fool, BUT

1) Passenger Jets are designed to be able to fly with only one engine
2) Going in for a landing, most of the lift is created by gravity and the speed at which the plane is already moving
3) Passenger Jets also are able to withstand contacts with a bird.  That drone would likely get chopped up by the jet turbines

That being said...this guy is an idiot for doing this!
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-17 03:28
If you honestly in anyway think this flying was legal, you are showing great ignorance.

The question specifically asks about FAA regulations, so I will try to provide specific citations.

Please show me where in this discussion I suggested or even implied that the flight of the drone being discussed here was legal?
In one of my previous posts I mentioned that this Mavic pilot was flying well outside of the DJI NFZ.
If the DJI NFZ maps are faulty and/or cannot be trusted, then I would like to read the explanation of a competent lawyer and not read the mere opinions of "common sense" people.
2017-7-17
Use props
Clare_G101
lvl.3
Flight distance : 39236 ft
United States
Offline

I think you should have be afraid of flying your drone near an airplane before this video. There's a reason why we are not supposed to fly near airports or where the airplanes radio is in radius of the drone and the rc. Because 1) the pilots are afraid themselves if a drone get's sucked into one of the jets 2) if it interferes with their radio and cannot hear where they are supposed to land/take off/go 3) if the done hits the plane at all (in this case, the pilot of the drone would have to pay a crap ton of money) Also, flying near airplanes isn't only putting the drone or the plane itself at risk, but the passagengers/pilots at risk as well!
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 05:46
Please show me where in this discussion I suggested or even implied that the flight of the drone being discussed here was legal?
In one of my previous posts I mentioned that this Mavic pilot was flying well outside of the DJI NFZ.
If the DJI NFZ maps are faulty and/or cannot be trusted, then I would like to read the explanation of a competent lawyer and not read the mere opinions of "common sense" people.

Try the competent lawyers forum. And come back and tell us the answer.

Your flogging a dead horse here, might be time to use your common sense. A lot of people have pointed to the rules for flying close to airports in Israel, height limits etc.

Common sense meaning.

Good practical sense. The natural intelligence that is believed to be available to all rational people.

I take it you exclude yourself from above.....
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-17 06:09
Try the competent lawyers forum. And come back and tell us the answer.

Your flogging a dead horse here, might be time to use your common sense. A lot of people have pointed to the rules for flying close to airports in Israel, height limits etc.

Your "common sense" is merely your own personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
It is my privilege and right to ignore your personal opinion.
No judge in a court of law will ever use "common sense" to pass sentence, but will base his/her decision on a set of rules called law.
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 09:12
Your "common sense" is merely your own personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
It is my privilege and right to ignore your personal opinion.
No judge in a court of law will ever use "common sense" to pass sentence, but will base his/her decision on a set of rules called law.

Ahh you might be wrong about that, there are literally hundreds of cases were judges have used common sense, but trying to explain to someone so ignorant is difficult, you will also see from reading the thread that many others have also used common sense.
Good day ,

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com ... obeandmail.com&
2017-7-17
Use props
Griffith
First Officer
Flight distance : 98537 ft
United States
Offline

Zbounce Posted at 2017-7-15 04:29
I am not condoning this fool, but I think the odds of getting hit by lighting on the golf course are better that sucking up a drone.

For what it's worth - According to the National Weather Service, the odds of being struck by lightening in your lifetime are 1 in 13,500.  But interesting only 3% of lightening fatalities occur when golfing.
2017-7-17
Use props
Griffith
First Officer
Flight distance : 98537 ft
United States
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-15 09:29
I believe that this "Stupid Pilot" was flying his Mavic precisely outside of the NFZ for that airport.
Look at the map here:
http://www.dji.com/flysafe/no-fly

Could have been barely legal (from DJI NFZ perspectice) but none-the-less dangerous and illegal with respect to Israel Drone Laws,  The plane appears to be on about a 2 km final at about 250 m altitude.  LLSD is a Class D airspace.
General Israel Drone Laws
[size=1.14]Drone use is allowed in Israel, but there are several Israel drone laws that need to be followed when flying in the country. Operators must ensure that they follow the following laws when flying in Israel,
  • Do not fly your drone over people or crowds of people
  • Keep your drone at least 250 meters from residential areas, schools, cinemas, or crowds
  • Respect other peoples privacy when flying your drone
  • Do not fly your drone near military installations, power plants or any other areas that may cause concern among local authorities
  • Do not fly your drone higher than 50 meters (165 feet)
  • You must fly during daylight hours and only fly in good weather conditions (visibility greater than 3km)
  • Do not fly your drone within 2km of airports or in any area were aircraft are operating

2017-7-17
Use props
Griffith
First Officer
Flight distance : 98537 ft
United States
Offline

Griffith Posted at 2017-7-17 10:57
Could have been barely legal, but no-the-less dangerous,  The plane appears to be on about a 2 km final at about 250 m altitude.  LLSD is a Class D airspace.

Heres the NFZ for LLSD
LLSD.jpg
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

Griffith Posted at 2017-7-17 11:00
Heres the NFZ for LLSD

Yes, I have also seen this image.
It would appear that the DJI NFZ maps are faulty, but I don't want to start that discussion over again.
2017-7-17
Use props
Micronx
lvl.1
Flight distance : 17005 ft
Portugal
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-16 10:30
If we have no common sense, we should all blame dji, that makes sense.

Stupidity isn't punishable by death. If it was, there would be a hell of a population drop.”

Looking  to his topic, you VERY RIGHT !

So much stupidity and so much ignorance.
For many it does not matter that the guy was 1 meter from the plane, if DJI says it's not an NFZ, then that's OK! ... lol.
I add that if stupidity paid tax you all walk stamped.
2017-7-17
Use props
Griffith
First Officer
Flight distance : 98537 ft
United States
Offline

He appears to be flying from here.

LLSD No Fly Sone

LLSD No Fly Sone
2017-7-17
Use props
Griffith
First Officer
Flight distance : 98537 ft
United States
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 11:47
Yes, I have also seen this image.
It would appear that the DJI NFZ maps are faulty, but I don't want to start that discussion over again.

Yes, that topic is rampant in other threads.  However, DJI's circular zone generally extends to or beyond the poly zones.  Guess they used the Class D = 2 mile rule and didn't do their homework.
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

Griffith Posted at 2017-7-17 12:26
Yes, that topic is rampant in other threads.  However, DJI's circular zone generally extends to or beyond the poly zones.  Guess they used the Class D = 2 mile rule and didn't do their homework.

That is also my point, but nobody appears to know what a civilian NFZ map must look like. I cannot imagine that a company like DJI would make such a dangerous mistake, if indeed it is a mistake.
2017-7-17
Use props
CuaC
First Officer
Flight distance : 369626 ft
Germany
Offline

He´s been arrested, his drone, computer and cellphone confiscated and he´s now on home detention according to some news.
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

Micronx Posted at 2017-7-17 11:54
Looking  to his topic, you VERY RIGHT !

So much stupidity and so much ignorance.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dji-dro ... viv-airport-1630650
2017-7-17
Use props
user1f304ad2bb
New
United States
Offline

He needs to b e arre
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

CuaC Posted at 2017-7-17 13:08
He´s been arrested, his drone, computer and cellphone confiscated and he´s now on home detention according to some news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40633913

DJI and their Mavic Pro are getting free publicity.
Priceless!
2017-7-17
Use props
gnirtS
Captain
Flight distance : 2993497 ft
Cayman Islands
Offline

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-17 00:29
Are you saying that the DJI NFZ maps in our Mavics are useless and cannot be trusted?
Shouldn't DJI (number one builder of civilian drones in the world) correct this error, if indeed it is an error?

Correct- they're guidelines and thats it.  DJI aren't the ones setting the NFZs, the authorities are.
Its the responsibility of the user to comply with them not the drone manufacturer.
There is absolutely no way DJI can include every NFZ, temporary restriction and NOTAM worldwide reliably.  The user has full responsibility for compliance.
2017-7-17
Use props
gnirtS
Captain
Flight distance : 2993497 ft
Cayman Islands
Offline

DroneNut51 Posted at 2017-7-17 05:33
A few things on this...not that I condone this fool, BUT

1) Passenger Jets are designed to be able to fly with only one engine

One engine is an inflight emergency requiring a diversion and emergency landing.  And lots of grounded time (ie cancelled flights) along with inspections and repairs (money and more cancelled flights).

If they hit a bird its still grounded, inspected and often needs repairs along with cancelled flights and costly maintenance work.

...and thats assuming its a contained engine failure.  Uncontained can happen as well and thats even more serious.
2017-7-17
Use props
michaelts
lvl.3
United States
Offline

"DJI aren't the ones setting the NFZs, the authorities are. Its the responsibility of the user to comply with them not the drone manufacturer. There is absolutely no way DJI can include every NFZ, temporary restriction and NOTAM worldwide reliably.  The user has full responsibility for compliance."

Good argument, but I highly doubt it will carry much weight in court if a drone causes a crash and DJI gets sued in the USA where the product liability laws are the most "pro-consumer" in the world. DJI is now on notice that a 21-year old can buy Mavic and have fun flying it 86 meters from a landing plane. A plane crash is now "reasonably foreseeable" and DJI will carry the burden of proving that it has taken every safeguard that it was feasible to take to prevent drones flying within NFZ of each and every airport in the world. It appears DJI has already implemented such safeguards, but they are simply not accurate. The scary thing is that the official NFZ of Sde Dov airport is broader than what DJI programmed into its drones, not the other way around. Why did that occur? Can DJI offer a good-faith explanation why it is absolutely not feasible for DJI to make NFZ at least broader than what the local NFZ rules require? In the eyes of the product liability law, the notion that "[t]he user has full responsibility for compliance" is irrelevant.
2017-7-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 5992858 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

michaelts Posted at 2017-7-17 15:46
"DJI aren't the ones setting the NFZs, the authorities are. Its the responsibility of the user to comply with them not the drone manufacturer. There is absolutely no way DJI can include every NFZ, temporary restriction and NOTAM worldwide reliably.  The user has full responsibility for compliance."

Good argument, but I highly doubt it will carry much weight in court if a drone causes a crash and DJI gets sued in the USA where the product liability laws are the most "pro-consumer" in the world. DJI is now on notice that a 21-year old can buy Mavic and have fun flying it 86 meters from a landing plane. A plane crash is now "reasonably foreseeable" and DJI will carry the burden of proving that it has taken every safeguard that it was feasible to take to prevent drones flying within NFZ of each and every airport in the world. It appears DJI has already implemented such safeguards, but they are simply not accurate. The scary thing is that the official NFZ of Sde Dov airport is broader than what DJI programmed into its drones, not the other way around. Why did that occur? Can DJI offer a good-faith explanation why it is absolutely not feasible for DJI to make NFZ at least broader than what the local NFZ rules require? In the eyes of the product liability law, the notion that "[t]he user has full responsibility for compliance" is irrelevant.

In your country FAA has decided that drones are AC , All pilots are responsible for where when and how they fly there AC . Decisions to fly where when and how are made only by the pilot, access into NFZ could well have been made by hacked drone, who is responsible for this. Well if you take the scenario a guy buys a car he chips it , he can now travel at much higher speeds than manufacture designed it to go. He kills someone. Is car manufacturers responsible ?
2017-7-17
Use props
gnirtS
Captain
Flight distance : 2993497 ft
Cayman Islands
Offline

DJI themselves say many times its the users responsibility to remain legal.  FAA rulings are also the same.  In the rest of the world and i suspect the USA its a clear cut case.
He's bought an aircraft not a toy.  Owning an aircraft means its the users responsibility to comply with all the rules and regulations.
FAA rules are very clear on the matter - pilots responsibility.

Maybe the USA is more insane than the rest of the planet legal wise but it wont stand up in court at all.  DJI clearly state users responsibility, the local laws and regulations state the same.  DJI also say the GEO system only covers america, europe and a few other countries.

They'll be fine against any such suits.
2017-7-17
Use props
michaelts
lvl.3
United States
Offline

"Maybe the USA is more insane than the rest of the planet legal wise but it wont stand up in court at all.  DJI clearly state users responsibility, the local laws and regulations state the same. "

Also don't forget that by programming NFZ information into DJI drones, DJI voluntarily assumed the role of policing and enforcing NFZ rules. DJI presumptively checked the official NFZ rules when it programmed NFZ restrictions into its drones. A consumer who buys Mavic can "reasonably rely" on the good work that DJI has done, and has no "reasonable expectations" that DJI work was inadequate and the consumer should second guess it and check the local NFZ rule each and every time he flies Mavic.

"DJI clearly state users responsibility." Perhaps so. Did DJI also "clearly state" that the user should never rely on what DJI programmed into the drone? Is it foreseeable for an average reasonable consumer, let alone "the least sophisticated consumer" to question reliability of the NFZ information that DJI checked and even programmed in each drone?
2017-7-17
Use props
gnirtS
Captain
Flight distance : 2993497 ft
Cayman Islands
Offline

michaelts Posted at 2017-7-17 16:33
"Maybe the USA is more insane than the rest of the planet legal wise but it wont stand up in court at all.  DJI clearly state users responsibility, the local laws and regulations state the same. "

Also don't forget that by programming NFZ information into DJI drones, DJI voluntarily assumed the role of policing and enforcing NFZ rules. DJI presumptively checked the official NFZ rules when it programmed NFZ restrictions into its drones. A consumer who buys Mavic can "reasonably rely" on the good work that DJI has done, and has no "reasonable expectations" that DJI work was inadequate and the consumer should second guess it and check the local NFZ rule each and every time he flies Mavic.

No they didnt.  As their documentation clearly states, the user is responsible for finding out and adhering to regulations.  They took no responsibility at all.
This is Israel and the laws are clear.  The FAA rules are the same - in the states he could and would have been prosecuted under those laws as its 100% his responsibility.  Nothing to do with DJI - FAA rulings.  Their airspace, their rules.
2017-7-17
Use props
michaelts
lvl.3
United States
Offline

"As their documentation clearly states, the user is responsible for finding out and adhering to regulations.  They took no responsibility at all."

Good argument again. The counter-argument is that DJI did take the responsiblility when they represented to the consumers that (1) DJI checked NFZ restrictions imposed by FAA, and (2) the consumers follow the FAA restrictions when they fly their drones.

You are absolutely correct that if a plane crashes, the victims can sue the consumer who flew the drone on the theory that it was his ultimate responsibility to follow FAA restrictions, not DJI's. However, the consumer then has a cause of action against DJI on the theory that DJI misled him (by representing that NFZ information programmed in the drone matches FAA restrictions) and provided no warning (that NFZ information programmed in the drone is inaccurate and should never be relied upon). Under the american law, the victims can sue DJI directly on the very same theory of misleading the consumers and giving them inadequate warnings. I highly doubt that the disclaimer in the documentation would be deemed adequate enough to warn the consumer not to rely on NFZ data that DJI checked and programmed into its drones.

Again, you are correct the the consumer is ultimately responsible for following FAA rules, and the victims can sue him. However, considering how much money the 21-year old guys in Israel makes, and how much money DJI makes, who do you think the victims will go after?  
2017-7-17
Use props
MARSAN
First Officer
Flight distance : 966978 ft
Belgium
Offline

gnirtS Posted at 2017-7-17 15:06
Correct- they're guidelines and thats it.  DJI aren't the ones setting the NFZs, the authorities are.
Its the responsibility of the user to comply with them not the drone manufacturer.
There is absolutely no way DJI can include every NFZ, temporary restriction and NOTAM worldwide reliably.  The user has full responsibility for compliance.

But then why does DJI provide any NFZ maps at all in their drones, if they are all wrong and can therefore not be trusted?
At the moment the DJI drone pilots are made to believe that they will never fly their drones too near to an airport, because of the NFZ maps in their drones. This is dangerous as the case being discussed here has shown very clearly.
I hope that DJI will see this Tel Aviv incident as a wake-up call...
2017-7-17
Use props
Dx_Operator
lvl.3
Flight distance : 140413 ft
United States
Offline

I'll keep this simple...

Nice video.
2017-7-18
Use props
1234Next >
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules