This just happened yesterday..... I wish i could go smack that guy myself

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-n ... irport-495549507846

What a jack ass.  

Safe flying our aircraft is critical to our hobby. However, there may be two observations of the same incidient - a dangerous situation or  media sensationalism attempt. If you hear the Delta pilot report his observation, he simply REPORTS the traffic, probably flying out of Floyd Bennett Field, a park, formerly an airfield. (Take a look at JFK in your pilot app) The pilot says "abandoned airfield". The pattern was probably landing runway 4 and Delta was landing 4L from the south. The controller ask vertical separation and the pilot says 100 feet. But no horizon distance is asked or reported, so media interprets "off the wing" as dangerously close, but that is not stated or inferred! The same pilot would have reported birds the same way.... That's what flight avoidance is all about. If the drone was within JFK controlled airspace, the pilot should have called the tower and advised of their VFR flight, no arguments. But, a pilot reporting a drone in no way states a dangerous or illegal situation. I'm not condoning, just saying that all the facts not being evaluated cause the public, politicians, and even the FAA to think drone proliferation is endangering safety. So, please think before you fly, and fly safe.....

These morons that do stupid things like this are begging to make our hobby an illegal one.

I think there's a war on drones... So everything in the air that's a near miss is a drone?

I personally know this area, and it was mentioned that the drone was flying on "an abandoned airfield " and "floyd bennett field", floyd bennett field has the NYPD helicopter training site and the Navy reserve base PLUS an AMA sanctioned Model airplane flying field BUT that was closed years ago and i used to fly my model airplane and heli there before 2007, Floyd bennett field is heavily guarded by the secret service and there is a strict no Video capture policy once you enter it, plus you can visually see JFK airport from the shore over the east side of the field, so whoever was flying there was VERY VERY stupid and will be found and arrested soon.

Not ONLY flying too close to JFK.
Not ONLY failing to notify the ATC (who would have said "NO" anyway).
But - if you listen carefully to the story - also FLYING AT 1600 FEET AGL!
Freaking idiot. Gonna get us all banned.

We need to be as proactive as possible; If you hear that the kid down the street has a drone, please go talk to him and make SURE he "gets it." If you hear anyone speaking of their new toy, be friendly, but talk to them.

And it can't be a phantom 3 as it would have not taken off in that area at all, it must be one of the team black sheep wannabes that go trolling all over NYC and one day they gonna get someone killed and US banned.

Willie Wonka Posted at 2015-8-2 02:55
And it can't be a phantom 3 as it would have not taken off in that area at all, it must be one of th ...

If GPS is of i guess you can fly anywhere you want ?

020667@gmail.co Posted at 2015-8-2 06:00
If GPS is of i guess you can fly anywhere you want ?

That is a FACT if you put some aluminum tape on the DJI logo on top of the phantom, it will be ready to fly in ATTI mode.

terrylewis Posted at 2015-8-1 23:06
Safe flying our aircraft is critical to our hobby. However, there may be two observations of the sam ...

The fact is he is well above legal limit.  

terrylewis Posted at 2015-8-1 23:06
Safe flying our aircraft is critical to our hobby. However, there may be two observations of the sam ...

Agreed horizontal distance matters but what was the drone doing at 1700 feet as was mentioned in the report?  If people are going to disobey the rules and fly like fools, it is going to wreck it for all.

020667@gmail.co Posted at 2015-8-2 06:00
If GPS is of i guess you can fly anywhere you want ?

How do you turn it off?

Tis version of the story indicates that the flight was at 14,000 feet not 1400.  http://www.wave3.com/story/29685 ... ve-near-miss-at-jfk

gregg1r Posted at 2015-8-2 10:17
Tis version of the story indicates that the flight was at 14,000 feet not 1400.  http://www.wave3.co ...

in that case it has to be a big ass drone to be seen, and no airplane would be above JFK above 5000 feet, this is a cooked up story in my opinion, if i barely can see a flying object from 100 feet while it is moving, let alone an airplane moving at 125 to 200 miles an hour see and identify a drone the size of seagull, go figure.

Yet again CNN takes the story and makes it front page news on their site.  There definitely is a high level of 'sensationalism' to these stories.  Why is everything they see in the air a drone now?  There's no proof of anything at the moment except what the pilot thinks he saw.   

Rob

lostinthezone Posted at 2015-8-2 12:24
Yet again CNN takes the story and makes it front page news on their site.  There definitely is a hi ...

Exactly.

This is "just" a remote controlled aircraft. People have been flying those for 50 years if not more. And old-hat remote controlled airplanes are much more dangerous - with their heavy metal gas-engines and less controllability - compared to a Phantom made out of plastic and aluminium, flying a low speed, generally extremely controllable and with less weight than a semi-large bird.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for anyone flying close to aircraft with people inside. But the media-hysteria is out of hand and we can't live in a risk free society. Reportedly, people die every year from locking themselves in the trunks of cars... While every single time that happens it is a tragedy, it should not lead to further nannyfication of society.

I really want to know how this guy got these photos... https://www.skypixel.com/photos/ ... f-90c9-b6aa0a005dd3

motoscoddie Posted at 2015-8-2 15:51
I really want to know how this guy got these photos... https://www.skypixel.com/photos/san-francisco ...

I would guess from a passing plane/helicopter. Or with a big badass drone capable of lifting a Nikon D4S, as that's what the picture was apparently taken with: San Francisco International Airport
He also used a D810 for some of the pictures, which would also require either a big drone or being in a helicopter/plane. Looking through his portfolio he's certainly hired helicopters for other places. Hence my guess of a passing plane or hired helicopter

agrewe Posted at 2015-8-2 18:03
I would guess from a passing plane/helicopter. Or with a big badass drone capable of lifting a Nik ...

Having done a fair bit of aerial photography using helicopters, I can assure you that none of the major airports are going to allow you to fly a "drone" anywhere near an active runway, even a Sunday morning when traffic is very slow.

After 9/11, you have to submit flight plans well in advance to the local administrator of the airport, the FAA and DHS and await approval. It was so much easier before 9/11.

Aerial photography using a 35mm camera requires a lens about 85mm in focal length.

Rigworker Posted at 2015-8-2 09:35
How do you turn it off?

Aluminum foil on top will cause it to loose the signal.

020667@gmail.co Posted at 2015-8-4 04:14
Aluminum foil on top will cause it to loose the signal.

Yes, I knew that but that method is not really 'turning it off'. More like blocking the signal.

Rigworker Posted at 2015-8-4 04:45
Yes, I knew that but that method is not really 'turning it off'. More like blocking the signal.

That is the method unless you mod it with a switch.

020667@gmail.co Posted at 2015-8-4 05:11
That is the method unless you mod it with a switch.

Shutting it off in the app would be a great thing.