Brooklyn man arrested for flying drone over Manhattan

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.

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.

> 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.

if I did seem over reacted, my apology.

Let's refine restriction then.

This news is probably not too old for some local people.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-he...

http://www.ntv7.com.my/7edition/local-en/FREAK_ACCIDENT_18_M...

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpveweAqGYM

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-helicopter-general-discus...

Can these be flying in the city? In a small park?

Even for a tiny toy aircraft, it could go wild and hit pedestrian, or a moving vehicle and might cause some unnecessary injury.

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.