The person who did this is a moron.

We obviously need to ban drones. And the blue angels. Possibly more.
 
This person needs to be made an example of.
 
What an idiot. I truly hope the feds track them down. It won’t be as hard as you think.
 
I guarantee that a cadre of FAA LEAP Special Agents along with NCIS will be meeting this Giancolo character.
 
Velocity173 said:
And idiots like this are why remote ID is being pushed down our throats...which will do absolutely nothing to prevent this in the future.
Click to expand...

That is the truth. The only real thing that can be done is to give the FAA a bigger stick to go after rogue operators.
 
0a73feabcb3a531fc289566e8e5ed3c9.jpg
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Yeah, that drone could have tumbled in the wake vortex, and been totally destroyed. What a shame that would have been.
Click to expand...
I'm generally of the opinion that in a fight between a consumer drone and an airplane, the airplane is going win most of the time. So long as it stays out of the intake, I suspect it would barely leave a mark on those planes. But taking one through the intake could get real expensive real fast.

But I agree, flying that close to any airplane is irresponsible. It'd be nice to see them caught and fined.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I'm generally of the opinion that in a fight between a consumer drone and an airplane, the airplane is going win most of the time. So long as it stays out of the intake, I suspect it would barely leave a mark on those planes. But taking one through the intake could get real expensive real fast.

But I agree, flying that close to any airplane is irresponsible. It'd be nice to see them caught and fined.
Click to expand...
A one-kilogram drone would likely go through the windshield of anything we fly, given a 120 kt. or greater differential.
 
Initial Fix said:
What an idiot. I truly hope the feds track them down. It won’t be as hard as you think.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they have an idea... "The video was allegedly published by one Giovanni Lucia (@giolucia) on Instagram and Facebook. Mr. Lucia seems to have deactivated both accounts and taken the video down." I'm sure they'll take away his toy airplane and slap him on the wrist. Nothing big enough to make the next guy think twice though.
 
Which regulation did the "moron" violate?

Were the Blue Angels on an IFR flight plan in protected airspace?

Who has right of way between a 15kts drone and a 500 kts jet?

Does anyone care about the rulez? <- That one I can answer.
 
Ravioli said:
Which regulation did the "moron" violate?

Were the Blue Angels on an IFR flight plan in protected airspace?

Who has right of way between a 15kts drone and a 500 kts jet?

Does anyone care about the rulez? <- That one I can answer.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure when the blues are doing these flights they have a TFR issued to keep other aircraft a certain distance from them. I thought I saw in another thread on here where someone wanted to take photos of them and had to stay 10 miles away.
 
Will Kumley said:
Pretty sure when the blues are doing these flights they have a TFR issued to keep other aircraft a certain distance from them. I thought I saw in another thread on here where someone wanted to take photos of them and had to stay 10 miles away.
Click to expand...
Dunno about the B.A.s, but the ANG did the same thing yesterday - no TFR for the A-10s
 
No TFR when they did the joint flyover of Atlanta. But drone operators still have to comply with altitude and proximity to airport restrictions.
 
Will Kumley said:
Pretty sure when the blues are doing these flights they have a TFR issued to keep other aircraft a certain distance from them. I thought I saw in another thread on here where someone wanted to take photos of them and had to stay 10 miles away.
Click to expand...

No TFR for these overflights, but I'm pretty sure they are at least 400' AGL, which is the ceiling for drone activity.
 
400 ft and any FAA rep with half a brain would determine that they didn’t give way to a manned aircraft.

Probably get them on “community based practices” violations as well. Careless / reckless manner. Probably operating FPV outside of LOS. Operating over unprotected people. Might be within 5 miles of an airport without notification. Bet the guy doesn’t even have it registered.

Could be a whole slew of violations.
 
Last edited:
Ravioli said:
Which regulation did the "moron" violate?

Were the Blue Angels on an IFR flight plan in protected airspace?

Who has right of way between a 15kts drone and a 500 kts jet?

Does anyone care about the rulez? <- That one I can answer.
Click to expand...
The point of view appears to be greater than 500' to me, and if the launch of the drone was to get closeups of the jets ...
 
My drone wont go over 400 feet. The OS limits where and how high it can fly. DJI drone wont fly at all if you do not have a current database installed. FAA will track him down and levee a $$,$$$$ fine.
 
And the drone regulations state what? Don't look it up, it says:

“The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level unless the small unmanned aircraft is (1) flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure, and (2) does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.”

The way that the rule is stated immediately offers an exception: that it’s possible to fly above 400 feet if you are flying in the vicinity of a (presumably) large structure. There’s still a bit of ambiguity, though, as Part 107 does not provide a definition of a ‘structure’ or precisely from what reference point the 400-foot limit should be measured from.

So... Highest "structure" in the offending area was how tall, +400'

I know, it's just a drone and all, but as we always ask for, state a reg that was potentially violated, or you may be the moron OP is referencing.
 
I thought @overdrive148 would enjoy this thread.

The tallest building in Dallas, TX is 941AGL, so that gets legal drone flight to 1341'.

The Lafayette towers in Detroit are charted at 742agl, thus 1142' for legal operation.

Next?
 
Someone in our neighborhood admitted to shooting at a drone out here a few days ago.

Operator was in an unmarked SUV, very far from him (not visible which I believe unless a waiver isn’t okay?) and was surveying power lines.

And the guy was taking a leak in the prairie grass while working on acreage when he spotted it. Grabbed the pellet gun for varmits and popped off a few.

LOL.

Other folks who saw the guy launching before his drone came over their property let him know it was a legitimate operator, but he had no way of knowing. And really didn’t care when folks mentioned airspace above him isn’t his property.

“Oh well. Try trespassing to come get the pieces next time if you’re not going to notify me of what you’re doing.”

I can confirm no one out here received any notification, written or otherwise. They probably flew my power lines, but I have only one regularly open window I can even see them through.

I’d also have known to look harder for the operator, but no markings, dark SUV, probably a contractor, no company badge, nothing? Dumb out here, man. That’s a good way to end up with not just the drone at gunpoint.

I’ve made a little fun of the safety best thing for drone pilots over the years, but it’s really a good idea out here.

That said, act weird and I also want the main number that *I* look up for whoever you’re working for to answer and say you’re supposed to be here. I’m no expert on what their company badges look like. Etc.

I’d be interested to hear what our actual drone pilots do in rural areas with large property that needs flown over. It’s really easy for me to identify a power company truck driving the right of way. Not so easy to know why a big drone is buzzing around the yard. :)
 
Ravioli said:
And the drone regulations state what? Don't look it up, it says:

“The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level unless the small unmanned aircraft is (1) flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure, and (2) does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.”

The way that the rule is stated immediately offers an exception: that it’s possible to fly above 400 feet if you are flying in the vicinity of a (presumably) large structure. There’s still a bit of ambiguity, though, as Part 107 does not provide a definition of a ‘structure’ or precisely from what reference point the 400-foot limit should be measured from.

So... Highest "structure" in the offending area was how tall, +400'

I know, it's just a drone and all, but as we always ask for, state a reg that was potentially violated, or you may be the moron OP is referencing.
Click to expand...

Were they operating under Part 107?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top