http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/ufo-at-the-u-s--open--not-quite-033805691.html
The drone flew in from the east side of the stadium as No. 26 Flavia Pennetta defeated Monica Niculescu, 6-1, 6-4. Pennetta said later that she heard it flying around. At first, she thought it might be a bomb.
"A little bit scary, I have to say," Pennetta told ESPN. "With everything going on in the world ... I thought, 'OK, it's over.' That's how things happen."
The USTA later issued a press release saying no one was injured and that the New York City Police Department is investigating the incident. The drone broke into pieces when it crashed. The police and security went right over to it, then gave the all-clear to continue playing.
"If there had been spectators, it would have hit them and done a lot of damage," Pennetta said.
Comments
I think the reality is that various local governments can and should enact legislation that prohibits various UAV usage wherever it is appropriate to do so.
In this case, I think it is perfectly reasonable that New York have a rule that prohibits the use of UAVs in this facility, if in fact they do (or the owners of the facility for that matter).
Clearly, at some level even the owners / operators of a facility should have an option to permit or disallow "drone" usage, for safety, privacy and exclusivity reasons.
The problem is that right now we have many governmental bodies including state and national that are doing their best to simply ban them everywhere or to make their use impossible by requiring permission from everybody who might be in "visual" range of one that it will have the same effect.
There is bound to be local legislation regarding their use, but all we can do is try and help them understand what is reasonable and what is not.
Although I really like the simplicity of leaving everything in the hands of the FAA, the fact is that the implications of the use of UAVs and the many places they can readily get into are obviously going to cover a much broader scope than the FAA can handle.
Especially with them being so readily available to so many people who have absolutely no idea what to do with them.
What is really sad is that this one happened to be a Solo from the Company and its associated Group (Us) who have done more to promote sane use of these things than anybody else.
It's bad enough when it's a Phantom.
Best Regards,
Gary
"That same year [2014], authorities increased security at the event after the Al Qaeda-published “Inspire” magazine named the U.S. Open as a prime target for a car bomb attack."
(the "Inspire" reference is kinda funny DJI)
But let's keep it in perspective. People have been flying RC craft for decades (literally) and an attack like that could have happened long before "drones" came along.
Good point.
The existing laws that NYPD arrested him for a perfectly sufficient. But politicians love something to gloat about. Making new unnecessary laws is their favorite thing so this may encourage them to do so. They'll ignore that reckless endangerment has been a law for a hundred years and nothing new is required of course.
@P2P,
One of the problems with letting the locals/states handle issues like this one instead of the FAA, is just going to encourage other local/state entities to enact irrational/dysfunctional anti sUAS laws to get their piece of the action.
Regards,
TCIII AVD
I think an appropriate course of action would be for the FAA to let NYPD handle enforcement action since they've already taken that action. The FAA should send him one of their nastygrams explaining the rules and regulations that he violated (whatever they happen to be today..). But since the NYPD is already taking enforcement action, and there is no other property damage and injury, there is no need for the FAA to waste resources doing the same thing.
I'm going to offer a potentially controversial opinion here based on reading another blog focused on 3DR Solo. The barrier to entry is now much lower than it was a few years ago. People no longer need to spend a lot of time building an aircraft nor do they need to spend a lot of time on a simulator or with an experienced pilot as an instructor. Therefore, it's much easier to have little respect for the device. I've read about one person who totally ignored 3DR's own advice on starting out in a big field and totally ignored the "magnetometer interference" warning before flying anyway. The end result wasn't pretty and the owner blamed 3DR for his incompetence.
We will see if AC91-57A has any teeth, that was quick! (I know its an advisory but...)
Ah the days people would go to the flying field and have safe fun, even that could be in danger with
all these imbecile.
He was charged with reckless endangerment and some other NYC law related to model aircraft in prohibited locations.
As I've always said to the law pushing nanny bureaucrats, there are already plenty of laws and they work.
I'm also glad they arrested him. Now, what are they going to charge him with? I think technically, as a "hobby" user, he didn't actually break any hard laws related to flying UAV's. However, I think they should charge him with a general endangerment of the public law.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next