Drone Knocked Down at Staples Center

The amount of ignorance in this community is baffling. First of all, it's in a public place. No one should have an expectation of privacy in public ever. Second, danger to the public? Please. This phantom 2 drone gets a gps lock, noted by the green flashing lights. The operator could turn off their radio and the thing will automatically fly to where it took off from. Once the battery dies it will slowly come down to the ground.

Please do a little research before making comments. The cheapest this unit could be is around 1100.00, and people took it down. That was someone's property, doing no harm to anyone.

Here are some videos I shot below. Never ever had an issue with phantom 2.

According to the rules put forth by FAA and adopted by the Academy of Model Aeronautics, this drone was out of compliance to the rules simply because it is flying over a crowd of people.
Here is a link to the rules adopted as of January of this year. These rules are easier to understand that the pages upon pages of laws spewed forth by the FAA. www.modelaircraft.org...

All pilots of remotely controlled aircraft, private or commercial, have to abide by the rules. The owner of this drone broke the rules by flying over a crowd and learned a lesson.
There are really, really good reasons for these rules about flying just anywhere the pilot wants to go----each and every one of those devices has an expiration date. The pilot doesn't know the expiration date but when it comes, that machine will fall from the sky.
As a close relative of a few modelers, I've witnessed thousands of dollars reach their "expiration date" at extremely inconvenient times!

a reply to: wutang717

What gives the right for someone to fly one over people and film them? Why does there have to be a camera or any other sort of optic viewing, unless used for flying.

Seriously? what gives a person the right for them to film you on their cell phone or without your knowledge, when they show shots of crowds at festivals and celebrations do they ask every single person if they want to be on film or not - this drone was doing pretty much the exact same thing.

Right, I'm gonna get a Surface Air Missile then shoot down anything over my house (or endangers or comes near it) as it violates my personal airspace and they could potentially look at me with their EYES. And then when it crashes down on my property I'll sue the operators and get them for the damage that they did for flying their plane over my land.

Here's another interesting bit about drones!
Recently a Swiss chap (Rafael Pirker) was booked by the FAA for flying his foam powered glider - as it was described in court- recklessly, he was fined $10,000 for doing so yet he fought the case and won with the website stating "that the policy notices the FAA issued as a basis for the ban weren’t enforceable because they hadn’t been written as part of a formal rulemaking process" - this was for a commercial UAS the guy was filming for a university campus.
Here is the complaint:
www.suasnews.com...
Here is news of Rafael getting off scot free as the fine was dismissed:
www.politico.com...

And to this day there is STILL no official ruling on drones as I have been up to date with the current regulations and haven't seen any change to them. Rafael was flying about 5 foot off the ground, under bridges, past people and past cars - I'm not saying it isn't wrong but there are NO proper rules for drones as of yet which have been coherently and properly set out with full government backing. Now I'm not saying you can see the fixed wing aircraft of Rafael and compare it to this drone in its circumstance exactly, but if the judge dismissed this case then the one that we are discussing here is surely without doubt of the same outcome - that it simply wasn't constrained to any rules.

I'm all for seeing someone who has literally flown in the the face of the rules being fully punished for what they have done, yet as of now, there are no rules - oh yes - and with the AMA in mind they are a club, not the law - if you join a club you abide by the rules - if you aren't in the club you don't it is that simple.

Oh but wait the crowd did what again...
Remind me please....
Oh yes they destroyed property - hang on a second im pretty darn sure that there are written rules on this which are currently enforced.

As of today the private use of drones for "hobbyist" falls under the rules of the MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS, AC 91-57 - Model Aircraft Operating Standards

www.faa.gov...

The FAA is working to bring the standards up today in lieu of the new drone technology.

Some states like Texas already have rules about drones in effects.

Texas Drones Law Gets Tough On Public, Private Use

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Map: Is Your State a No-Drone Zone?
Nine states have already passed laws restricting drone use. See where yours stands.

www.motherjones.com...

Laws Limiting Drones Gaining Steam

Several states have recently passed laws limiting drone use within their borders and 29 other states are still considering legislation.

www.governing.com...

To say that is no laws against private use of drones is misleading and incorrect

The rules proposed by bloggers and associations are most often just be guidelines, they are no laws.

I can start a drone club, make club rules, and they are not law. Citing state or federal law is a different story.

Saying simply taking a picture of a person in public is not illegal. It would be if it is intended for commercial use and the person doesn't consent.

Excuse me but how do we even know this guy was a hobbyist, in fact i could find him, give him a penny for his "work" and he'd suddenly become a "commercial operator" for which you can see the flakey rules which surround the issue above in my last post. I know about AC 91-57 and I must ask.... is a UAS truly able to adhere to these rules?
Concerning AC 91-57 couldn't you consider the whole crowd "spectators" (as they were doing just that) because they are somehow different to normal people in that drones can be flown near them.
The trouble is that the FAA is still having trouble DEFINING a UAS in the first place, how can they possibly have written legislation around something which remains essentially undefined by themselves beats me.
Furthermore this is an advisory circular from the 80's and I feel it could easily be argued that hobbyist aircraft, in themselves, have moved so far forwards that the rules are outdated and barely apply.

You source your information well:
www.motherjones.com...
Yet only 2 states have legislation prohibiting private usage, and these both seem to concern surveillance issues - I am well aware of ideas and possible rules (help me with this) about the airspace of private property and capturing images of a certain subject but the particular rules i am stressing would happen to be about their operation. Even then the exceptions or rather holes in the Texan legislation create a veritable colander letting nearly all but the most blatantly and clearly nefarious slip away unharmed.

I also need to separate this argument specifically in the way that really I should have made sure you knew I was concentrating on the use of drones in different spaces - where they are allowed to be / what they are allowed to fly near rather than their surveillance aspect - because this was as the video specifically raised this as an issue in the video.

I also don't know where lines in America are drawn and how it is done, though personally I would have thought that the surveillance issues you raised would be dealt with the same way as any surveillance issue - by this I mean does taking video of a person from inside a car make it different to you being outside the car videoing somebody. Personally I feel the issue with drones and surveillance is a law already covered in the laws dealing with filming and capturing images and sometimes they won't even apply to drones!

Remember - a UAS doesn't even need a camera to operate in the first place therefore a drone can still be free of the surveillance rules and completely free of flight regulations too! are you sure that we are talking about cameras on drones or drones themselves, or even the subject as a whole?

I feel that basically there are rules about surveillance some states yet still NO proper rules for drones and definitely nothing properly applicable about FAA rules which don't concern surveillance.

I will be forward and say that there are no applicable rules (that had been broken) for the use of the drone as shown in the OP's video.......

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Maybe Highway Patrol or Los Angeles Sheriff's department?

Security staff belonging to the Staples Center?

I own a very similar quad copter. I usually fly it in soccer fields. If anyone I do not know steps on the field I land it. I'm usually flying it at high speeds and doing tricks. If it hit someone it could really hurt them. Mine also has gps and that means nothing. I've seen it lose the gps lock and fall out of the sky or the battery has disconnected during flight and crashed.

In the instructions for my copter it says to not fly in public places and around crowds. Who ever was flying this should be fined.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

"Sounds fascist to me, not standing up for freedoms."

Sounds corporatist to you? Maybe you meant authoritarian? It's 2014, people should know the meaning of those words they like to fling and rage about.

a reply to: Snoopy1978

Corporist for shooting down a drone?

Nah!

Fascist was probably a tad harsh, although it seems people are exercising their rights by violently violating others, so...

In the instructions for my copter it says to not fly in public places and around crowds. Who ever was flying this should be fined.

Sounds like common sense for safety. I would probably agree if there is a law that allows for a fine.

People, the STAPLES Center is not public property. It is private property. If the operators of the STAPLES Center wants to fly a drone and get live images and videos for the sake of television, or even advertisements, they can do so.

That is why they are able to fly these blimp drones around...

originally posted by: marg6043
It is not laws that stop citizens from shooting drones out of the skies, plain and simple, you fly you darn drone over my property I will shoot it down, now let see the legality of private drones over public places.

So if I stand across the street with a camera are you going to shoot me too. Go ahead and shoot down a drone, get busted for discharging a weapon, and pay the replacement cost of a couple of 100 Ks.

a reply to: MagicWand67
No really a "Funny" story to see someone's $1000. Photography Drone (a DJI Phantom) smashed to bits by a bunch of drunken jerks. Of course the operator should have flown away when the crowd began to act like Imbeciles.

a reply to: jaytmoon

I must admit. It's even funnier to watch people like yourself gripe and moan about a plastic toy being smashed.

If a person had been hurt, then no, it wouldn't be funny.

It seems you care more about money than human safety.

Not only do I find it funny that a crowd of people chose to bring down that drone.

I find it inspiring and I hope the same thing happens to any other idiots flying their toys recklessly.

I find it inspiring and I hope the same thing happens to any other idiots flying their toys recklessly.

If the crowd hadn't knocked it down, it would be flying. Not sure who is the reckless party in the matter.

You don't fly a machine with 4 carbon fiber propellers spinning at 10k rpm, over the heads of people.
That thing could cut you open like a hack saw. They should never be allowed around crowds, and this is the law in MA., like it should be everywhere else. It does not matter if it was law enforcement, media, military....

People just do not know how dangerous these can be, and I am not talking about the little toys, but these big machines designed to carry up to a 3lb payload (camera). They need about 7lbs of thrust to stay airborne, and without shrouds around the tips of the props, they can cut your arm off or slice through your skull. (Remember what happened at Central Park, NY last year?)

So, the crowd had every right to kick that out of the sky. Flat, open fields only, and hard hats.

a reply to: charlyv

A good reason to knock it down so someone can get hurt. Everyone involved was being stupid.

a reply to: charlyv

You don't fly a machine with 4 carbon fiber propellers spinning at 10k rpm, over the heads of people.

Yeah you don't fly anything like this over a crowd.

So, the crowd had every right to kick that out of the sky.

Yet you don't throw stuff at it as all of those missed shots will fly past the drone and hit somebody and when the drone is brought down obviously it will fall on somebody too.

I am uncertain whether the Staples center actually owns it's airspace above it (or whether any property does!(other than military or controlled areas)) but i do indeed feel that the operator had no business in being so low.

Adding up the facts it almost seemed that they wanted the drone to be hit out of the sky?