Hollywood drone pilot admits he crashed gizmo into cop chopper, triggering emergency landing
- Reference: 1610795353
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/
- Source link:
Andrew Rene Hernandez, 22, this week [1]pleaded guilty to [2]recklessly operating an unmanned aircraft, a US federal crime that could have seen him imprisoned for ten years if the accident had resulted in serious bodily injury or death.
[3]
Fortunately, no one was harmed. Around midnight of September 18, Hernandez flew his camera-fitted remote-control drone over a crime scene near his home in Hollywood, Los Angeles, to a get a good view of the commotion. A pharmacy had been burgled, and the officers who showed up had requested some eyes in the skies.
As Hernandez's flying gizmo – a DJI Mavic Pro Platinum M1X – ascended, it smashed into the bottom of a police helicopter keeping watch above. The drone was immediately obliterated, and came crashing down while the cop copter had to land at nearby Hooper Heliport and check for damage. We're told the drone pranged the nose, antenna, and the bottom cowlings.
[4]
“If the drone had struck the helicopter’s main rotor instead of the fuselage, it could have brought the helicopter down,” testified FBI special agent William Richau in court filings
[5]PDF
.'A guy in a jetpack' seen flying at 3,000ft within few hundred yards of passenger jet landing at LA airport [6]READ MORE
"The drone could have easily hit and damaged the rotor or other critical parts of the helicopter like the windshield, which could have caused the helicopter to crash or distract the pilot."
Thankfully it was Hernandez's drone that came off worse, although shards of its remains plowed through the rear window of a car parked near the pharmacy. The Los Angeles Police Department searched the area and found chunks of the drone, including its camera and serial number.
From there the FBI obtained a search warrant to access its camera and the SD card lodged inside it, and uncovered photographs of Hernandez. In one of the images, Hernandez is standing in front of a car, and the FBI traced the license plate to his address.
Hernandez was cuffed, charged, and admitted one minor misdemeanor count of unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft. He is scheduled to appear in court for sentencing on April 12, where he faces a maximum of one-year imprisonment and a fine of a quarter of a million dollars.
[7]
He probably won’t have to pay anywhere near that amount, though. “The parties currently believe that the applicable amount of restitution is approximately $1,000, but recognize and agree that this amount could change based on facts that come to the attention of the parties prior to sentencing,” [8]according to his guilty plea agreement. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/hollywood-man-pleads-guilty-federal-charge-he-recklessly-operated-drone-collided-and
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39B
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_emergent_tech/front&sz=300x250&tile=2&c=2YAMbpHAXq-dhZGY5V2msAgAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_emergent_tech/front&sz=300x250%7C300x252%7C300x600&tile=3&c=33YAMbpHAXq-dhZGY5V2msAgAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/01/15/drone.pdf
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/01/jetpack_aviator_lax/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_emergent_tech/front&sz=300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251&tile=4&c=44YAMbpHAXq-dhZGY5V2msAgAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18716110/21/united-states-v-hernandez/
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
What a CLINT
Not really the brightest bulb, was he?
"About midnight..." WHAT? What a Richard Cranium. This act will give the FAA (and other country's associated agencies) more grist to stop legitimate drone flyers even further.
However, one wonders about the altitude at which the drone and police chopper came together, and if either or both had recognition lights on. From memory, the US regs are no higher than 400' AGL for drones?
POLAIR choppers here are renowned for flying at night with zero lights on.
Re: Not really the brightest bulb, was he?
The helicopter wasn't in any real danger and as would expected the collision resulted in the destruction of the DJI and minor damage to the helicopter. Both the FAA and law enforcement have a vested interest in hyping up the incident. Law enforcement's all about 'control' of every situation it finds itself in. The FAA's motivation may be bit different.
We're currently in a bit of a tricky situation in the US with UAVs because the new FAA rules for UAVs are overly intrusive and to a large extent technically infeasible. These rules were needed because the proliferation of cheap consumer drones, drones than anyone could fly, meant they were turning up in all sorts of places they shouldn't, presenting a danger to the public and airspace users. Since the FAA can't figure out how to regulate them they've ended up lumping everything that flies into this category, interfering with a hobby that's not only been coexisting with aircraft operations for a half-century or more but also has contributed significantly to the development of aviation. (Their rules could also be construed to applying to things we're used to thinking of as toys such as kites.) The FAA is demanding a technical solution that provides the same identification and real time flight information as ADS-B (without using ADS-B -- they're not that stupid) using some yet to be determined technology that maybe used "Bluetooth" or "WiFi" but definitely not based on the Internet. The result is a bit of a crisis in credibility which results on them coming down hard on any identified miscreant, the traditional response of a bureaucracy that needs people to 'respect its authority'.
Damage to main rotor
I pretty much doubt that the drone could have damaged the main rotor enough for it to go down.. they are reinforced. The tail one.. difficult to hit but way weaker.
Anyway the idiot is either that, a idiot or crashed on purpose. As he had an sdcard on it, I assume he is just incredibly stupid.
Idiots like him have ruined a hobby for the rest of us.
Re: Damage to main rotor
Rotors have a significant down draft and to make contact it would have to approach the drone from below or the drone be ahead.
Re: Damage to main rotor
For the tail rotor, it could jam in the pitch control mechanism (or Fenestron) or cause damage that unbalanced a blade/fan and let vibration do the rest.
Re: Damage to main rotor
Don't forget the possibility of being swallowed by the engine air intake.
I always find it strange that a sentence doesn't reflect the actual crime but seems to depend largely on the outcome.
Fly a drone into a chopper, superficial damage - a year inside
Fly a drone into a chopper, injury or death - 200 years inside.
Notice the crime is the same in both cases, and it's not as if the perp had any control over the outcome.
Because it would be illogical to base the sentencing on the worst possible outcome... the chopper could have crashed into a hospital for orphans during puppies and kittens day, setting the building on fire...
Someone could throw a punch and hit someone - that's assault or battery, but depending on the injury, it could also be ABH, GBH, or even manslaughter. The same force applied to that punch could result in a range of outcomes.
Law will always take into account any mitigating or escalating circumstances, and the outcome of a criminal action will often set a distinction in its classification (attempted murder vs murder for another example) and in the sentencing received accordingly.
This is the USA we are talking about. Logical sentencing packed its bags and emigrated a long time ago.
Not just the US
The same rules exist elsewhere. In the UK if you're caught driving when drunk you'll get a minimum 1 year driving ban and a hefty fine. If you kill someone when driving drunk you'll face jail time. More severe consequences for the crime make a big difference to the perceived severity of the crime itself.
Helicopter danger
I've stated this before here, and for many years before that. I don't feel we should be using helicopters above residential areas as they are too liable to crash. As transport to oil rigs, fine, only risking their own lives. But for rich people avoiding road traffic, never.
Police in Scotland misuse their helicopters just because they have them, for no good reason. Sometimes they fly above residences to search for the heat signature of cannabis farms - knock on the doors instead. The fatal Clutha helicopter crash in Glasgow was launched to search on suspicion of someone trespassing on railway lines. A 'crime' that would either have ended harmlessly, as it did, or one fatality at most.
I have no problem with unarmed police drones.
It seems unusually lenient for endangering an aircraft. Good of the cops to get a warrant to access the camera although the cynic in me wonders if it was done after the event and necessary to present the evidence in court.