07/24/2014 at 3:49 pm #70503
Seattle’s famous sky-high tourist attraction is still standing after police received reports of a drone crash Tuesday at the Space Needle.
Space Needle security called police just before 8:30 PM after several guests reported seeing a small drone buzz the top of the Needle, and possibly crash into an observation Deck window. Witnesses then saw the drone—described as a white, quad-propeller unmanned aerial vehicle, equipped with a camera—glide to a hotel two blocks east of the Needle, where it landed inside a fifth floor room.
Police found no signs of damage to the top of the Space Needle.
Security staff pointed out the fifth floor hotel room where the drone had landed, and officers went and contacted a man inside. The man told police he’d just flown his drone past the Needle, but disputed he’d struck anything.
He then showed officers video he’d captured during the drone’s flight, which showed it hovering over the Space Needle’s observation deck as tourists waved. Nothing on the video indicated the drone had hit the Needle.
The man told police he was an Amazon.com employee visiting from out of state, and had recently purchased the drone at a hobby shop. Officers then gave the man a crash course on some of Seattle’s recent drone-related controversies, and he agreed not to fly his drone in public while in town.
So you just show up in Seattle, fire up the quadcopter and buzz the Space Needle? Yet the cops aren’t allowed to fly them at all? Probably just an Amazon test of their delivery drones delivering marijuana….07/24/2014 at 8:05 pm #70515
I’d like to see the video, it’s probably pretty cool.07/25/2014 at 7:50 am #70521
jburghParticipant07/25/2014 at 1:01 pm #70530
New new age hysteria!
(I don’t mean drones shooting video just anywhere, but in public places)07/25/2014 at 1:05 pm #70532
Thanks jburgh! Too bad the Youtube vid is there no longer.
Edog, re your reply to this in the cable company phone call thread: I wish the use of the word “drone” were restricted to things like predator drones the military uses. I’m not up on the FAA regs and too lazy to google them today, but I think they are regulated as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Something like a weight limit of 50 pounds, less than 400 ft flying height, always in visual contact, radio transmissions can’t be encrypted, and on and on and on (in federal bureaucratic style suitable for publication in the Federal Register).07/25/2014 at 7:52 pm #70554
Wow, reach out & touch someone!07/25/2014 at 7:57 pm #70556
You are too lazy to Google and you still know this?
I’m not up on the FAA regs and too lazy to google them today, but I think they are regulated as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Something like a weight limit of 50 pounds, less than 400 ft flying height, always in visual contact, radio transmissions can’t be encrypted, and on and on and on (in federal bureaucratic style suitable for publication in the Federal Register).
Okay then. Did you work for the FAA?07/25/2014 at 8:35 pm #70558
I think it’s awesome that I posted on the wrong thread and my question was still answered on the correct thread. I wish all the threads on the forum could be that disjointed.07/26/2014 at 12:23 am #70561
I should explain myself better pennygirl. I was not actually too lazy, just had a really crappy connection at lunch when I was trying to look the regs up. I thought the flight didn’t sound very kosher. Kept timing out on clicking on the google search results.
And, no, I didn’t work for FAA. The connection is that my late husband was a bit of an RC flight enthusiast and I have still sitting in my basement a bunch of parts that if assembled would likely make a radio-controlled tri-copter. I used to grill him about getting into trouble trying to fly it, so he had all the regs committed pretty much to memory.
So the RC pilot here actually did violate at least some FAA regs:
In the video, the craft is clearly looking down to the space needle, so it got to at least 600 feet and the maximum is 400 feet. You’re supposed to fly “away from populated areas” and there’s a lot of population between that hotel and the space needle.
Apparently the FAA calls them UAS not UAVs, so my memory is definitely not that good. Here’s a starter link at faa.gov: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
And here’s a link to the times article which has a working youtube clip of the flight: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024160460_apxspaceneedledrone.html07/26/2014 at 9:28 am #70565
Shelly (and jburgh) thanks for the video link. That was very cool, it takes some skill to fly and pan the camera like that, and the lighting was nice, shot during the “golden hour”.
I think it’s funny that they (the media) call quadcopters “drones” now to try to cash in on the click-bait generated by the military/police drones used to spy on and kill people.
And Penny why are you being such a crabapple lately? It is possible for people to know stuff that they didn’t learn about on Wikipedia.07/26/2014 at 9:53 am #70568
I’m well aware of that Ernie. I just thought it was interesting that Shelley knew that type of information, which made me think that maybe she actually once worked for the FAA.07/26/2014 at 6:39 pm #70579
And pennygirl, that was an absolutely fair question of me.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.