# Incident 20200531021309I: Tucson, AZ, May 31, 2020

- Type: FAA incident report (Accident/Incident Data System), as reported
- Date: May 31, 2020, 22:30 local time
- Place: Tucson, AZ
- Damage: No damage
- Phase of flight: Hover/Holding
- Location: 32.2217° N, 110.9265° W: Placed by OpenAirDocs: center of Tucson, AZ, within about 9 miles (OpenAirDocs)
- Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=32.2217&lon=-110.9265&mi=10
- Aircraft: NONE (not matched to a registry record)
- People aboard: 0
- Fatal injuries: 0
- Other injuries: 0
- FAA source: FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal (https://asip.faa.gov/)
- Page: https://openairdocs.org/incident/20200531021309I

## Narrative

As the FAA filed it, in capitals; the FAA replaces private details with ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^.

ON MAY 31, 2020 AROUND 2230 HOURS, ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ WAS OPERATING A SMALL UAS OVER A POLICE STATION AT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^. OFFICERS REPORTED A DRONE OPERATING OVER A CROWD OF PROTESTERS AND INTERFERING WITH ONE OF THEIR OWN HELICOPTERS, N305PD WHEN IT CAME ON SCENE. THE PILOTS IN THE HELICOPTER REPORTED THE DRONE WAS ERRATIC BY MAKING SUDDEN AND QUICK ATTITUDE CHANGES AND OPERATING AT TIMES CLOSE ENOUGH TO THEM, AROUND 50 FEET AND WHERE THEY NEEDED TO MAKE EVASIVE MANEUVERS TO PREVENT A COLLISION. OFFICERS REPORTED THE DRONE APPEARED TO LOSE BATTERY POWER INDICATED BY THE CHANGING IN THE LIGHT INTENSITY AND LIGHT FLASHES ON THE DRONE AND LANDED IN A PARKING LOT OF A PIZZA BUSINESS LOCATED AT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ WHERE SEVERAL GROUND UNITS WERE ABLE TO SECURE THE DRONE AS IT LANDED. THE OPERATOR OF THE DRONE APPROACHED GROUND UNITS AND SAID HE LOST CONTROL AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS INJURED. HE STATED TO THIS INSPECTOR ON THE TELEPHONE, WHEN THEIR HELICOPTER CAME IN TO THE AREA HE WAS NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONTROLS. HE SAID THE DRONE HAD AN OBSTACLE AVOID FEATURE AND HE THINKS THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO LOSE CONTROL. HE SAID HIS BROTHER RECENTLY PURCHASED THE DRONE AND THAT HE WANTED TO TEST IT OUT AND HEARD ABOUT THE EVENT GOING ON AT THE POLICE STATION AND WANTED TO SEE IF HE COULD GET SOME FOOTAGE OF IT.  HE SAID HE OPERATES FOR HOBBY AND WAS NOT AWARE AT THAT TIME, OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TYPE OF FLYING HE DID THAT NIGHT. HE SAID HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY CERTIFICATES AND WAS AWARE HE HAD TO GET THE DRONE REGISTERED BUT THOUGHT THERE WAS A GRACE TIME FOR GETTING THAT DONE. HE SAID WHAT HE KNOWS NOW, IT REALLY WAS A STUPID THING TO DO.  OVERALL IT APPEARS THE OPERATOR WHO IS A NON-AVIATION PERSON HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. THIS INSPECTOR COUNSELLED THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE EXTENT OF THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS, PART 101 REGARDING HOBBY AND RECREATIONAL FLYING ALONG WITH FOLLOWING A COMMUNITY BASED SET OF SAFETY GUIDELINES AND IF HE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT OF OPERATION THEN HE BECOMES A PART 107 OPERATOR. HE WAS FURTHER COUNSELLED ON PART 107 REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF PART 48.

From the FAA Accident/Incident Data System. Reports are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. For accidents, the NTSB's own investigation is the fuller record.

---
OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.