I'm using the term that was used in the summary, which was almost certainly a quote from TFA.

If this thing was large enough to be hovering near the bridge and visible to the pilot of the police helicopter, it was almost certainly not a toy or model aircraft, so yes, in this case, it was a helicopter.

There is no indication that this was a "toy" or "model" aircraft. I would also appreciate a citation from the other commenter who said that toys were exempted from this, to see if the exemption covers something as large as this apparently was.

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent for FAA regulation well below "high altitude". Many of the FAA rules contain an exemption similar to "except as required for landing or takeoff", which also make it clear that the FAA has the authority to regulate aircraft activity at well below "high altitudes", since landings almost never occur at high altitude.

Yes. Loopholes based on lay use of terms that are specifically defined in the regulations.

and yet, Germany knew that we were in fact, spying on their citizens and giving German gov. information. For starters, we have stopped several AQ attacks on them because of that.
What they DID NOT know, was the spying on their gov, which I have to say was surprising.

We need to re-define patents. It should remain for hardware, but not software. Basically, we need to drop that method patent.

Fungus among us.

He preached Torah?

Harrumph. He makes vague statements about Law, in writings committed 60 years after his crucifixion.

Sermon on the Mount is what he taught.

I will say that I have long thought that USPO should start offering vetted keys. Just as they do passports, they would be ideal for doing state IDs and vetted keys. If more govs. offered up such things, then it would make it possible for publications and other groups to require a truly vetted key.

No, he is teaching at Taiwan. There are many Chinese natives that teach at Taiwan (and elsewhere for that matter).

Actually, that is a good idea. BUT, you have to have vetted signers.

Seriously, we read many stories here in which big deals are made of them, but as soon as I check that it has lead by Chinese Academicians (even if they are now working in the USA), I discount it. WHy? Because over and over, I see fraud in the publications, and here, I notice that many of these stories are being pushed by ACs. In a nutshell, these ppl are putting together fraudulent publications (generally, leaving out the negatives that they came across), and then marketing them to make themselves look good.

Yes, some of you will scream that I am racists, and yet, over and over and over, this occurs.

Nobody ever wants to go on strike, any more than employers want a lockout. It's the nuclear option, used as a last resort.

Ah. I see. I havn't had points on the Dot since 2011.

They're also quite familiar with the standard recording of all dispatch radio traffic. It is no shock to any pilot, either.

But there is. 14CFR91 is the basic regulation of aviation. It applies to:

Â91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

No exemption for unmanned aircraft. And aircraft are defined as:

Â1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That includes "drones". As for the "VFR separation rules" some others keep mentioning, here it is:

Â91.111 Operating near other aircraft. (a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

Now, if the drone operator did a 180 to fly back over the helicopter, then the drone pilot broke this rule. Was he breaking any other rules prior to that?

Â91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

The bridge is a pretty tall structure, and I think New York City constitutes a congested area. If the drone was not higher than the bridge by at least 1000 feet, he's breaking this rule.

What about the helicopter? Continuing:

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surfaceâ" (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA

Since the helicopter pilot was in contact with ATC, one can assume that the FAA was ok with this.

In short, helicopters have a different set of rules than other aircraft, and drones are covered by exiting regulations.

I really can't figure out what you are referring to here. What is "reversing in ones car"? Sitting backwards? Or parking on-street opposite the flow of traffic?