Drone nearly collides with helicopter, operator gets caught
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
The operator violated the '400 ft ceiling' guideline and the 'remain well clear of manned aircraft' guideline, and so could face civil penalties from the FAA.
I would guess that if the operator's behavior was malicious or caused active harm, it would also be possible to be charged under other laws (e.g. manslaughter).
As for drone pilots keeping clear of aircraft, that is only possible when the aircraft are maintaining visual contact with all drone operators on the ground.
Ideally drone pilots would be able to receive smething similar to ADS-B signals and the ground control stations would all direct drones away from nearby aircraft. Sadly the resolution and accuracy of ADS-B in all four dimensions is insufficient to allow automatic avoidance of scenarios like the one posted.
Huh? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article states that the encounter was at 700 to 800 feet.
I wouldn't be allowed to murder someone and then hide behind that excuse.
Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted.
I agree the author of the article should also have done his research and helped to spread the word (as should the CHP officer whose only advice was to use "common sense" - which is different for a CHP officer than it is for the common person).
There isn't any law to throw (most of) them in jail under.
The FAA guidelines the operator violated carry civil, not criminal penalties.
Flying model aircraft could conceivably result in Reckless Endangerment or Manslaughter charges. However I doubt that most violations of the FAA guidelines warrant such charges.
And it deeply saddens me to think that it may cost someone's life before anything will change.
People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any concrete evidence of actual harm.
But threaten the "right to arm bears", and from some corners all hell breaks loose.
How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the context of improving personal safety when there's _so_ much other low hanging fruit where real differences could be made?
For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different weapon, such as arson or poison gas.
Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters.
So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong, reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks loose."
That gun control is such a hot-button political issue is why this is a bad comparison and why even mentioning it looks like an attempt to wreck the discussion.
The current problem is twofold: 1) We need better education of new UAS owners (and articles like this one don't help). 2) We need sane new rules and guidelines that allow drone operators to safely and legally do the sorts of things that are currently not allowed (autonomous operation, FPV flight outside of line-of-sight, and commercial operations)
I think 2) is important because you need buy-in from the community so that they self-police and self-educate. If your rules are asinine and un-informed you will alienate pilots and your enforcing job will be MUCH harder.
I call bullshit.
If you really had 'close calls' in you area, then across the country/world and all the airports there would have been a drone strike by now.
I can't find any evidence of that.
And even if/when one accidentally strikes, there's no evidence people will die.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/wh...
Of course you couldn't just go on Amazon and buy an RTF easy to fly machine at that time. You had to go to a hobby store and spend 2 - 3 months building it.. from scratch. I'm talking putting the wing together piece by piece. Then you had to know someone who already knew how to fly to teach you, or you crash your expensive glider that you spent the last 2 months building.
As time went on you could then by kits that had the wing and such prebuilt. Then as the internet caught on people's attention spans dwindled. RTF started to be come more a thing.
Then as time went on more, people didn't have the attention span to fly a 4 channel RC plane, let alone a 6 channel collective pitch helicopter.
Then vuala you get quadcopters.
Really? Unless the 'copter was flying at a very high speed, I'd deem this very unlikely. I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can handle hail? I don't think a small drone like a Phantom would pack the power of hail.
I'm not saying that this is OK; but hyperbole bothers me. Drone operator should be prosecuted, but not to the extent that he could have crashed through the window and brought down the helicopter.
F = MA
Thus, even though the drone is heavier than hail, it won't likely be going as fast as hail (such that its deceleration when hitting the helicopter would be less significant).
Thus, the comparison is apt. If we had 3 lb hail, it would have much more force than most 3 lb drones bc of its speed.
I can guarantee you that a helicopter windscreen cannot handle 3lb hail. If such a hailstorm were ever encountered (unlikely, the record in the US is 1lb 15oz) then the helicopter would be completely destroyed.
If we consider a somewhat more sane hailstone size of 8cm, that has a terminal velocity of about 170km/h and weighs about 1.5lbs. And a helicopter is not going to survive flying through a storm like that either. This drone, by comparison, weighs twice as much. The helicopter's cruising speed is about 245km/h, so that would be about the impact speed.
I don't understand why anyone would think that a 3lb chunk of machinery moving at 150MPH relative to a helicopter wouldn't go through the windscreen.
I also don't understand why everyone in this thread is apparently so eager to minimize the risks presented here. There are some good arguments to be made about not over-regulating and about the low probability of an actual impact, but the attempts to downplay the potential effects of an impact should one occur are getting pretty crazy.
UAVs, on the other hand, have lots of interesting uses which are also potentially dangerous. That means your risk is from normal users who are just ignorant or careless, not just pranksters. Thankfully there are not a lot of people out there willing to deliberately endanger aircraft, but there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people.
Worries about three pounds of machinery coming through the windscreen aren't really "paranoid" so much as "justifiably cautious."
Bird strikes aren't all that common. Certainly they happen, but it's not an ongoing massacre up there. For one, birds are equipped with good vision and hearing, and a strong instinct for self-preservation. When a small aircraft does hit a large bird, the result is extremely messy and sometimes fatal.
I'm imagining it's a risk, but not like the helicopter is doomed to crash into the ground.
Bird strikes do cause significant damage with some regularity, even if it's not too common.
On the other hand, a drone which can climb high enough to almost hit a cruising police helicopter is a drone which can climb high enough to get sucked up by a commercial jet during takeoff or landing. Jet turbines are actually quite fragile, and something the size and mass of a bird or a drone can easily wreck one. (Ever see that video where the guy feeds a brick to a washing machine? It's like that, only much more energetic and not nearly so funny.) Bird strikes in such circumstances have been known to result in fatal crashes; a drone strike could easily do likewise.
Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if that fact had more to do than any other with the heavy penalties apparently being contemplated in this case; despite there having been no harm done this time, I imagine some of the people involved in deciding what to do about it are thinking it'd be good to try to deter anyone from doing something similarly stupid around an airport, where it might well actually kill people.
What happens when the drone's emergency behaviour is to either hold position or simply fall out of the sky?
New subtitle: Alleged offender may face prosecution for the standard charges associated with this activity.
This aircraft could only loosely be considered a drone to begin with.
I don't see why your proposed title/subtitle are better. The most interesting thing here is not the violation of regulations, but the near miss with a manned aircraft.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but it's clear that right now there's no community consensus on the technical definition of "drone" anything more rigorous than the "I don't know what obscenity is, but know it when I see it" argument.
Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? Does it need to carry a camera? Does it need to be a multirotor? Is there a size limit? Is my 1.5oz CX10 a "drone"? My ~1kg GPS guided autonomous quadrotor? Where's the line? How about my 450g non-autonomous FPV one? Or my 320g one that doesn't even have a camera?
Was the heli pilot any more at-risk that if it's been a buzzard or a goose?
(Note: I think the guy was a jerk for being up at 7-800 feet with a chopper nearby, but nobody died - there's no suggestion that anybody even came close to dying. Is the situation and it's outcome any worse than it he'd been somewhat recklessly driving at 90mph on the highway rather than somewhat recklessly flying at 800 feet over it? If you do 90 in your car and hit someone, they hold you accountable. If you do 90 in your car and don't hit anyone else but happen to be observed by the police, they don't penalise you as though you just killed someone, they write you a ticket. Should this guy be treated any differently?)
Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? I see no use, past or present, that implies autonomy. Camera? Again, no. Multirotor? Historically no, current media usage maybe. Size limit? Don't think so.
A large hobby drone is definitely more of a risk than a buzzard or goose. Birds can dodge. They're not always successful, but the instinct for self-preservation usually gets them out of the way, at least for slow aircraft like a typical helicopter. Helicopters make a ton of noise too, which probably helps a lot.
Going 90MPH on the highway is a pretty major offense in many places. Here in Virginia that's an automatic reckless driving misdemeanor charge that's likely to result in jail time. No, they don't punish you the same as they would if you actually kill somebody, but then there's no indication they'll punish this guy as if he killed somebody, so I have no idea why you'd mention that.
IOW, people want to feel special so they are calling their toys by a name the feel is better.
http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro
Looks like a drone to me. But a big and expensive drone, I admit. Weight is 1.3 Kg, about the same as a duck. Aren't helicopter windows able to resist duck hits?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/helicopter.crash.cause/
On January 4, 2009, a dual-engine Sikorsky S-76C helicopter crashed into marshy terrain near Morgan City, Louisiana, about seven minutes after takeoff from Amelie, Louisiana. The copter was on a charter flight to a Gulf of Mexico oil rig. Both pilots were killed, along with six of the seven passengers, according to the NTSB. Heard on the helicopter's cockpit voice recorder was a "loud bang, followed by sounds consistent with rushing wind and a power reduction on both engines," according to the statement. "The aircraft crashed several seconds later." Feathers and other debris, identified as belonging to a red-tailed hawk, were collected from the helicopter's canopy and windshield, the NTSB said.
So why aren't windows typically polycarbonate? A few layers of that can stop bullets.
Fine, call it a UAV if you want, but it's a drone to me.
There are stories of Vietnam-era military pilots using the rotor's blades to cut down small trees to rescue American soldiers in harrowing circumstances.
Regardless, all airborn vehicles should be able to transmit their location to other aircraft. Rather than forcing drone pilots to get FAA approval, this technology should be built into all drones. Bad actors will get culled out quickly and all non-transponding drones could be considered a threat.
A flock of geese dropped an airliner into the Hudson, but we still all buy plane tickets when it suits us, because we acknowledge that while there are risks and immensely tragic consequences - the balance of probabilities makes you seem like a crazy-person if you say you're afraid of flying.
Has there been a controlled test where someone flew a drone purposefully into the rotor of a helicopter?
I'd be curious to know that. (It reminds me of the apocryphal chicken cannon story http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.asp)
A few things to keep in mind though. The incident here was at "700-800 feet", the chance of the heli doing Vmax at that height is pretty small (although in this ase it was described as a police heli chasing a car, so _maybe_ it was getting along a a fair clip?). A quadcopter owner in general is pretty motivated to _not_ have his expensive toy smashed up by aviation traffic, in much the same way as birds probably try pretty hard to dodge planes/helis.
I think too many people are miscalculating the risks and consequences of "drones" - and it mostly bugs me because they're toys I enjoy playing with (which make me somewhat likely to be doing that miscalculating wrong as well, in the opposite direction…) I also enjoy riding motorcycles, and theres a fairli locally-famous quote here from one of the very senior motor vehicle bureaucrats saying "If motorcycles were invented today, we'd have banned them immediately." In retrospect that would have been "wrong" - motorcycles are "dangerous", sure, but about the same order of magnitude of dangerous as high school football or horse riding - activities which we as society deem "a bit dangerous but perfectly acceptable".
And while I know neither you nor I have a dog in the US public opinion fight, I find the hysterical handwringing over the dangers of hobby drone immensely hypocritical from a country where 2/3rds of the elected politicians are deeply in bed with the NRA, and there's an entire industry profiting largely from locking young black men up for use and sale of pot... When the "drone" accident rate approaches within say three orders of magnitude of, say, the drink driving accident rate or even the falling-off-ladders rate, perhaps the media hysteria and the calls from non-participating parties to "ban it all immediately and lock everybody up!" just make people look ignorant and spiteful.
(And Jacques, not sure why I'm currently engaging in "robust discussion" on at least two threads in HN with you right now - know that I respect you greatly, while disagreeing occasionally...)
I've seen drones flying here that were lifting DSLRs, 8 motors, very powerful and quite heavy. A thing like that would do serious damage just by falling out of the sky, let alone on impact with a fast moving leading edge.
Agreed that the drone risk is oversold. But what bugs me is that these morons that do this spoil drones as a useful and recreational thing for everybody else. It won't be long and 'drone operator' and 'irresponsible asshole' will be synonymous. It would be really nice if with every drone sold there would be a simple booklet stating the rules for the location the drone is sold into and some kind of mechanism that requires you to read that document before you can operate the drone.
(I've not has the courage/foolishness to try it with a larger quad, or even with that little one with carbon fibre props instead of plastic ones...)
I have an uninformed opinion that collisions are not spectacularly uncommon, nor spectacularly serious. I wonder if the magnitude of risk increase we're talking about (by allowing drone operation under current rules, which this incident was not...) exceeds, say, allowing smokers (with their increased risk of coronary problems) to be commercial pilots?
A bird is a pretty soft item compared to a drone though.
In any case, I'd guess that the increased risk is quite small at the moment. The question is what it will look like in 10-20 years as this stuff gets more popular and technology continues to drive the price down. How this stuff is handled today will set the stage.
(I know a few hours doing ~100kmh at around 1 meter altitude certainly smashes more than a few bugs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigiain/115614482/ )
It was a DJI Phantom 3 Advanced [1]. Those weigh 2.8 pounds [2]. A 3 pound red-tailed hawk can take down an AH-1W Cobra attack helicopter [3]. I doubt that a 2.8 pound drone is less dangerous than a 3 pound bird, or that a military attack helicopter is significantly more delicate than civilian helicopters.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-coll...
[2] http://store.dji.com/product/phantom-3-advanced
[3] http://www.10news.com/news/report-bird-strike-caused-deadly-...
Perhaps you've hit upon a decent yardstick by which to evaluate the dangers of consumer "drones", if it's lighter than an ISO-standard hawk or goose, it's something which the aviation people need to be dealing with anyway. If the heli pilot was flying above a highway in a manner where an unfortunately located bird might have caused him to crash - potentially onto a roadway full of bystanders cars - perhaps their behaviour was more reckless than the Phantom pilots...
A lot of people are hurt or killed in car crashes with wildlife. Moose are especially deadly, but deer are a common menace. Should we then take this to mean that it's OK for anyone to put a large, heavy obstacle in a roadway in front of an oncoming car, since this is a danger that drivers have to deal with anyway? Or should we say that animals doing it is not an excuse, and punish people who endanger the lives of others?
You don't know what you are talking about. That is not feasible. There are large numbers of model aircraft that cannot carry the weight of a GPS unit, let alone the transponder. This would impose a huge and unnecessary burden on existing hobbyists with thousands of hours of safe flight who generally carry 2.5 million in liability insurance.
The radio equipment needed to transmit the data from the GPS unit is a good point, for sure. But any model aircraft that can't carry the weight of a GPS unit itself won't pose a threat.
They aren't that big. Many FPV aircraft carry GPS units for automated return to base functionality and crash recovery. However, there is a significant number of UAVs that are extremely light and weight sensitive (microquads and ultralight gliders).
> any model aircraft that can't carry the weight of a GPS unit itself is won't pose a threat.
Right. It is quite likely that any requirement to carry transponders will be associated with certain weight limits and/or flight types. UAVs that will operate out of line-of-sight or that will operate autonomously will likely (and should) be required to carry transponders and have additional licensing/registration/insurance.