Another incident of stupidity

[sar104]

Some of the drone stuff - it's political (drones are so evil, if one is in the air, everything else must land) - for instance, a chopper is going to come out on top of any random drone/chopper collision 99.999% of the time (just guessing here).

It's best not to guess. The main vulnerabilities of helicopters to collisions are pretty well know - windshields and rotors. Non-military helicopter windshields will fail in a head on collision, and windshield/drone debris hitting the flight crew in the face on a low-level run over a fire is obviously a very bad scenario.

The rotors alone on a chopper - will blow any drone to kingdom come (not guessing). Likely same with airplanes (guessing again).

Not sure what you mean by "not guessing" here. There have been many cases of bird collisions penetrating helicopter windshields, and at least one reported drone collision doing the same. The downward deflection during the very short time under the props in forward flight is not sufficient to avoid the collision.

If you mean that direct collision with the main rotor will destroy the drone then yes - but it will also damage the rotor as demonstrate by the Phantom / Black Hawk collision in New York. And that was a military aircraft with a much more robust rotor than the typical composite rotor on a GA helicopter.

This post will incite some - but common sense demands it.
I'm not saying that we should be allowed to fly drones over fires - we shouldn't, and that is good law - but I am saying that if some jerk is flying a drone over the fire/whatever - that operations should continue while the cops find the pilot, take the drone down, and jail the pilot pending trial. IMHO.

The flight crews, incident management teams and the FAA disagree with your common sense.

 

[maelstrom]

Some of the drone stuff - it's political (drones are so evil, if one is in the air, everything else must land) - for instance, a chopper is going to come out on top of any random drone/chopper collision 99.999% of the time (just guessing here). The rotors alone on a chopper - will blow any drone to kingdom come (not guessing). Likely same with airplanes (guessing again).
This post will incite some - but common sense demands it.

You clearly know very little about real aircraft! Whilst most bird strikes (and you can extend this to include drone strikes) won't do serious damage to aircraft, they can. For helicopters in particular, a strike on a rotor can cause enough vibration to make it difficult to see the instruments clearly - been there, done that!

 

[smashse]

I posted an article where a confirmed Mavic 2 Pro went straight through the Windshield of a Military Grade Heli, and injured a crew member, and some just choose to completely ignore that and say it would be fine. And they obviously have little knowledge of manned aircraft. That aircraft would be down probably days for repairs/parts, and could not be used until it was. This was a really good case because it didn't hit the pilot, fuselage or rotors and would still take away that resource from the fire fighters possibly causing homes and businesses to be lost.

These people are risking their lives to save other peoples homes and businesses already. If you want to argue that firefighters don't die in these massive wildfires... I can't even.

 

[sar104]

I posted an article where a confirmed Mavic 2 Pro went straight through the Windshield of a Military Grade Heli, and injured a crew member, and some just choose to completely ignore that and say it would be fine. And they obviously have little knowledge of manned aircraft. That aircraft would be down probably days for repairs/parts, and could not be used until it was. This was a really good case because it didn't hit the pilot, fuselage or rotors and would still take away that resource from the fire fighters possibly causing homes and businesses to be lost.

These people are risking their lives to save other peoples homes and businesses already. If you want to argue that firefighters don't die in these massive wildfires... I can't even.

Also notable in that case was that the Mavic made it through the acrylic windshield relatively intact, demonstrating the different impact dynamics of a more rigid object such as a Mavic compared to a bird.

 

[Ty Pilot]

And for those that may have missed it, here is the video with super slow motion of the drone going through a Mooney's wing leading edge.

 

[AZDave]

I'm not saying that we should be allowed to fly drones over fires - we shouldn't, and that is good law - but I am saying that if some jerk is flying a drone over the fire/whatever - that operations should continue while the cops find the pilot, take the drone down, and jail the pilot pending trial. IMHO.

I'm going to take the pilot's judgement on that over yours.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Some of the drone stuff - it's political (drones are so evil, if one is in the air, everything else must land) - for instance, a chopper is going to come out on top of any random drone/chopper collision 99.999% of the time (just guessing here). The rotors alone on a chopper - will blow any drone to kingdom come (not guessing). Likely same with airplanes (guessing again).
This post will incite some - but common sense demands it.
I'm not saying that we should be allowed to fly drones over fires - we shouldn't, and that is good law - but I am saying that if some jerk is flying a drone over the fire/whatever - that operations should continue while the cops find the pilot, take the drone down, and jail the pilot pending trial. IMHO.

OK...that makes sense....the cops are occupied trying to control traffic in an emergency....they can just tell everyone not to move while they go look for a guy flying a drone and in the meantime the drone smashes into an emergency aircraft....surprised no one else thought of that

 

[Robert Prior]

That's an urban legend.

Apparently it is. Looks like the NRC engineer who told me the story in the 80s was pulling my leg. He told the story like it happened to his team, so I naturally believed him.

 

[Robert Prior]

Also notable in that case was that the Mavic made it through the acrylic windshield relatively intact, demonstrating the different impact dynamics of a more rigid object such as a Mavic compared to a bird.

View attachment 132357

View attachment 132358

That's pretty impressive.

A couple of years ago I saw a video from a flight club that put up a small drone (Phantom) and fly past it with a small airplane with a camera to show how hard the drone was to spot. They did multiple passes with both plane and drone at different altitudes. Can't locate the video now, but it really emphasized that as a pilot you basically have no time to react. Even knowing where the Phantom was hovering it was hard to spot until quite close — more a matter of realizing 'that was it' as you pass.

So yeah, anyone piloting in an emergency situation is not going to be able to see a drone in time to do much, and frankly they have a dangerous enough job that it's stupid to expect them to.

 

[sar104]

Apparently it is. Looks like the NRC engineer who told me the story in the 80s was pulling my leg. He told the story like it happened to his team, so I naturally believed him.

Yes - that particular myth has been making the rounds for decades. What's interesting, though, is that the underlying physics is correct - a frozen chicken would exert a much larger impact force and be able to penetrate much stronger targets.

 

[AZDave]

Apparently it is. Looks like the NRC engineer who told me the story in the 80s was pulling my leg. He told the story like it happened to his team, so I naturally believed him.

Yeah, that sounds like he was just trying to be funny. There are people out there, though, that I'm convinced make stuff up like that just to see how far it will travel. The same hold even worse for conspiracy theories.

 

[DoomMeister]

That's pretty impressive.

A couple of years ago I saw a video from a flight club that put up a small drone (Phantom) and fly past it with a small airplane with a camera to show how hard the drone was to spot. They did multiple passes with both plane and drone at different altitudes. Can't locate the video now, but it really emphasized that as a pilot you basically have no time to react. Even knowing where the Phantom was hovering it was hard to spot until quite close — more a matter of realizing 'that was it' as you pass.

So yeah, anyone piloting in an emergency situation is not going to be able to see a drone in time to do much, and frankly they have a dangerous enough job that it's stupid to expect them to.

This kind of places a new light on reports by pilots spotting a drone in their flight path. Spotting one against the sky is one thing, but against ground clutter has to be nigh unto impossible.

 

[sar104]

This kind of places a new light on reports by pilots spotting a drone in their flight path. Spotting one against the sky is one thing, but against ground clutter has to be nigh unto impossible.

It's harder, but not impossible at all. Even relatively small birds are easy to spot on final approach in a commercial airliner if you happen to be looking in their direction due to their motion relative to the ground, and that's at around 160 kts. So while there is no guarantee that a pilot will see a nearby drone, it's also perfectly credible if they do see one.

 

[DoomMeister]

It's harder, but not impossible at all. Even relatively small birds are easy to spot on final approach in a commercial airliner if you happen to be looking in their direction due to their motion relative to the ground, and that's at around 160 kts. So while there is no guarantee that a pilot will see a nearby drone, it's also perfectly credible if they do see one.

I agree that it is not impossible and if there is movement relative to the ground the human eye is quite adept at picking it up (especially if it is off of the central vision axis). Smaller drones like the Mavic series (yes there are others too) that are dark grey or black are even more difficult against trees or grass.

Do you think if they were easier to see that report numbers would be considerably higher?

 

[sar104]

I agree that it is not impossible and if there is movement relative to the ground the human eye is quite adept at picking it up (especially if it is off of the central vision axis). Smaller drones like the Mavic series (yes there are others too) that are dark grey or black are even more difficult against trees or grass.

Do you think if they were easier to see that report numbers would be considerably higher?

If we accept that objects of that size are visible but not obvious from an aircraft, then that would seem to suggest that not all that could have been seen, were seen. If that's correct then making them easier to see would be expected to increase the fraction that are seen, and so increase the total number of sightings.

 

[Robert Prior]

Yes - that particular myth has been making the rounds for decades. What's interesting, though, is that the underlying physics is correct - a frozen chicken would exert a much larger impact force and be able to penetrate much stronger targets.

Which was another reason to believe it — basic high school physics!

It might be something for one of those youtube chanels to do — fire both frozen and thawed chickens at targets and quantify how much deadlier frozen poultry is

 

[Robert Prior]

This kind of places a new light on reports by pilots spotting a drone in their flight path. Spotting one against the sky is one thing, but against ground clutter has to be nigh unto impossible.

I really wish I could find that video. Maybe someone with better google-fu than me would have better luck.

It may be that a pilot would be better at spotting the Phantom than I was, but even knowing roughly where the drone was I kept missing it. I recall the pilots saying that it was difficult to see as well. The were flying over a small field, so more clutter than at most airports — might have been easier to see the drone with a regular runway.

Phantom drone so white not dark.

 

[DoomMeister]

Phantom drone so white not dark.

Maybe why most reports are those in the Phantom class. White is easier to spot against most background clutter.

 

[Interficiam Stercore]

I posted an article where a confirmed Mavic 2 Pro went straight through the Windshield of a Military Grade Heli, and injured a crew member, and some just choose to completely ignore that and say it would be fine. And they obviously have little knowledge of manned aircraft. That aircraft would be down probably days for repairs/parts, and could not be used until it was. This was a really good case because it didn't hit the pilot, fuselage or rotors and would still take away that resource from the fire fighters possibly causing homes and businesses to be lost.

These people are risking their lives to save other peoples homes and businesses already. If you want to argue that firefighters don't die in these massive wildfires... I can't even.

I feel for the injured airman. I hear that just the windscreen on an inexpensive helicopter can be upwards of $30,000 dollars.

 

[Interficiam Stercore]

That's pretty impressive.

A couple of years ago I saw a video from a flight club that put up a small drone (Phantom) and fly past it with a small airplane with a camera to show how hard the drone was to spot. They did multiple passes with both plane and drone at different altitudes. Can't locate the video now, but it really emphasized that as a pilot you basically have no time to react. Even knowing where the Phantom was hovering it was hard to spot until quite close — more a matter of realizing 'that was it' as you pass.

So yeah, anyone piloting in an emergency situation is not going to be able to see a drone in time to do much, and frankly they have a dangerous enough job that it's stupid to expect them to.

Your post interests me. We have 100's maybe 1000's of reports of helicopters, prop planes, and jets spotting drones, every year, when they are flying at high speed. Yes, as you said, it's very difficult to spot a drone. The following question then arises; How are so many drones being spotted and reported by these fast moving aircraft, when they are so difficult to spot? It's very confounding.