Another incident of stupidity

[Interficiam Stercore]

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.

The reports of my death have been highly exaggerated; OOPS wrong phrase, The number of drone sightings by manned aircraft have been highly exaggerated. Who knows.

 

[Robert Prior]

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

Also, Phantom-shaped drones are most commonly seen in the media, they're what shows up as stock shots to illustrate unrelated stories*, their profile is what's on signs and government websites…

I suspect that a Phantom is what the general public thinks of when they think "drone". So it doesn't surprise me that that is what people remember seeing — memory is more plastic than most people realize.


*I've seen media stories about homemade/experimental drones illustrated with a stock shot of a Phantom. I've even seen pictures of a Phantom used to illustrate a story about drone strikes in Pakistan!

 

[Robert Prior]

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.

I think two effects are at work.

Our brains are wired to see patterns, so it is hard to see something without automatically classifying it as something you already know. Drones are also in the news, so this will tend to increase the number of unknown objects reported as drones. Hence false sightings.

Also, a lot more drones are being sold, marketed as toys, selfie cameras, etc. In Canada the big box stores don't mention when selling that you need to have a license to fly a drone (250g or heavier), and don't mention the restrictions on where you can fly, so a lot of people have bought a cool toy and have no idea of their legal responsibilities — and when they go on Youtube they see all manner of people doing cool-looking reckless and illegal things without mentioning that they are reckless and illegal — and so they fly like that. Hence more ignorant/stupid people flying drones where they shouldn't.

So lots of false reports, but also more real incidents too.


(Last week I saw someone flying a Mavic to the east of me, over a shopping centre/apartment complex/major road. Built-up area, lots of vehicles and people, and well inside the control zone for our airport*. They were just buzzing around, swooping and spiralling, so I really doubt it was a professional with an Advanced License and an SFOC from Transport Canada. Probably a new pilot playing around or showing off to friends, but in an incredibly unsafe manner. Did they know it was unsafe and illegal? Possibly not, but then we also get idiots who aim lasers at low-flying aircraft for kicks and giggles, so possibly they just didn't care.)


*Not so close as to require unlocking from DJI, but close enough to require you to click the "I accept responsibility" button before taking off.

 

[Interficiam Stercore]

I think two effects are at work.

Our brains are wired to see patterns, so it is hard to see something without automatically classifying it as something you already know. Drones are also in the news, so this will tend to increase the number of unknown objects reported as drones. Hence false sightings.

Also, a lot more drones are being sold, marketed as toys, selfie cameras, etc. In Canada the big box stores don't mention when selling that you need to have a license to fly a drone (250g or heavier), and don't mention the restrictions on where you can fly, so a lot of people have bought a cool toy and have no idea of their legal responsibilities — and when they go on Youtube they see all manner of people doing cool-looking reckless and illegal things without mentioning that they are reckless and illegal — and so they fly like that. Hence more ignorant/stupid people flying drones where they shouldn't.

So lots of false reports, but also more real incidents too.


(Last week I saw someone flying a Mavic to the east of me, over a shopping centre/apartment complex/major road. Built-up area, lots of vehicles and people, and well inside the control zone for our airport*. They were just buzzing around, swooping and spiralling, so I really doubt it was a professional with an Advanced License and an SFOC from Transport Canada. Probably a new pilot playing around or showing off to friends, but in an incredibly unsafe manner. Did they know it was unsafe and illegal? Possibly not, but then we also get idiots who aim lasers at low-flying aircraft for kicks and giggles, so possibly they just didn't care.)


*Not so close as to require unlocking from DJI, but close enough to require you to click the "I accept responsibility" button before taking off.

Those thoughts and ideas also entered my mind and for good reason as you explained. I just can't shake the possibility or even probability of an over exagerated sighting list. But as you stated in your example, there are lots and lots of newbie fliers totally unaware of the regulations

 

[maelstrom]

How are so many drones being spotted and reported by these fast moving aircraft, when they are so difficult to spot?

Probably because the pilot just happened to be looking in exactly the right direction and there was sufficient relative movement to trigger an alert in the brain. Over the years as a professional helicopter pilot, I spotted plenty of birds (and, to a lesser extent, model aircraft/drones) in time to avoid them. I also hit many birds, with varying degrees of damage, because by the time I saw them, or recognised the threat, it was too late to do anything about it. It could be something large a long way away (no threat) or something small and very close (potentially a big threat). Your brain has to quickly decide which it is whilst also dealing with flying the aircraft. Relative movement is a big factor here. Even with something as large as a full sized aircraft, if there’s no relative movement your brain often doesn’t register it until it’s very close. You only need to look at investigations into mid-air collisions (or near misses) to see the problem.

 

[Interficiam Stercore]

Probably because the pilot just happened to be looking in exactly the right direction and there was sufficient relative movement to trigger an alert in the brain. Over the years as a professional helicopter pilot, I spotted plenty of birds (and, to a lesser extent, model aircraft/drones) in time to avoid them. I also hit many birds, with varying degrees of damage, because by the time I saw them, or recognised the threat, it was too late to do anything about it. Relative movement is the key here. Even with something as large as a full sized aircraft, if there’s no relative movement your brain often doesn’t register it until it’s very close. You only need to look at investigations into mid-air collisions (or near misses) to see the problem.

I have a question. If I look away from say, a Mav Air2 or even the slightly larger Mav2, I usualy can't find it at a distance 1,000-1500ft even when i move it back and forth or stop or whatever. So when a manned AC pilot says he saw a done, It must be a very big deal. It must be at 1,000-1,500 ft OR CLOSER to the manned AC pilot. Thus, a manned aircraft being able to see a drone at all, it must be TOO CLOSE. Is this why the term "near miss" is often used?. Is this speculation correct?

 

[maelstrom]

Thus, a manned aircraft being able to see a drone at all, it must be TOO CLOSE. Is this why the term "near miss" is often used?. Is this speculation correct?

My experience has been that if you actually see one (birds or drones), it’s usually a few hundred metres at the very most, and often much closer. So if you see one, it’s definitely too close for comfort.

 

[CJRed]

I think the same way - SOMETHING need to be done.
1 could be throwing up a TFR for non-firefighting aircraft (I know, I know - if they're dumb enough to fly in an emergency situation, they'd ignore a TFR)
2 could be some type of jammer. (There is an article on here about UK doing Jammer testing - Jamming Trial UK) The tech is available. I don't know the range.

The thing is if their house was in danger, they likely wouldn't want air tankers grounded when they could save their house because of an unathorized drone.

One hit of a water hose would take care of one.

 

[jaswalt]

I remember the story of when they found a scuba diver about a mile out inland and they wondered how he got there, turns out he accidentally got picked up by a helo scooping water for a fire ,

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain.

Apparently there are screens or some other device that keeps solid objects from being sucked into the aircraft for use on fires, so fish and people are not likely to be dumped inland. It was a funny story, though.

 

[jaswalt]

I find I can see about as far as I want 75 feet above ground. NO fixed wing/helicopter should be or ever would be flying at that altitude unless they are crashing. I think we and the FAA need to use a little common sense. I’m not endangering any other aircraft by flying 75 feet above the ground.

Having lived in SoCal for most of my life, I can tell you confidently that firefighting aircraft fly at insanely low altitudes. During one fire near my last year there, the bombers were ONLY 75 feet above my house. I could feel the wind from their wings and smell their exhaust every time they passed overhead. The fire they were fighting was on the side and at the base of a steep hill just over a mile away. Also, I had 2 neighbors with small ponds near my property large enough for the helicopters to dip from. They are much lower than 75 feet when they approach whatever pond is supplying their water. For the 14 hours they fought that portion of the massive fire it was like living on the deck of an aircraft carrier. I can also say, not one of the aircraft was crashing. And while this altitude is not typical, it does happen. In mountainous terrain it happens a lot.

 

[jaswalt]

Mind you if that lithium ion battery catches fire you will only exacerbate a forest fire.

I would think the risk of lipo batteries causing a fire if they malfunction is true whether or not the drone is flying in the vicinity of a fire, not only "if" flying near a fire.

 

[jaswalt]

So if helicopters or tanker aircraft encounter a drone, are they in danger of being brought down from a collision with a drone, most of which are under 2 kg, or even 1 kg?

I'm not saying people who fly into these areas shouldn't be penalized.

Just trying to understand how a tiny drone would interfere with firefighting operations. Would a 2 kg drone cause the rotors of the helicopter to get damaged, making them fall out of the sky?

Or those larger tanker planes, would those props be broken?

Why wouldn't they face risks from bird strikes? There may not be too many birds which are 1 or 2 kg but there are a lot more of them.

Keep in mind that some tankers use turbine or turbofan engines and ingesting a drone, even a small one, can do enormous amounts of damage. While they may be able to ingest small birds safely, birds are soft, drones are not.

 

[jaswalt]

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.

Keep in mind that if the helicopter is moving forward, the main rotor make up a very small slice of the cross section available for the drone to impact. It's more likely to hit the windscreen. And once that helicopter is moving forward, the main rotor is slicing into virgin air and the drone will remain in virgin air until it strikes the windscreen, rather than be blown out of the way. At this link you see a story of a helicopter passenger who received moderately severe injuries from a drone coming in through a helicopter windscreen. I'm betting that the .001% chance hurts with 100% real pain. And while the helicopter will most likely come out on top, not every part will. The dent in the blade of the black hawk in this article shows damage to the main rotor caused by the drone. That damage is going to require money that is 100% real.. For airplanes, somebody else already posted a link to an article that has video of a drone not just bouncing off a wing, not just denting a wing, but actually punching a hole in the wing big enough that the drone ended up inside the wing where it damaged ribs, spars, and tubes internal to the wing. I understand you are NOT advocating for flying in restricted places, but I would rather my fire department spend it's money fighting fires rather than fixing damage to the plane or chopper cause by a drone collision. Plus, once damage is done to a aircraft, the aircraft has to be taken out of service instead of being allowed to continue to fight the fire. So, at least for me, it makes more sense to land the airplane or chopper until the airspace is cleared. Flying a holding pattern would also not make sense since it could take considerable time to get the drone out of the area during which the bomber would just be burning gas for no reason.
And when it comes to politics, imagine the politics after a drone causes damage or, g-d forbid, a dead aircrew.

 

[jaswalt]

You have got to be kidding!!! Then the pilot would have to report they were involved with a midair collision when they knew there were other aircraft in the area. That will NEVER happen!!!

Hence, the need for remote ID.

 

[jaswalt]

It's not that simple...there are incidents in which a bit of foreign matter or debris gets sucked into a turbine or a prop and causes damage .......critical damage...a Manned aircraft has a pilot who is trained in ADM....Aeronautical Decision making...and risk management is part of that...so the guy in command has to make a decision based on knowing that a drone is "up there"...which could possibly be hit by a chopper and possibly damage the windshield, the engine ..one of the rotors...a number of components of a helicopter...does he take that risk?..it is a big decision for that individual...one that could end his career if he makes the wrong decision......one he would not have to make if the guy who did not belong there used common sense to begin with

...or one that ends his life.

 

[jaswalt]

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.

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.

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

Just a fun fact about a point you make--Translational lift in a helicopter means that a drone absolutely can strike the windshield of a helicopter. Above this speed the main rotor no longer acts like a rotor and acts more like a solid wing. For this reason the air is no disturbed until the helicopter strikes it. So you're absolutely right in that there is no way the rotor can blow a drone out of the way as it approaches it in forward flight.

 

[jaswalt]

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.

According to Snopes, the story was orginally about a train in the same situation. But, being from snopes, I am not sure if it's true or not.

 

[jaswalt]

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

Mythbusters did a show about it.

 

[Interficiam Stercore]

NEWS: Update 7:00 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 1, 2021 - The Dixie (in Plumas County) Fire grew sunday. It is now 33% contained. 5,463 people are assigned to the fire. Full containment is expected on August 13, 2021.
The number of structures threatened was revised down to 3,163 on Sunday. On Saturday that number was 10,657. As of Sunday evening, it has been reported that at least 45 structures and 22 minor structures have been destroyed. Nine structures have been damaged.
A line has been constructed around the Evans Fire, which is 50 acres in size on Evans Peak in Indian Valley.
The Plumas County Sheriff has issued several downgrades of evacuation orders to warnings.
All of East and West Quincy have had evacuation warnings lifted.

NEWS: Another Update: 2 Hours ago: As of the morning update the Dixie Fire is approximately 244,888 acres with 32% containment. There are roughly 5,563 fire personnel assigned to the incident. The incident remains in Unified Command, with two teams overseeing the fire: CAL FIRE Incident Management Team 1 on the West Zone and California Interagency Incident Command Team 2 on the East Zone.
------
How 2 drones "hampered" a fire fight of a scale of about 244,888 acres is impressive. It's like saying 2 little flies made me overcook my steaks I had cooking on the barbecue. Pictured below is the massive 244,888 acres of land affected by the fire in Dixie, Plumas County.

 

[sar104]

According to Snopes, the story was orginally about a train in the same situation. But, being from snopes, I am not sure if it's true or not.

The first "report" on this that I saw was about testing locomotive windshields, so that is consistent.