Another incident of stupidity

[sar104]

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.

I'm not sure about the distinction between a rotor and a wing - they are essentially the same thing from a physics perspective, and both deflect the airflow downwards. Are you alluding to the trajectory of the disturbed air, which would be downwards and backwards in the helicopter frame of reference during forwards flight? That certainly would further delay the effects of the prop wash on objects in the flight path.

 

[jaswalt]

I'm not sure about the distinction between a rotor and a wing - they are essentially the same thing from a physics perspective, and both deflect the airflow downwards. Are you alluding to the trajectory of the disturbed air, which would be downwards and backwards in the helicopter frame of reference during forwards flight? That certainly would further delay the effects of the prop wash on objects in the flight path.

Yeah, I wasn't real clear on that part. My apologies. You're 100% right in that a rotor is actually made up of multiple wings spinning round and round. In a hover and at low speeds the helicopter is held in place by the lift of the individual blades/wings. However, at the point of translational lift, the aircraft is no longer held up by the actions of individual blades going around in circles and instead is now held up as if under a disc-shaped solid wing. The airflow is now the same as it is under a fixed wing aircraft. So it really does allow the drone to approach the windscreen without interference. Before this speed there actually might be enough downward prop wash to interrupt the flight path of the drone--especially if neither the helicopter nor drone is moving very fast. It's also at this point that efficiency goes up considerably. This increase in efficiency is what allows helicopters to fly forward at a higher altitude than they are capable of hovering. For one particular small helicopter (the only one I know the numbers for off the top of my head), the service ceiling is 11,500 feet but it cannot hover any higher than 9,000 feet (in ground effect).

 

[DoomMeister]

Hence, the need for remote ID.

I think you missed the point of my post. The point of it is that a pilot is not going to fly in an area where a drone is known to be flying as it is a risk management decision that NO pilot will ever take.

RID will help in some cases, but anyone doing that type of flight will not be using a RID equipped drone.

 

[flatline42]

My personal opinion, most of the drone pilots involved in these type of incidents are flying out of curiosity and for personal gratification with little regard or understanding of the possible consequences. By all means, find them out and come down on them hard.

The situation posited by phantomrain would be rare and could possibly be excused. But, I'm not sure how useful a drone would be under the circumstances. A fire advancing towards you would mean you are likely downwind, much smoke, limited visibility. Too many variables here to really form any generalized consensus.

Having read books like Young Men and Fire, if you're in a situation where you need a drone to navigate out, you probably don't have enough time to get the drone in the air. I remember the fire in Redding CA literally advanced like 5 or 10 miles in as many minutes. And if you do manage to get your drone up, there's an excellent chance that the fire's creating it's own wind patterns that would make it very difficult to navigate a consumer drone.

 

[jaswalt]

I think you missed the point of my post. The point of it is that a pilot is not going to fly in an area where a drone is known to be flying as it is a risk management decision that NO pilot will ever take.

RID will help in some cases, but anyone doing that type of flight will not be using a RID equipped drone.

You know what? I think I got comments reversed when I made that remark. I was thinking of things one way at that moment but when I go back and look at stuff, without having to go through the whole topic again, I see what you're saying and see the reason for your remark. You know what they say about hindsight...
I think I was thinking in terms of the drone pilot would have to report it and...yup, confusion on my part.

 

[DoomMeister]

You know what? I think I got comments reversed when I made that remark. I was thinking of things one way at that moment but when I go back and look at stuff, without having to go through the whole topic again, I see what you're saying and see the reason for your remark. You know what they say about hindsight...
I think I was thinking in terms of the drone pilot would have to report it and...yup, confusion on my part.

No problem @jaswalt , it would be great if we as a community could get people to fly their drones like they were a pilot actually in the drone and their life depended on flying it safely. I’m sure that would stop some of the stupidity associated with drone flights.

 

[maelstrom]

However, at the point of translational lift, the aircraft is no longer held up by the actions of individual blades going around in circles and instead is now held up as if under a disc-shaped solid wing.

Off topic, but I'm not quite sure where you're getting your information from. Translational lift is just an aerodynamic effect that increases the efficiency of the rotors in forward flight (or in a wind). There's no difference to how the rotors work - they don't suddenly act like a solid wing.

 

[CalOldBlue]

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.

The real issue here is spotting them in time to take evasive action.

If an aircraft is moving at 100 MPH (fast for a helicopter, slow for a plane) it will have one second to react to a drone 150 feet away.

How likely is a pilot to notice a drone that far away, and is 1 second enough time to react? And why should a firefighting pilot even be put in that position?? Sure, drones are being reported all the time.... as and after planes pass by them asking 'where did THAT come from?'.

FAA regs require 2000 feet horizontal separation from clouds for this very reason... gives the IFR pilot a very few precious seconds to see and react (margin vertically is smaller given the rate of descent is a fraction of flight speed).

Consider the plight of a pilot dealing with the need to avoid ground and structures in a low-visibility (smoke) environment. Birds are smart enough to have fled the fire... evidently humans can be dumber than birds.

 

[Interficiam Stercore]

The real issue here is spotting them in time to take evasive action.

If an aircraft is moving at 100 MPH (fast for a helicopter, slow for a plane) it will have one second to react to a drone 150 feet away.

How likely is a pilot to notice a drone that far away, and is 1 second enough time to react? And why should a firefighting pilot even be put in that position?? Sure, drones are being reported all the time.... as and after planes pass by them asking 'where did THAT come from?'.

FAA regs require 2000 feet horizontal separation from clouds for this very reason... gives the IFR pilot a very few precious seconds to see and react (margin vertically is smaller given the rate of descent is a fraction of flight speed).

Consider the plight of a pilot dealing with the need to avoid ground and structures in a low-visibility (smoke) environment. Birds are smart enough to have fled the fire... evidently humans can be dumber than birds.

Well, you do bring up another issue. It's just not the issue I did. Que Sera Sera.

 

[CalOldBlue]

Well, you do bring up another issue. It's just not the issue I did. Que Sera Sera.

Sorry, I buried the lede.

Drones are difficult to spot until they zip right past you (or vice versa). So my theory is: included in those reports of drones by planes in flight are cases of close encounters.

Does not negate the theory they are hard for pilots to spot; it may be a matter of distance.

 

[maelstrom]

Does not negate the theory they are hard for pilots to spot; it may be a matter of distance.

It's more a matter of size than distance. You only need to look at the number of birdstrikes every year to see how difficult it is for a pilot to spot a bird-sized drone.

 

[Robert Prior]

Consider the plight of a pilot dealing with the need to avoid ground and structures in a low-visibility (smoke) environment. Birds are smart enough to have fled the fire... evidently humans can be dumber than birds.

Part of the problem is that drone pilots aren't really at the scene so they aren't risking anything — so it's a moral hazard situation.

Although looking at the number of idiots killed taking selfies, even putting their lives on the line wouldn't stop every idiot! :-/