Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

rfc · Dec 28, 2017

I have a great deal of respect for both of you, but I sure wish the two of you (you know who I'm talking about), would back off a bit, and let this thread continue without all the personal attacks. It really diminishes the value and enjoyment for the rest of us to learn from events that happen, and why they happen. It shouldn't devolve into a personal pissing match, in my opinion. Thanks for listening. Fly safely.

Chip · Dec 28, 2017

This thread is a little rough and tumble. But, it has been informative and some very clever parrys and ripostes! Reminds me of that saying: To make an omelette, you have to be prepared to break some eggs.

DroningOn · Dec 28, 2017

Chip said:
This thread is a little rough and tumble. But, it has been informative and some very clever parrys and ripostes! Reminds me of that saying: To make an omelette, you have to be prepared to break some eggs.

View attachment 27555

I am actually surprised fainthearted moderators haven’t shut it down already. These issues deserve good open discussion!

MAvic_South_Oz · Dec 28, 2017

FLYBOYJ said:
You're showing apples and oranges. I've been in aviation over 40 years, commercial pilot/ flight instructor/ mechanic/ inspector and I'll tell you flat out, your Mavic could bring down a smaller aircraft and depending on circumstances, kill a pilot.

The EMT helicopter I used to work on hit a hawk over Frisco CO. It sent through the windshield and put a dent in the bulkhead just in front of the engine bay. It totally took out the windshield.

This one hit a Piper Navajo, a larger GA twin

Lon Denard said:
Wow! Is that windshield lexan? I didn't know it could shatter like that! Yikes!

I didn't see a reply from @FLYBOYJ . . . it actually LOOKS like toughened laminated glass, but that would be unusual in such an aircraft I imagine !!

We had a 'drone incident' at a local secondary controlled airspace here in South Australia middle of this year . . . reported here first . . .

ATSB investigates potential drone collision with light aircraft in Adelaide

A week after the ATSB investigation result was followed up in the news, it was a bat . . .

Bat, not drone, to blame for light plane collision

This report shows wing damage better . . .

ATSB: In-flight collision at Parafield, Australia concluded as wildlife strike, not a drone - ASN News

Air safety is taken pretty seriously here, we can't fly over 400' anywhere across the whole of Oz, and we have some pretty isolated regions inland where aircraft virtually only fly at commercial airliner altitudes.
Like most countries we have fairly extensive NFZs, TFR zones for emergencies, and CASA rules for flying.

I'm happy for basic licencing for hobbyists, can see it will come in eventually.
Geofencing is in place near most big airport property, but usually don't cover all NFZs like approach / departure areas, can see this will probably be extended sometime too, which makes it easier to control people who don't know about, or don't care, for the rules.
That might only apply to market leaders like DJI though.

Lon Denard · Dec 28, 2017

sar104 said:
Right - but there's a difference between inadvertently losing sight of it versus deliberately flying it several miles away into a busy air traffic lane.

I get that but I admit here in front of everyone present that I lose VLOS in almost every flight and I know I'm going to lose it so it's deliberate. It's premeditated. There is no way that I can fly my Mavic the way I want without losing VLOS. NO WAY. I got nothing about the traffic lane...

Lon Denard · Dec 28, 2017

FLYBOYJ said:
I can agree with that, unfortunately the general public and FAA have a different point of view.

And you're correct there as well. BTW I grew up not far from where this happened so i am very familiar with the area. The point there is all those airplanes and helicopters operating within that congested airspace are REGULATED, flown by certificated pilots that fly IAW procedures and regulations (at least we'd like to think so most of the time). The fact that manned aircraft are highly regulated doesn't preclude the fact that accidents can happen, but certainly risks are mitigated.

So in the middle of that matrix you throw in a Russian immigrant with little comprehension of the English language let alone US laws governing the operation of hobby sUAVs, operating a drone BVLOS during a TFR right in the middle of low altitude helicopter routes. That potential for an incident probably increased tenfold prior to the collision.

So you can blame situations as such for the hysteria and in some cases far reaching regulation of the FEDs. Again "potential."

(Stepping off soap box)

Oh I'm not arguing that manned aircraft are the problem. I fully admit that the drone pilot was at fault AND I would have been right there with him! I don't typically fly that far away but I lose VLOS every flight. I'm not sure how you would know that it was a TFR AND worst of all, I would have also believed that staying under 400' would all but guarantee "safety". Forget where this guy is from, I believe there was an island? I could easily see myself on the island, taking some pictures oblivious to any potential danger. Keeping it well under 400' but again losing VLOS. I'm waiting for my beat down and to be told that I should do extensive flight path research before I fly my drone anywhere...

Lon Denard · Dec 28, 2017

sar104 said:
Ah - yes, I used that word but no, that was not what I meant by it. I was referring to your attempt to blame me for your ignorance of the NTSB report, and your assertion that it was somehow my responsibility to educate you. In other words I was using it for its actual meaning rather than the euphemism that you immediately identified with.

Well as someone that is mentally challenged, I am somewhat sensitive, I guess. Okay, my fault.

Lon Denard · Dec 28, 2017

sar104 said:
That was perfectly legal. Unlike the Phantom pilot, he was cleared into the TFR and he was not breaking any minimums. What's your point?

I was replying to the guy that wanted to know how I knew the pilot was flying low and had a rep for it. I had heard it from a guy still stationed at Bragg, thus it was "barracks gossip" I was unaware of the report at the time.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 29, 2017

Lon Denard said:
Oh I'm not arguing that manned aircraft are the problem. I fully admit that the drone pilot was at fault AND I would have been right there with him! I don't typically fly that far away but I lose VLOS every flight. I'm not sure how you would know that it was a TFR AND worst of all, I would have also believed that staying under 400' would all but guarantee "safety". Forget where this guy is from, I believe there was an island? I could easily see myself on the island, taking some pictures oblivious to any potential danger. Keeping it well under 400' but again losing VLOS. I'm waiting for my beat down and to be told that I should do extensive flight path research before I fly my drone anywhere...

TFRs are posted on many aviation websites and it probably takes less than 5 minutes to do an internet search to see if there is a TFR in your area. You could also call any Flight Service Station (800) 992-7433 and ask a briefer the simple question, "do you show any TFRs in my area?"

IMO if you're going to get involved with this hobby, you will have to learn about the NAS.

Just so you know this happened over water roughly 3 miles off the coast of Brooklyn and about 3 miles from Staten Island.

If the guy had VLOS he "should" have seen the helicopter and got out of its way. Yes, you're going to lose VLOS on occasion and its at that point you need to take some action but IMO as far out as this guy was, he was deliberately flying beyond VLOS.

For the record, here's section 336 P.L. 112-95, Special Rule for Model Aircraft. This is the law was was the basis of current sUAV laws in the US. This is US Federal Law. (note my bold)

SEC. 336. <<NOTE: 49 USC 40101 note.>> SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL
AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating
to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation
Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate
any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being
developed as a model aircraft, if--

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a
nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program
administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of
the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air
traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model
aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5
miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon
operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is
located at the airport)).

(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger
the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model
aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person
operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 29, 2017

MAvic_South_Oz said:
I didn't see a reply from @FLYBOYJ . . . it actually LOOKS like toughened laminated glass, but that would be unusual in such an aircraft I imagine !!

Actually it just plexiglass not even an inch thick. On light single GA aircraft it's even thinner

MAvic_South_Oz · Dec 29, 2017

FLYBOYJ said:
Actually it just plexiglass not even an inch thick. On light single GA aircraft it's even thinner

Oh fro sure mate, I could see it's quite normally thin, maybe 4mm - 6mm.
Just the way it's shattered like toughened glass, but held together like laminated.
It's hard to explain, 30 years in the glass game, and Plexi / Lexan normally crack, not shatter, but then maybe it's some sort of special aircraft material, treated like toughened glass and laminated for the similar safety effect.

At least it got down ok.

Lon Denard · Dec 29, 2017

FLYBOYJ said:
TFRs are posted on many aviation websites and it probably takes less than 5 minutes to do an internet search to see if there is a TFR in your area. You could also call any Flight Service Station (800) 992-7433 and ask a briefer the simple question, "do you show any TFRs in my area?"

IMO if you're going to get involved with this hobby, you will have to learn about the NAS.

Just so you know this happened over water roughly 3 miles off the coast of Brooklyn and about 3 miles from Staten Island.

If the guy had VLOS he "should" have seen the helicopter and got out of its way. Yes, you're going to lose VLOS on occasion and its at that point you need to take some action but IMO as far out as this guy was, he was deliberately flying beyond VLOS.

For the record, here's section 336 P.L. 112-95, Special Rule for Model Aircraft. This is the law was was the basis of current sUAV laws in the US. This is US Federal Law. (note my bold)

SEC. 336. <<NOTE: 49 USC 40101 note.>> SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL
AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating
to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation
Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate
any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being
developed as a model aircraft, if--

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a
nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program
administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of
the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air
traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model
aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5
miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon
operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is
located at the airport)).

(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger
the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model
aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person
operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Does visual line of sight mean that you have to be able to see it or that there's nothing between you and the drone? You guys keep saying that we occasionally lose sight of our drones, bs. I lose sight of my drone every time I fly. The dang thing is so small! Geez, how about Spark owners? I'd lose that thing withing seconds of take off.

I don't know who you're kidding but anyone that says that they can see their Mavic at 400' agl and 1000' away is full of crap! I mean seriously, so many of you point fingers and act so lofty and legal but there's no way you don't lose sight of your Mavic routinely, not occasionally, not once in awhile, ROUTINELY! Don't you have to look at your screen to get the footage you want? Check your controller to make sure everything is good? As soon as I take my eyes off the Mavic, that's it for VLOS baby! Hahaha! The occasional part is that I find it in the sky again!

If I wanted to watch my drone fly, I could have stuck with my AR Drone, Bebop, 3DR Solo, or GoPro Karma. What's the point of buying a drone that had a 4.3 mile range and then keeping it within a few hundred feet? Well, I for one am not going to worry about the letter of the law and just fly within my comfort zone.

sar104 · Dec 29, 2017

MAvic_South_Oz said:
Oh fro sure mate, I could see it's quite normally thin, maybe 4mm - 6mm.
Just the way it's shattered like toughened glass, but held together like laminated.
It's hard to explain, 30 years in the glass game, and Plexi / Lexan normally crack, not shatter, but then maybe it's some sort of special aircraft material, treated like toughened glass and laminated for the similar safety effect.

At least it got down ok.

Plexiglass (poly-methylmethacrylate and Lexan (polycarbonate) actually behave rather differently under ballistic impact. Polycarbonate undergoes more plastic deformation before failure, and is far more impact resistant than PMMA.

In any case - I agree that the PA-31 windshield in that photo is unquestionably neither Plexiglass nor Lexan - it's glass.

sar104 · Dec 29, 2017

Lon Denard said:
Does visual line of sight mean that you have to be able to see it or that there's nothing between you and the drone? You guys keep saying that we occasionally lose sight of our drones, bs. I lose sight of my drone every time I fly. The dang thing is so small! Geez, how about Spark owners? I'd lose that thing withing seconds of take off.

I don't know who you're kidding but anyone that says that they can see their Mavic at 400' agl and 1000' away is full of crap! I mean seriously, so many of you point fingers and act so lofty and legal but there's no way you don't lose sight of your Mavic routinely, not occasionally, not once in awhile, ROUTINELY! Don't you have to look at your screen to get the footage you want? Check your controller to make sure everything is good? As soon as I take my eyes off the Mavic, that's it for VLOS baby! Hahaha! The occasional part is that I find it in the sky again!

If I wanted to watch my drone fly, I could have stuck with my AR Drone, Bebop, 3DR Solo, or GoPro Karma. What's the point of buying a drone that had a 4.3 mile range and then keeping it within a few hundred feet? Well, I for one am not going to worry about the letter of the law and just fly within my comfort zone.

Technically, VLOS means that you can see it, not just that there are no obstacles obstructing your view of it. Without strobes I agree that at that distance it's going to be very hard to spot if you look away.

But again - briefly losing sight of it when it is close by and you know its approximate location is very different to flying it out several miles into a busy air lane (at the other extreme). The primary purpose of VLOS is situational awareness, so that if other air traffic appears you see/hear it and can take evasive action. That works even in your example. It doesn't work in the NY collision situation.

MAvic_South_Oz · Dec 29, 2017

sar104 said:
Plexiglass (poly-methylmethacrylate and Lexan (polycarbonate) actually behave rather differently under ballistic impact. Polycarbonate undergoes more plastic deformation before failure, and is far more impact resistant than PMMA.

In any case - I agree that the PA-31 windshield in that photo is unquestionably neither Plexiglass not Lexan - it's glass.

Yes, plexi / lexan very different in the way they behave, break, deteriorate in UV.
I'd bet toughened lam glass in that pic, expensive, but normally pretty good safety glass, as said I think it's unusual in an aircraft, would have thought laminated plexi would be better, multi layers of thin say 3mm, interlayer, another 3mm.
Very strong.

sar104 · Dec 29, 2017

MAvic_South_Oz said:
Yes, plexi / lexan very different in the way they behave, break, deteriorate in UV.
I'd bet toughened lam glass in that pic, expensive, but normally pretty good safety glass, as said I think it's unusual in an aircraft, would have thought laminated plexi would be better, multi layers of thin say 3mm, interlayer, another 3mm.
Very strong.

Actually it appears that photo is of a Beech C-99 that struck a bird while descending into SOW. The NTSB narrative refers to the windshield as glass:

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20091104X23538&ntsbno=WPR10IA045&akey=1

FLYBOYJ · Dec 29, 2017

Lon Denard said:
Does visual line of sight mean that you have to be able to see it or that there's nothing between you and the drone? You guys keep saying that we occasionally lose sight of our drones, bs. I lose sight of my drone every time I fly. The dang thing is so small! Geez, how about Spark owners? I'd lose that thing withing seconds of take off.

I don't know who you're kidding but anyone that says that they can see their Mavic at 400' agl and 1000' away is full of crap! I mean seriously, so many of you point fingers and act so lofty and legal but there's no way you don't lose sight of your Mavic routinely, not occasionally, not once in awhile, ROUTINELY! Don't you have to look at your screen to get the footage you want? Check your controller to make sure everything is good? As soon as I take my eyes off the Mavic, that's it for VLOS baby! Hahaha! The occasional part is that I find it in the sky again!

If I wanted to watch my drone fly, I could have stuck with my AR Drone, Bebop, 3DR Solo, or GoPro Karma. What's the point of buying a drone that had a 4.3 mile range and then keeping it within a few hundred feet? Well, I for one am not going to worry about the letter of the law and just fly within my comfort zone.

Understand that I am just the messenger here and there's a level of common sense when flying a drone, let alone with operating any type machinery. The Feds aren't going to secretly time you every time you take your eyes off your drone!!! I have a Mavic and I can see it at at 350' and my 59 year old eyes aren't that great. IMO if you make a reasonable effort to maintain visual contact with your drone you're good. Sure you're going to have brief periods where you may lose visual contact, I think that's a given. I believe the intent is not having someone go out BVR and run into something - like a helicopter.

If you think this is tough, try learning how to fly a manned aircraft - and the regulations that go along with it.....

FLYBOYJ · Dec 29, 2017

sar104 said:
Plexiglass (poly-methylmethacrylate and Lexan (polycarbonate) actually behave rather differently under ballistic impact. Polycarbonate undergoes more plastic deformation before failure, and is far more impact resistant than PMMA.

In any case - I agree that the PA-31 windshield in that photo is unquestionably neither Plexiglass nor Lexan - it's glass.

Its not glass, I could tell you that. I know its a plastic based material, for those of us who maintain these things, its plexiglass

sar104 · Dec 29, 2017

On the topic of bird strikes - this is an interesting compilation of reports that shows the damage that a soft bird can do to a variety of different aircraft:

Bird Strikes! | JetForums - Jet Aviation's Premier Online Community