Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[Lon Denard]

Why do you keep speculating about this event as if no one really knows what happened? The NTSB investigative report was completed and published two weeks ago, although most of the pertinent details were widely known beforehand. Perhaps you should read it before commenting further.

https://go.usa.gov/xnnkh

Perhaps you should have posted it in the first place instead of ASSuming that everyone has already read it. Geez...

 

[Lon Denard]

I think that you vastly overestimate how much anyone cares what you do, and I haven't seen anyone comment on your flights. And your level of eduction is irrelevant, even if it's a sore point for you. It's your inability to make an argument without veering off into such a multitude of logical fallacies combined with your obvious reluctance to make even a cursory attempt to find real information that makes it futile even to try to discuss this with you.

To summarize your position: no manned aircraft has been brought down by collision with a UAV, therefore it will never happen and I don't need to worry about it. Is that about right? Looks solid to me. You can just ignore all those silly fear-mongering posts that question such ironclad reasoning.

It's almost as solid of a position that since it's even remotely possible that a Mavic could take down a 747 it's going to happen.

I mention my education level because you keep insulting my intelligence. I don't pretend to be as educated or even as smart as you. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion or voice it without constant ridicule and personal attacks from you. You could just attach the information to your posts instead of constantly attacking me for not knowing it in the first place. I even asked you for the information... You remind me of an ex girlfriend I had that expected me to know things without being told. I'm not very smart, it's true but I consider myself to be somewhat reasonable. If presented with facts and information, I would gladly modify my stance. I had a newspaper article and barracks gossip to go by concerning New York. I stated that and posted what I had.

 

[Lon Denard]

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

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

 

[Lon Denard]

Student pilot after bird strike: 'We're just blessed we're alive'

So imagine what a drone, even a Mavic at just over 1.5 pounds could do to a pilot's face at 100 knots!

I'm not on the "hitting a drone with an airplane is perfectly safe" train, nor have I ever said that but I will push back against the everyone is automatically going to die position. Besides, you're a pilot, for every story like that one there are literally hundreds where a bird struck the aircraft and nothing happened, right?

I guess I'm not very clear but my position is one based on probability. I even posted an article, which was basically ignored, that placed the probability as incredibly low.

If I go out into my back yard and launch my Mavic to 1000', every hour on the hour, the likelihood of it striking an aircraft is incredibly low. It just seems like so many of you act as if the sky is jam packed with aircraft 24\7 and flying at 401' agl is an automatic death sentence for an unlucky pilot and all of his passengers. Forget about the millions of flight hours already flown by drones without even guidelines up until recently. Forget that, airplanes are going to fall out of the sky like rain unless we all listen to you and your cronies and act like we're all part 107 pilots. I'm just skeptical, that's all.

 

[sar104]

Perhaps you should have posted it in the first place instead of ASSuming that everyone has already read it. Geez...

You really are pretty special. It's been reported and discussed at length. Perhaps you should have refrained from weighing in with your total ignorance before doing even a tiny bit of searching for the information. Same with the windshield issue.

 

[DroningOn]

That NTSB report (which is been in the media for a while now) is EXTREMELY interesting. It is full of important tidbits and reads like a PSA on what not to do as a “drone“ operator. Just some of the points:
- it looks like DJI, who was present at the interview, quickly gave up sales data to the feds that allowed them to track down the owner. Lesson: buy retail and pay CASH!
- 90 percent of what they know about the incident, the feds found out from the operator and his equipment. They note in the report that the pilot was “represented“ by somebody but it looks like that person was just an interpreter. Lesson: when LE or the government comes knocking at your door, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT until you speak to an attorney!

 

[sar104]

I'm not on the "hitting a drone with an airplane is perfectly safe" train, nor have I ever said that but I will push back against the everyone is automatically going to die position. Besides, you're a pilot, for every story like that one there are literally hundreds where a bird struck the aircraft and nothing happened, right?

I guess I'm not very clear but my position is one based on probability. I even posted an article, which was basically ignored, that placed the probability as incredibly low.

If I go out into my back yard and launch my Mavic to 1000', every hour on the hour, the likelihood of it striking an aircraft is incredibly low. It just seems like so many of you act as if the sky is jam packed with aircraft 24\7 and flying at 401' agl is an automatic death sentence for an unlucky pilot and all of his passengers. Forget about the millions of flight hours already flown by drones without even guidelines up until recently. Forget that, airplanes are going to fall out of the sky like rain unless we all listen to you and your cronies and act like we're all part 107 pilots. I'm just skeptical, that's all.

You are ignoring half of the risk equation. Risk convolves probability and consequence.

In the case of drone/aircraft collision, the probability is certainly low, although the fact that at least one collision has occurred combined with the fact that it is well documented that drones are flown recreationally in airspace that is frequented by aircraft means that it is not negligible.

The potential consequence is high though, up to and including fatalities. If you look at a typical risk/probability/consequence scheme, then you will see, not surprisingly, that even for very unlikely events, if the potential consequence is severe then the associated risk is not low. That's why some people actually care about this.



Even from your completely selfish perspective, the case of recreational drones you may not care if the occasional collision occurs, but how many fatalities do you think would be acceptable to the general public before they all require licensing, training and certification to go anywhere beyond your backyard or above roof level, if that's even allowed?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not on the "hitting a drone with an airplane is perfectly safe" train, nor have I ever said that but I will push back against the everyone is automatically going to die position. Besides, you're a pilot, for every story like that one there are literally hundreds where a bird struck the aircraft and nothing happened, right?

I guess I'm not very clear but my position is one based on probability. I even posted an article, which was basically ignored, that placed the probability as incredibly low.

If I go out into my back yard and launch my Mavic to 1000', every hour on the hour, the likelihood of it striking an aircraft is incredibly low. It just seems like so many of you act as if the sky is jam packed with aircraft 24\7 and flying at 401' agl is an automatic death sentence for an unlucky pilot and all of his passengers. Forget about the millions of flight hours already flown by drones without even guidelines up until recently. Forget that, airplanes are going to fall out of the sky like rain unless we all listen to you and your cronies and act like we're all part 107 pilots. I'm just skeptical, that's all.

Lon I can't disagree with anything you're saying BUT with the potential being there, that's enough for the FEDs and Johnny Law to act on. I'm the messenger here and I seen people violated and fined for the "potential.

Yes the likelihood of you flying your drone in the middle of nowhere and hitting an airplane is probably slim and none but it could happen, just like mid air collisions which a large percentage occur on clear days

 

[pftarch]

I would be careful applying the likelihood/consequence formula, because it does not bode well for non commercial aviation. (Commercial flights seem to be doing ok recently though.) Even without the additional risks of UAS operation, private aviation has far from a perfect safety record and represents a logarithmically greater threat to the general public than UAS operations.

Sooner or later all threads evolve into an acceptable risk debate. If you use the "It's only a hobby therefore NO risk is acceptable" argument, you should ban non commercial aviation also. (You should also ban baseball, snowball fights, and the non commercial use of scissors.) If UAS aficionados use "Even if we hit a plane/helicopter nothing super bad will happen and no one will get hurt" argument, get ready for all h**l to break loose when someone does get hurt/killed. (And if Staten Island is any indication, we have not seen the last of manned aircraft/UAS collisions. Although I feel that the risk of UAS operation is minor compared to many other activities, I also feel that serious injuries/fatalities will occur as more UAS flights occur. I believe that a drone could crash a plane/helicopter if a series of very unfortunate events occur, and the more that we fly, the greater the likelihood is that this will happen.)

The sad thing for our "hobby" (and/or work) is that there is a GREAT deal of hysteria. A Phantom dents a helicopter and it's an international spectacle and the cries of restrict, restrict, restrict are heard worldwide. A private plane crashes into a house and kills the pilot and residents and its a local news article. No one screams "We need to stop private planes from flying over people." (For the record I think private aviation is wonderful and do not want it further restricted.)

 

[sar104]

I would be careful applying the likelihood/consequence formula, because it does not bode well for non commercial aviation. (Commercial flights seem to be doing ok recently though.) Even without the additional risks of UAS operation, private aviation has far from a perfect safety record and represents a logarithmically greater threat to the general public than UAS operations.

Sooner or later all threads evolve into an acceptable risk debate. If you use the "It's only a hobby therefore NO risk is acceptable" argument, you should ban non commercial aviation also. (You should also ban baseball, snowball fights, and the non commercial use of scissors.) If UAS aficionados use "Even if we hit a plane/helicopter nothing super bad will happen and no one will get hurt" argument, get ready for all h**l to break loose when someone does get hurt/killed. (And if Staten Island is any indication, we have not seen the last of manned aircraft/UAS collisions. Although I feel that the risk of UAS operation is minor compared to many other activities, I also feel that serious injuries/fatalities will occur as more UAS flights occur. I believe that a drone could crash a plane/helicopter if a series of very unfortunate events occur, and the more that we fly, the greater the likelihood is that this will happen.)

The sad thing for our "hobby" (and/or work) is that there is a GREAT deal of hysteria. A Phantom dents a helicopter and it's an international spectacle and the cries of restrict, restrict, restrict are heard worldwide. A private plane crashes into a house and kills the pilot and residents and its a local news article. No one screams "We need to stop private planes from flying over people." (For the record I think private aviation is wonderful and do not want it further restricted.)

I agree with much of that, but I think that the biggest problem with all those comparisons is that flying a drone, rather uniquely in that list, does not expose the operator to any of the risk. As a result, one major factor that generally deters recklessness (fear of injury or death) is simply absent.

In contrast, in virtually all the other examples that you gave where the risk is accepted, the people at risk are either the protagonists themselves or the risk stems from something that they, themselves do at other times. The one exception might be the risk from GA to uninvolved people on the ground but, there again, unlike recreational UAV flying, training, certification and licensing is required, and the risk is far higher to the participants than the non-participants.

 

[pftarch]

I agree with much of that, but I think that the biggest problem with all those comparisons is that flying a drone, rather uniquely in that list, does not expose the operator to any of the risk. As a result, one major factor that generally deters recklessness (fear of injury or death) is simply absent....

A very valid point. Behaving like a yahoo with your new Christmas present means you might (will) smash up or lose your $1000 Mavic which is FAR from a fatal consequence. I'm not sure how to best instill sanity without placing onerous restrictions on reasonable and responsible operators, but I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Lon Denard]

You really are pretty special. It's been reported and discussed at length. Perhaps you should have refrained from weighing in with your total ignorance before doing even a tiny bit of searching for the information. Same with the windshield issue.

Yep, I'm an idiot alright. It's kinda like jumping in on this thread condemning the drone pilot "responsible" for this picture only to later realize that it's most likely a hoax. Yep, it's tough being as stupid as I am but at least I'm not advanced stupid!

 

[Lon Denard]

That NTSB report (which is been in the media for a while now) is EXTREMELY interesting. It is full of important tidbits and reads like a PSA on what not to do as a “drone“ operator. Just some of the points:
- it looks like DJI, who was present at the interview, quickly gave up sales data to the feds that allowed them to track down the owner. Lesson: buy retail and pay CASH!
- 90 percent of what they know about the incident, the feds found out from the operator and his equipment. They note in the report that the pilot was “represented“ by somebody but it looks like that person was just an interpreter. Lesson: when LE or the government comes knocking at your door, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT until you speak to an attorney!

Nah it was probably from registering your drone through the app. I purchased mine at Best Buy without contact with DJI until I registered my info through the app. I'd imagine most everyone did. In my case, I purchased DJI Care as well, further involving me with them. What is done, cannot be undone. Hahaha!

 

[sar104]

Yep, I'm an idiot alright. It's kinda like jumping in on this thread condemning the drone pilot "responsible" for this picture only to later realize that it's most likely a hoax. Yep, it's tough being as stupid as I am but at least I'm not advanced stupid!

View attachment 27506

You really are totally disconnected with anything resembling reality. You will find, if you were to look, which obviously you won't, that I haven't even mentioned, let alone condemned, the pilot. So actually only one of your observations is correct, although to be fair that's an improvement over most of your posts.

 

[Lon Denard]

A very valid point. Behaving like a yahoo with your new Christmas present means you might (will) smash up or lose your $1000 Mavic which is FAR from a fatal consequence. I'm not sure how to best instill sanity without placing onerous restrictions on reasonable and responsible operators, but I'm open to suggestions.

I personally have no problem with registration or NFZ's and I wouldn't argue with a licensing program for flying drones above a certain level. With DJI's level of control, they could easily require the input of a "license code" to unlock your drone's full potential. I'd also like to see an unlock code on drones in general to keep them from unauthorized users and render them worthless to thieves.

 

[sar104]

That NTSB report (which is been in the media for a while now) is EXTREMELY interesting. It is full of important tidbits and reads like a PSA on what not to do as a “drone“ operator. Just some of the points:
- it looks like DJI, who was present at the interview, quickly gave up sales data to the feds that allowed them to track down the owner. Lesson: buy retail and pay CASH!
- 90 percent of what they know about the incident, the feds found out from the operator and his equipment. They note in the report that the pilot was “represented“ by somebody but it looks like that person was just an interpreter. Lesson: when LE or the government comes knocking at your door, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT until you speak to an attorney!

Note that they identified the drone just by the serial number on the one motor that was recovered from the helicopter, which linked back via sales records to the purchaser. I guess by paying cash you could avoid that link, but you still have to register with DJI to fly.

 

[Lon Denard]

You really are totally disconnected with anything resembling reality. You will find, if you were to look, which obviously you won't, that I haven't even mentioned, let alone condemned, the pilot. So actually only one of your observations is correct, although to be fair that's an improvement over most of your posts.

Are you ASSuming something? If you reread the post in question, which obviously you won't, you would find that I in no way implicated you personally.

 

[sar104]

Are you ASSuming something? If you reread the post in question, which obviously you won't, you would find that I in no way implicated you personally.

Yes - I was, since you were replying to me. Did any posters in this thread condemn the pilot and then later post that the report may have been a hoax? Or are you just trying to squirm out of another baseless assertion?

I do agree with you about registration and unlocking though.

 

[DroningOn]

Note that they identified the drone just by the serial number on the one motor that was recovered from the helicopter, which linked back via sales records to the purchaser. I guess by paying cash you could avoid that link, but you still have to register with DJI to fly.

I don’t believe motors have unique serial numbers, lot numbers maybe. I read the report as they got all names in a range and started knocking on doors. In any case, I bought mine with cash (private party NIB actually) and registered with DJI using a .mail free email account that I promptly lost the password and never logged into again. Yes, I am very serious about privacy. We only have so much control over this type of technology and I have no intention of taking the rap for a careless Chinese programmer or assembly line worker.

 

[Lon Denard]

Lon I can't disagree with anything you're saying BUT with the potential being there, that's enough for the FEDs and Johnny Law to act on. I'm the messenger here and I seen people violated and fined for the "potential.

Yes the likelihood of you flying your drone in the middle of nowhere and hitting an airplane is probably slim and none but it could happen, just like mid air collisions which a large percentage occur on clear days

Oh anything can happen for sure. I am in no way arguing that. I just don't believe the probability matches the hysteria.

Here's the way I process the info. Yes I know I'm "special ed" per sar104 but here goes,

The percentage of the population that fly any drones.
The percentage of those drones that are capable of entering the "danger zone".
The percentage of those pilots willing to risk it.
The percentage of their free time they can invest in flying.
The percentage of their flights that they actually fly in the danger zone.

Then I look at the probability that an aircraft will be in the exact same place and time as the drone for any given spot world wide. The numbers just look pretty unlikely to me, that's all.

Oh and the thing about New York is that there are probably more helicopters in the air there at any given moment than any other ten cities combined. Not to mention one of the most densely populated places in the world. More aircraft + more people = a skewed probability matrix not seen almost anywhere else. The fact that there has been so few incidents still tends towards the unlikely in my opinion.