I doubt this is a drone strike, just look at the damage. No Mavic or Phantom Pro or Inspire did that. Maybe the Helicopter pilot hit something else, like a telephone pole. Maybe he is covering his own ***. Easy to blame a drone that no one saw, the left no parts in the damage. Sucks that the news picked this story up so quickly.
Drone hit a news helicopter
- Thread starter TheFoxSaysRingADingDing
- Start date
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that a drone didn't do that because there wasn't enough damage to the helicopter?
The University of Dayton Research Institute did a study where they simulated the collision between a Phantom 2 and a fixed wing aircraft at 238 Mph. A Drone-Flinging Cannon Proves UAVs Can Mangle Planes
It's too early to conclusively say what the helicopter hit. From the limited information available, it does looks like it hit a drone. When the NTSB gets a fold of the stabilizer, hopefully they'll find something inside the puncture hole.
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
I'll go out on a limb and take your post seriously, which is almost certainly more than it deserves.
The Airbus AS350 B2 stabilizer is under the main rotor. How, exactly, is it going to hit a telephone pole.
I agree that an Inspire didn't do that - in a cruising speed collision it would have severed the stabilizer, not made a small hole and some dents. A Phantom, with it's more extended landing gear, certainly could do that kind of damage.
TxArch DroneGuy
Well-Known Member
It may have been a drone, but if you notice the reporters ststement, out of 32 words, he uses the words,
‘thought , might, and might, 10% of the sentence, yet people will read it that it was a reported drone collision.
‘thought , might, and might, 10% of the sentence, yet people will read it that it was a reported drone collision.
MacCool
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 181
- Reactions
- 135
- Age
- 24
I think people will jump to the obvious conclusion, yes. Occam's Razor and all that.....
AMann
Well-Known Member
AMann
Well-Known Member
It doesn’t take much to damage a helicopter, a pilot I used to fly with had an accident when a surveyors vest blew out of the open cockpit and wrapped around the rear tail rotor. They emergency landed on a mountain ridge and rolled in it down a short ravine but were all safe.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Edited for correction, I got the air flow direction mixed up on the rear tail rotor.
I am surprised how close the drone had to have been to the starboard side window in order to hit that stabilizer where it did. Looking at the top, the main rotor is going clockwise, so to counter that, the rear rotor is pulling air from the port side to starboard (right), which would blow the drone away from the stabilizer, additionally, airflow would be traveling along the curvature of the body and would tend to pull things in towards the rear part of the helicopter, so I would think that the drone flew right past the passenger side window very closely in order to hit the horizontal stabilizer where it did. They are so lucky it didn’t come in through the windshield, it wasn’t very far away if anything.
Overall, it’s an interesting problem with aerodynamics and physics looking at how the “probable” drone hit it.
Last edited:
I think someone mentioned it might have been a bullet. If so, then they need to require everybody must undergo strict background checks in order to have a gun and not be able to fire the gun while in a city. Opps, that is already required.
Point is that we can make all the laws in the world, and we will still have problems. What i am afraid of is politicians and bureaucrats answer is always to make laws trying to stop the exception and not the reality. The US has millions of drones and we hear of very few safety incidents. I think that 99.9 percent of drone flights go off with no problems.
Point is that we can make all the laws in the world, and we will still have problems. What i am afraid of is politicians and bureaucrats answer is always to make laws trying to stop the exception and not the reality. The US has millions of drones and we hear of very few safety incidents. I think that 99.9 percent of drone flights go off with no problems.
The number of drone strikes reported near restricted airspace has always been surprising to me. More so when they occur at night. Looking at the pictures, there's a pretty large scuff mark and a small hole.
Be interesting to see what it turns out to be. Regardless, the damage is done. If the damage turns out to be anything but a drone strike, the general public has heard all it needs to hear.
Be interesting to see what it turns out to be. Regardless, the damage is done. If the damage turns out to be anything but a drone strike, the general public has heard all it needs to hear.
This is certainly plausible.
We know most consumer drones can easily reach that altitude.
We know a large number of people ignore altitude restrictions.
We know people fly at night.
We know if there's some sort of incident drone users have a habit of trying to view them from above.
Its not like some of the crazy UK AirProx reports where they have near misses with objects at or above FL110 and so on.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.
We know most consumer drones can easily reach that altitude.
We know a large number of people ignore altitude restrictions.
We know people fly at night.
We know if there's some sort of incident drone users have a habit of trying to view them from above.
Its not like some of the crazy UK AirProx reports where they have near misses with objects at or above FL110 and so on.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.
CactusJackSlade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,087
- Reactions
- 846
Los Angeles television station says chopper struck by drone, forced to make precautionary landing
A news helicopter belonging to an ABC owned-and-operated television station was forced to make a precautionary landing on Wednesday night after it struck an object believed to be a drone while flying over downtown Los Angeles.www.foxnews.com
Either someone wasn't flying smart or maybe they thought that they could fly 400 feet above the buildings.
Actually, you can fly 400 feet above buildings, as long as you are within 400 feet (laterally) of that structure as per FAA regs: Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107)
AMann
Well-Known Member
Good point, so if the drone pilot was over the Wilshire Grand Center (1099’ AGL), it could’ve legally been flying at 1499 feet above ground level... at night... without 3 mile visible anti-collision beacons... in airspace within 1/4 mile of 6 or more heliports... probably over cars and a very busy city...in front of an oncoming helicopter that was flying too low over the building. But the drone still could have been at a legal altitude!
Last edited:
Here’s what the FAA has to say about bird strikes and rotary aircraft
So not sure how many drone strikes happen annually but bird strikes have increased year over year
So not sure how many drone strikes happen annually but bird strikes have increased year over year
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
As @sar104 mentioned in an earlier post, the stabilizer wing is underneath the main rotor. Any object that passed through the rotor with enough mass intact to damage the wing, would have damaged the rotor even more.
A model rocket that could reach that height would have been a large, multiple stage rocket. They are not cheap and the people who launch them would usually be launching them in daylight and from a dedicated launch point. Launching one at night in LA would get plenty of calls to police with people thinking they are under attack.
None of us knows what hit the helicopter. And we won't know until the NTSB releases their report. While we don't want it to be a drone, it does look like a drone strike. It could very well be a bird strike, but it doesn't look like one.
AnzacJack
Australian Defence Veteran
well reading this gave me a good laugh. So many experts. It was a part falling from another aircraft / ice falling from another aircraft / pilot covering up a telephone pole strike / claims that no drone could possible cause this damage / stray bullets. hahah ???
Im not even going to give my opinion as there are way to many expert opinions here, but like some of the real experts here have pointed out, it could indeed be possible but as there is no evidence and not likely to be, I guess we strike this up to another interesting news story
Im not even going to give my opinion as there are way to many expert opinions here, but like some of the real experts here have pointed out, it could indeed be possible but as there is no evidence and not likely to be, I guess we strike this up to another interesting news story
Who said any are expert? It’s just a fun chat to surmise what it could be it if wasn’t a drone. Dunno if I missed something but I didn’t get a ‘defensive’ feeling. More than likely a drone. But similar damage 25yrs ago? What would you say?
UFO! Any UFO is now automatically a drone!
See the "Aircraft Identification Guide for Airline Pilots" above in Post #40, copied below.
No longer do pilots have to embarass themselves claiming they saw a UFO, or were hit by a UFO! It's always a drone!
Love it!UFO! Any UFO is now automatically a drone!
See the "Aircraft Identification Guide for Airline Pilots" above in Post #40, copied below.
No longer do pilots have to embarass themselves claiming they saw a UFO, or were hit by a UFO! It's always a drone!
View attachment 87710
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
3 Spring rain turn to snow in the mountain
- Started by alex_markov
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
