Near miss with helicopter at South Hollywood beach, Florida.

[sar104]

Helicopter pilots can't have whatever they want. FAA guidance is helicopters must stay above 500' unless landing/take off or when given clearance. The reason for this is to maintain a safe level of separation. This helicopter was charging down the coastline below that safe level. Whether or not it was a news helicopter doesn't give him a license to violate that rule.

No - that is neither the guidance nor the law for altitude minimums for helicopters - you have to read the whole thing, not just the first sentence:

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—​

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.​

 

[Dabrain]

I just learned that you can find the rules, but apparently don't think they apply equally to you, that you don't understand definition of the word hypocrite, and I'm pretty sure while you've been preoccupied with trolling me...your windowless van just got towed out of the school parking lot.

Down boy, humor isn't always appreciated, I found it humorous though.

 

[Riteguy]

Thats not actually true or how it works.




Because the chance of a drone user seeing a big, noisy manned aircraft is a **** of a lot higher than a manned aircraft seeing a tiny, inaudible drone passing by at 100kts+



Plenty of aircraft are allowed to fly below 500ft as part of the flight, mission or tasking. So its quite possible to have an accident.



Plenty of things that arent crop dusting and ambulance also operate at or below 500ft completely legally. I also wouldnt expect a pilot to be continuously hammering "refresh" on his mobile phone all flight just in case someone fancied flying a drone along his flight route.



The limit is quite simply - the unammed operator is responsible for maintaining separation and avoiding collisions. If he is unable or unwilling to do that he should choose to not make the flight in that area. Any offences the helicopter commits are completely independent and investigated as such (flying a drone 50ft over a crowded beach would be an offence in most countries too!).



Well there is a solution - check before flying the drone, stay under 400ft and *maintain VLOS and a lookout*. The place in this video has tons of media and tourist helicopters buzzing the beach every day. Anyone whose been there more than 5 minutes would be aware of that and should factor that into the decision to fly or not.





There is no point in law unless its enforced and sanctions are dished out. Punishing the idiots in a very public way and in a way they feel it (large fines, confiscation of equipment etc) should help deter other idiots doing the same.

Drones are tolerated in the airspace generally at the moment but with that comes responsibility. If people cant play nice with that, they'll get banned.

You state that plenty of aircraft are allowed to fly below 500 ft as part of the flight, mission, or tasking. If they are flying below 500 ft without approval, they would be in violation. Can you state who is approved to fly routinely at a level below 500 ft even though FAA guidelines say they should remain or 500 ft?

 

[Oskar]

This is fake. Look at the propellers

 

[Underdog1964]

 

[gnirtS]

Can you state who is approved to fly routinely at a level below 500 ft even though FAA guidelines say they should remain or 500 ft?

Anything that is approved to do so (or outside controlled airspace away from land and so on). It can include medical services, police, seach and rescue, military, media and anything else. Oh and anything taking off and landing at small strips, the ocean, heliports...
Lots of things can routinely be under 500ft completely legally.

 

[sar104]

You state that plenty of aircraft are allowed to fly below 500 ft as part of the flight, mission, or tasking. If they are flying below 500 ft without approval, they would be in violation. Can you state who is approved to fly routinely at a level below 500 ft even though FAA guidelines say they should remain or 500 ft?

So you still haven't read 91.119?

 

[TheRoach]

While we are at it, lets not leave out the guy in the back seat.....
View attachment 44057

What I see is a hat hanging on the collective control

 

[ac0j]

What I see is a hat hanging on the collective control

The yellow box is around a person in the back seat, behind the front seat you can even see part of his helmet. above that box.
Why are people still doubting this? There has been proof and admission posted in the very thread. No need to analyze the rotors, foot boards, and pilots seats.
A person in this thread knows the pilot and aircraft, the pilot has been identified, and the FAA has been involved.
For those of you who are "just look at the pictures" people, have someone read the text for you!

 

[gnirtS]

Some people cling onto the "drones never cause problems" mantra and will always scream "fake" regardless of the facts and evidence. Confirmation bias etc etc.

 

[TheRoach]

I think this is a hoax. The right side foot step seems to missing and photoshopped out. Many of you claim to see a pilot, I don't see it. I see what I believe to be a hat hanging on the collective on the left. Additionally, while the helicopter is throwing a shadow, it doesn't appear in line with other shadows. The helicopter shadow is well in front of the aircraft while nearby building have very short shadows indicating the sun was almost directly over head. The sun would have to be lower in the sky to project the shadow so far in front of the aircraft. Finally, there is zero hot exhaust gas distortion in the video. My 2 cents.

 

[TheRoach]

The yellow box is around a person in the back seat, behind the front seat you can even see part of his helmet. above that box.
Why are people still doubting this? There has been proof and admission posted in the very thread. No need to analyze the rotors, foot boards, and pilots seats.
A person in this thread knows the pilot and aircraft, the pilot has been identified, and the FAA has been involved.
For those of you who are "just look at the pictures" people, have someone read the text for you!

I see a hat hanging on the left collective, the right foot step photoshopped out and no exhaust gas distortion. It's a hoax in my opinion.

 

[Dizzy1971]

Why does the drone pilot need to be fried? If he was below 400' and within Los... Is it possible the helicopter was flying in the drones airspace rather than the other way around?

Nope...drones never ever have their own airspace when it comes to manned aircraft being in proximity. Maybe this guy just didn’t have time to react...maybe he just doesn’t care...maybe he’s just a dull noggin. It doesn’t matter. What he did could’ve cost human lives!
And IF it is a hoax,this guy is still a tool for 1. Making it look like he committed a crime and 2. Wasting the time of an FAA investigator.

 

[Dizzy1971]

Sooner or later something bad is going to happen, but of the millions of drone flights daily across the country for the entire history of drones, there is only one documented collision between a manned aircraft and a drone in USA airspace that i am aware of......and nobody got hurt.

Either our population is super lucky, or the dangerof drones in the sky is vastly overstated.

Drone vs helicopter has the potential to be devastating....but for whatever reason drones don’t seem to be running into helicopters. I’m not sure what laws or policies can be put in place to improve safety.

I think that there must just be a majority of drone flyers who simply follow the rules. I mean,when you think about it,most people are law abiding in our society. so it makes sense that those of us who are living within the norms and flying drones would follow the accepted rules within our hobby,as we do in our day to day.

 

[gnirtS]

Id venture lots dont follow the rules. Most people go into a shop, buy one and are utterly unaware of the rules. They dont seek out internet forums and so on.
They just assume because you can walk into a shop and buy it that you can use it with no responsibility.

Its even worse when they go abroad and make no effort at all to research local laws and regulations.

 

[GavieboyDji]

I think it's probably going to take a few getting a hefty fine and made famous by the media before hobbyists get the message. Hopefully that happens before someone dies.

I also believe that drone manufacturers are partly to blame here. Just look at their advertising...its like a freakin Pepsi commercial. Anyone can do it...look at all the fun you'll have...all the things you can see...be an instagram and YouTube sensation. Nothing dangerous here and you can fly anywhere.

Then people get their drones and go straight to the quick start up guide virtually ignoring all the warnings in the full user manual as is generally the case for most products.

Then factor in that even most commercial operators have no need for a $40000 drone so how do you make them cheaper? ...Sell millions of them. To anyone. What could possibly go wrong?

You could say most YouTube bloggers as well people like Casey have made young kids flock to buying these expensive machines even though they've had no experience.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

All other factors, hoaxes, etc. aside. If he was under 400', within VLOS, not in controlled airspace, and otherwise flying legally per FAA rules, then the only real question is did he react accordingly?

1) Did he see or hear the aircraft coming his way? Depending on wind and other noises around him, maybe not.

2) If he did see or hear it, did he react accordingly? If he tried to descend, and with the rate of decent for a Mavic, he would have potentially flown right into the path of the aircraft.

3) If he did see it and had enough time to react under the circumstances, could he have climbed in altitude quickly enough to get out of the way of the aircraft. This would have caused him to go above 400' which is allowed during an emergency, and then report it to the FAA upon request per FAA guidelines.

So the big questions are: Was he under 400', within VLOS, not in controlled airspace, and did he see and identify the aircraft in time to react in a safe way? These are questions for the FAA to investigate and decide.

If he was flying within all these parameters and legal, then an inappropriate reaction to descend by an inexperienced pilot may have inadvertently caused a major accident with possible injury or death.

As usual, there are many to condemn before the actual facts are known. I agree with you IF he was flying illegally, BVLOS, using FPV, etc., etc. But we do not have proof or facts at this point and most are assuming they know the fact when they don't.

Think about it! It could have been one of you on the beach while on vacation, Flying Legally, and this happens to. I have read posts on these group where UAV pilots were flying over their own property and a military aircraft, helo, etc, flew past them below 400, 300, and even 200' and had no warning, scaring the **** out of them. Did that automatically make them guilty of flying illegal?

He should be Innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
Wait for the facts!

 

[sar104]

All other factors, hoaxes, etc. aside. If he was under 400', within VLOS, not in controlled airspace, and otherwise flying legally per FAA rules, then the only real question is did he react accordingly?

1) Did he see or hear the aircraft coming his way? Depending on wind and other noises around him, maybe not.

2) If he did see or hear it, did he react accordingly? If he tried to descend, and with the rate of decent for a Mavic, he would have potentially flown right into the path of the aircraft.

3) If he did see it and had enough time to react under the circumstances, could he have climbed in altitude quickly enough to get out of the way of the aircraft. This would have caused him to go above 400' which is allowed during an emergency, and then report it to the FAA upon request per FAA guidelines.

So the big questions are: Was he under 400', within VLOS, not in controlled airspace, and did he see and identify the aircraft in time to react in a safe way? These are questions for the FAA to investigate and decide.

If he was flying within all these parameters and legal, then an inappropriate reaction to descend by an inexperienced pilot may have inadvertently caused a major accident with possible injury or death.

As usual, there are many to condemn before the actual facts are known. I agree with you IF he was flying illegally, BVLOS, using FPV, etc., etc. But we do not have proof or facts at this point and most are assuming they know the fact when they don't.

Think about it! It could have been one of you on the beach while on vacation, Flying Legally, and this happens to. I have read posts on these group where UAV pilots were flying over their own property and a military aircraft, helo, etc, flew past them below 400, 300, and even 200' and had no warning, scaring the **** out of them. Did that automatically make them guilty of flying illegal?

He should be Innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
Wait for the facts!

He was likely over 400 ft AGL. The hotel that he was flying next to is a good reference point, because the drone was at exactly the same height as the top of the building:



That's a 36 floor hotel and, according to the GE DEM, the building is 450 ft tall.

 

[Classic flyer]

Thanx much...be safe, fly smart!

 

[Classic flyer]

The drone has no airspace - US law requires that UAVs must yield to manned aircraft at all times:

14 CFR 101.41

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;​

That's the reason for the VLOS recommendation - so that the pilot is close enough to the drone to see/hear approaching aircraft and take appropriate evasive action. If he is thousands of feet away, as in this case, he's often not going to be able to do that in time.

If only people would read the regs!!