Near miss with helicopter at South Hollywood beach, Florida.

[gnirtS]

[QUOTE="Aerial Gopher, post: 531226, member: 11023"
For the person that says that looks like that due to shutter speed, .[/QUOTE]

Its not shutter speed you don't understand - its rolling shutter.

 

[gnirtS]

Still stuggling to see the issue here.

The guy was flying in an area known to have large amounts of manned traffic. He shouldn't have put a drone there in the first place.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Looks like he's on the outer edge of Class C airspace. If he's an amateur (and I suspect he is), he's probably unaware. This is why I don't understand the flip-flop of all the vitriol toward professional pilots, when it's actually the "Best Buy pilots" who are the real danger.

 

[gnirtS]

Airspace makes no difference though. He was knowingly flying a drone in an area that is absolutely packed with low level, manned aircraft. The choice to fly at all was the first dumb decision.

 

[Be2daErtin]

How cool will it be if DJI builds air traffic flow in the app to warn you of flying in the flight path of an approaching helicopter

 

[gnirtS]

They'd need radar for that currently. Would up the weight of the drone somewhat!

 

[hherbson]

I think it's more likely commercial aircraft will get a version of ADS-B which can pick up the geo coordinates of a flying drone.

 

[laurens23]

The helicopter in the video is N754AW. The FAA register for N754AW.

It was probably heading to Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood International where the picture in the first link was taken. The drone is flying on the edge of the NFZ of this airport. The chance of this being fake is pretty much zero.

 

[Simmo]

Yep I reckon thats the bird alright!
(but how did they get a video of it and super-impose it on that drone flight???.............)

 

[AnzacJack]

But wait.......

 

[Simmo]

Wait for what?

 

[AnzacJack]

Just fooling around
Waiting for our friend to tell us the rotors are wrong

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

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:

View attachment 44292

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

SAR104, I agree. I checked the location on Google Earth. Based on the buildings and the visible drop-off of the ocean floor shelf, I marked the approx. location of where the UAS was at the time the Helo passed under him. The beach was just over 800 feet away. And based on the operators statement he was 1000 feet away it would most likely place him on the parking garage next to the hotel. See photo. Even if he was on the beach and knowing the visibility of the Mavic Pro, he would have definitely been outside VLOS. This alone would have made this an illegal flight. (Unless he has excellent eyesight)

 

[DeltaAlphaZulu]

That's the problem relying on FPV. Firstly, you can't hear via FPV. Secondly, you are generally not continually spinning the aircraft to scan the sky. Thirdly, the field of view is so wide-angle that you are likely to get only a couple of seconds warning even if the camera is pointing in the right direction. If he really had been within VLOS, which is only a few hundred feet for a Mavic, then he would have seen and heard the helicopter coming from his location with much more time to take evasive action.

Warning timeframe is very situational ... just this morning I was flying over a rocky coastal location, no where near any buildings, infrastructure or people, CAVOK. Flight was probably no more than 20m AGL at any time and VLOS all the time. I had packed up and about to depart, but taking a few iPhone snaps of the landscape / scenery. A Robinson R44 suddenly appeared over a nearby rocky headland, looked like it was flying close to a normal cruise speed, and within 3-4 seconds flew directly over where I had been flying my MP only 5 min before. I estimate the helo was less than 120m AGL - I've had the MP to 120m (max legal alt in Australia) plenty of times, and have flown fixed wing AC at 500' along a coastline, so I feel I have an educated / experienced estimate. There was no significant noise to muffle the sound of the helicopter (minor wind / wave sound), I was actually looking in the relevant direction at the time. My first thought was "geez, if I'd still been flying and up at 120m, that thing would have gone UNDER my MP before I'd have time to react". The simple fact is that aircraft, approaching at the speed and altitude and heading it was, partially hidden by nearby terrain until last few seconds, was impossible to see with adequate warning time to make avoidance manoeuvres if I'd still been flying.

 

[sar104]

Warning timeframe is very situational ... just this morning I was flying over a rocky coastal location, no where near any buildings, infrastructure or people, CAVOK. Flight was probably no more than 20m AGL at any time and VLOS all the time. I had packed up and about to depart, but taking a few iPhone snaps of the landscape / scenery. A Robinson R44 suddenly appeared over a nearby rocky headland, looked like it was flying close to a normal cruise speed, and within 3-4 seconds flew directly over where I had been flying my MP only 5 min before. I estimate the helo was less than 120m AGL - I've had the MP to 120m (max legal alt in Australia) plenty of times, and have flown fixed wing AC at 500' along a coastline, so I feel I have an educated / experienced estimate. There was no significant noise to muffle the sound of the helicopter (minor wind / wave sound), I was actually looking in the relevant direction at the time. My first thought was "geez, if I'd still been flying and up at 120m, that thing would have gone UNDER my MP before I'd have time to react". The simple fact is that aircraft, approaching at the speed and altitude and heading it was, partially hidden by nearby terrain until last few seconds, was impossible to see with adequate warning time to make avoidance manoeuvres if I'd still been flying.

A good example that illustrates the risks any time we put UAVs up into potential traffic. All we can do is rely on situational awareness - we know that helicopters tend to fly coastlines at these kinds of altitudes, we know that they can be hard to see if there is not unrestricted visibility along the coast, and we know that they can be hard to hear in those situations too. All of which strongly suggests not flying at those altitudes, even though it is otherwise permitted and independent of ceiling and visibility.

 

[Thwyllo]

Warning timeframe is very situational ... just this morning I was flying over a rocky coastal location, no where near any buildings, infrastructure or people, CAVOK. Flight was probably no more than 20m AGL at any time and VLOS all the time. I had packed up and about to depart, but taking a few iPhone snaps of the landscape / scenery. A Robinson R44 suddenly appeared over a nearby rocky headland, looked like it was flying close to a normal cruise speed, and within 3-4 seconds flew directly over where I had been flying my MP only 5 min before. I estimate the helo was less than 120m AGL - I've had the MP to 120m (max legal alt in Australia) plenty of times, and have flown fixed wing AC at 500' along a coastline, so I feel I have an educated / experienced estimate. There was no significant noise to muffle the sound of the helicopter (minor wind / wave sound), I was actually looking in the relevant direction at the time. My first thought was "geez, if I'd still been flying and up at 120m, that thing would have gone UNDER my MP before I'd have time to react". The simple fact is that aircraft, approaching at the speed and altitude and heading it was, partially hidden by nearby terrain until last few seconds, was impossible to see with adequate warning time to make avoidance manoeuvres if I'd still been flying.

So I'll say what I've said before. These idiotic chopper pilots think they're in an episode of Miami Vice and that's it's ok to fly BELOW the safe height for making a survivable landing in autorotation. It's just dumb, and that's the politest word I can think of.

 

[Weaponized]

So I'll say what I've said before. These idiotic chopper pilots think they're in an episode of Miami Vice and that's it's ok to fly BELOW the safe height for making a survivable landing in autorotation. It's just dumb, and that's the politest word I can think of.

This is not a commentary on whether or not the chopper was where it was supposed to be BUT... A helicopter has to fly through the zone you describe as "not safe" every time they take off and land. How do you propose they avoid it?

 

[Thwyllo]

This is not a commentary on whether or not the chopper was where it was supposed to be BUT... A helicopter has to fly through the zone you describe as "not safe" every time they take off and land. How do you propose they avoid it?

Every aircraft does that in some shape or form at take off and landing but there's a huge difference between that and taking unnecessary risks. Fixed wings don't tend to fly around at stall speed do they (except at landing of course), so why risk pilot and passengers by flying below the recommended height for safely achieving autorotation, which in most cases is several hundred feet? It's dumb. The end.

 

[Weaponized]

Every aircraft does that in some shape or form at take off and landing but there's a huge difference between that and taking unnecessary risks. Fixed wings don't tend to fly around at stall speed do they (except at landing of course), so why risk pilot and passengers by flying below the recommended height for safely achieving autorotation, which in most cases is several hundred feet? It's dumb. The end.

Using this same logic... Recreational flying should be banned completely. They fly over property and people don't they? The whole concept of rotary wing aircraft are to be able to operate low, slow, hover, takeoff/land vertically. Again I not questioning whether or not the helicopter was authorized to be where it was but this whole idea is that they must operate only in areas where they can auto rotate is the goofiest thing I've ever heard. It can be argued that flight is an unnecessary risk. I know quite a few guys that survived helicopter crashes but I know of far more that didn't. Auto-rotate is not some kind of magic parachute that prevents the smoking hole.

Fixed wing pilots actually enter stalls for practice. NOBODY auto-rotates to the ground for practice...thats called crashing.

 

[Thwyllo]

Using this same logic... Recreational flying should be banned completely. They fly over property and people don't they? The whole concept of rotary wing aircraft are to be able to operate low, slow, hover, takeoff/land vertically. Again I not questioning whether or not the helicopter was authorized to be where it was but this whole idea is that they must operate only in areas where they can auto rotate is the goofiest thing I've ever heard. It can be argued that flight is an unnecessary risk. I know quite a few guys that survived helicopter crashes but I know of far more that didn't. Auto-rotate is not some kind of magic parachute that prevents the smoking hole.

Fixed wing pilots actually enter stalls for practice. NOBODY auto-rotates to the ground for practice...thats called crashing.

Finally you got it didnt you.....