NZ Police Helicopter Nearly Taken Out by a Drone Last Night.

[sar104]

OK, you don't want the truth, I see that now.

That's spectacularly ironic, considering the level of misinformation that you have been posting

You want to place blame without all the facts.

So is that. And I haven't mentioned placing blame even once.

That's OK as long as you understand that this is why we are beginning to see the end of the hobby.

Your entirely fact-free speculation in order to contrive an argument that it could not have happened is potentially far more damaging in terms of the impression it creates of recreational drone users.

You may be right about the transition level and what not. All I'm trying to do is point out there are many factors to consider and that a simple report doesn't always make it true.

I see - even after I pointed out some "facts" you couldn't even be bothered to verify them yourself. That's just pathetic.

Again, we're starting to see Gatwick wasn't what it appeared to be. 10s of thousands of passengers with smart phones and not one single picture of a drone that I'm aware of. Now the police are claiming responsibility. PLEASE, stop jumping to conclusion before we have the facts. This is all I'm trying to say. We can argue the technical views all day but the actual facts are not yet know. Again, before jumping to conclusions, wait for the facts.

Please - just stop. Facts are not your strong suit.

I'm willing to be I can find similar responses from you about the Gatwick incident in the threads before it was starting to look like they authorities shot themselves in the foot while blaming consumers? Should I look?

Similar responses? You mean pointing out when people post obvious nonsense? Yes - you probably would, but I'm sure that would be far too much work for you to read.

Let's get the F.A.C.T.S before condemning. This is the same attitude that put's innocent people in jail.

You've lost me again - who is condemning whom? Apart from intellectual laziness of course - I admit I'm kind of condemning that.

 

[TheRoach]

That's spectacularly ironic, considering the level of misinformation that you have been posting



So is that. And I haven't mentioned placing blame even once.



Your entirely fact-free speculation in order to contrive an argument that it could not have happened is potentially far more damaging in terms of the impression it creates of recreational drone users.



I see - even after I pointed out some "facts" you couldn't even be bothered to verify them yourself. That's just pathetic.



Please - just stop. Facts are not your strong suit.



Similar responses? You mean pointing out when people post obvious nonsense? Yes - you probably would, but I'm sure that would be far too much work for you to read.



You've lost me again - who is condemning whom? Apart from intellectual laziness of course - I admit I'm kind of condemning that.

/facepalm. I gave you the link to the Gatwick fact stating the police are claiming responsibility. Hundreds of news articles are now reporting this, not just a post here.

Geeze man, All I'm asking is that YOU wait for the facts before making a judgement. I don't have all the facts and am admitting that right here and now. What is a fact is that you obviously don't like being told you might be wrong and that you should wait for all the information before making a judgement. You're holier that thou arrogant attitude makes this more than apparent.

'Concerning Gatwick, you said "Similar responses? You mean pointing out when people post obvious nonsense? Yes - you probably would, but I'm sure that would be far too much work for you to read."

There are hundreds of news links from CNN to MSN which contain quotes from the police that it may have been their own drones. Here is just one of hundreds of articles with the same report. Additionally, you didn't answer my question. Should I look and post your knee-jerk response concerning Gatwick here? This is a direct question.
Gatwick drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits

All I'm asking is that you stop passing judgement, as you still seem to be doing about Gatwick, before you have all the facts.

You accused me of doing no research. I spent about an hour looking over topographical maps and NZ drone laws.

Is the something wrong about getting all the information before making a judgement?

It very well could have been the Drone operators fault. I'm the first to admit I don't have all the fact but you can't seem to make the same admission. I'm also intelligent enough to realize there are two sides of the story and additional info may come forth.

Why can't you just admit that based on the information at hand, we don't know what really happened at this time?

 

[packnrat]

so i guess just seeing a drone is a accident?
no impact. no proof of anything other than someones word. a common thing nowadays.
no tothe pc police. i a m not trying to minamize this. just it seams to be a thing where there are no drones in realty. or the ones reported to the police. were the police drones.
and compairing a helo and a maned airplane impact to seeing a drone.. indo not get the connection.
yes i know tyops. my fat fingers, and then this phone.chages words for me thinking i ment to say that.

 

[sar104]

/facepalm. I gave you the link to the Gatwick fact stating the police are claiming responsibility. Hundreds of news articles are now reporting this, not just a post here.

Geeze man, All I'm asking is that YOU wait for the facts before making a judgement. I don't have all the facts and am admitting that right here and now. What is a fact is that you obviously don't like being told you might be wrong and that you should wait for all the information before making a judgement. You're holier that thou arrogant attitude makes this more than apparent.

'Concerning Gatwick, you said "Similar responses? You mean pointing out when people post obvious nonsense? Yes - you probably would, but I'm sure that would be far too much work for you to read."

There are hundreds of news links from CNN to MSN which contain quotes from the police that it may have been their own drones. Here is just one of hundreds of articles with the same report. Additionally, you didn't answer my question. Should I look and post your knee-jerk response concerning Gatwick here? This is a direct question.
Gatwick drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits

All I'm asking is that you stop passing judgement, as you still seem to be doing about Gatwick, before you have all the facts.

You accused me of doing no research. I spent about an hour looking over topographical maps and NZ drone laws.

Is the something wrong about getting all the information before making a judgement?

It very well could have been the Drone operators fault. I'm the first to admit I don't have all the fact but you can't seem to make the same admission. I'm also intelligent enough to realize there are two sides of the story and additional info may come forth.

Why can't you just admit that based on the information at hand, we don't know what really happened at this time?

I agree - based on the information that we have we don't know exactly what happened in either incident, and I never argued that we did. But that's no reason to add to the confusion by posting blatantly incorrect speculation. For example, in the NZ incident (which this thread was actually about until you decided to try some deflection by switching to the Gatwick event) you criticized others for making assumptions, such as what the altitude of 1400 ft meant, when in fact there is no question at all over what that meant - it was purely your own ignorance. In the Gatwick incident the police have indeed stated that some of the sightings were likely of their UAVs. No one disputes that, but it doesn't follow from that that all the sightings were of police UAVs - and in fact that is most unlikely since they only brought them in after the initial event and never flew them while the airport was operating.

There are hundreds of news links from CNN to MSN which contain quotes from the police that it may have been their own drones. Here is just one of hundreds of articles with the same report. Additionally, you didn't answer my question. Should I look and post your knee-jerk response concerning Gatwick here? This is a direct question.

I don't care what you look up, and you don't get to demand answers from me either. I suggest you just stop posting altogether - that would be the most useful thing you could do.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Second, NZ is very mountainous, even in Auckland as it is located on the ring of fire. Did the drone pilot take off from the top of a volcano which would make the flight legal? Rangitoto is 853 ft above sea level for example. (I am making assumptions about NZ drone law - not good).

As a born New Zealander, I can enlighten you on a bit of Geography ... Rangitoto is a dormant volcanic island off the shore of Auckland - in the Hauraki Gulf ... It is not on-shore, takes a ferry to get to, and is nowhere near the site where the incident took place. If you look back to the OP, and open the link - you'll read that the incident took place over a major road junction in central Auckland, and you can see from the photograph in that link, that the majority of Auckland City is flat, and actually only a few metres above seal level.
But - even if the drone did take off from 260 metres at the top of Rangitoto Island, it must descend with distance and maintain 400ft 'above ground level' to fly legally ...

 

[Super Dave O]

Ah h

How to we know that everything you typed wasn't made up?

Mark

Ah haa..LoL because I didn't tell any facts, just my interpretation

 

[Drgnfli]

Could a Mavic Pro or Air really take out a helicopter?

Chances are slim!
Besides, the pilot stated it was "meters away." Goodness! Was it 2 meters, 20 meters, 200 meters? A better estimate from the pilot would be a better story. Statements like that make you doubt the validity of the whole sighting. Probably 200 meters from a bird. Remember, exciting news SELLS!

 

[FoxhallGH]

Chances are slim!

Maybe not with a windscreen, or [main] rotor strike - but very likely if it hit the tail-rotor.
Also depends on how many rotors the helicopter has. The recorded hit on a helicopter, was on a Blackhawk, which has 5 main rotor blades, and is designed to fly with the complete loss of one of them. Something like a two-blade Bell Jetranger would be in a lot more trouble!

 

[Drgnfli]

It is true that many people do stupid things. But, any licensed pilot that has "the holy crap scared out of them" because they are worried about colliding with a drone is living with a blindfold on as to the real dangers. Every average day in the US, three to four general aviation class aircraft crash and at least one person is killed. This has been going on forever and will continue every day into the future. Many thousands of aircraft have crashed and thousands of people have died and not a single one has been due to a collision with a UAV. Crashing due to a collision with a UAV should be the last thing any pilot should be worried about. All of their attention should be on the real dangers.

Death due to UAV should be pretty much the last thing any of us worry about. Last year, in the US, the CDC estimates that 80,000 people died from the Flue. Next time you go out in public (which is how you catch the Flue), think about that. If that isn't scary enough, errors by medical professionals cause the death of between 50,000 and over 250,000 people a year in the US. Are you thinking about visiting your doctor?

This helicopter crew have had a close encounter with a UAV at night in the dark, or perhaps not.

Nick

Very well said!!!

 

[Drgnfli]

Maybe not with a windscreen, or [main] rotor strike - but very likely if it hit the tail-rotor.
Also depends on how many rotors the helicopter has. The recorded hit on a helicopter, was on a Blackhawk, which has 5 main rotor blades, and is designed to fly with the complete loss of one of them. Something like a two-blade Bell Jetranger would be in a lot more trouble!

I'll say it again! CHANCES ARE SLIM!!!

 

[FoxhallGH]

I'll say it again! CHANCES ARE SLIM!!!

And that could be said of any Air Accident Report ...

 

[sar104]

I'll say it again! CHANCES ARE SLIM!!!

A big concern for a light helicopter is the windshield. Those are not going to withstand an impact with even a small UAV if the helicopter is a cruising speed. A main rotor strike hasn't been tested as far as I'm aware, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in one when that happened - they are not designed for that kind of impact.

 

[elwyn5150]

I've been wondering for a while now, I was shooting some drone on drone photos and my Mavic slid over the top of my Tello about ten feet above and literally blew it out of the air.
Wouldn't the helicopter just blow the drone down or would it get sucked in by by the forward movement of the helicopter?

That's NOT how to make drones reproduce! You need the drone's air intake to suck in birds and bees.

 

[Dragonfly]

First off this is a Police Helicopter equipped with all the night vision cameras and infra red sensing cameras and Trained Police, yet on a night of celibration when the possibility of helium filled silver Ballons from many party goers and children around the city are like to floating around the sky from lost owners, NZs best equipped men and helicopter see what they think is a drone and run for home with their tail between their legs crying.
Trained to handle a situation but with all the best nigh vision cameras on board could not track and follow so called drone back to operator and call for ground forces to intercept and arrest. Either somthing doesn't add up or our police force is super inadequate.
Even on Utube the English police can come across a drone at night at closes quarters, compose themselves and track via night vision back to operator for an arrest. But not in NZ, it's attack of the ballons, get me outta here.

That is what got me going right away. You won't find a post where I defend any idiot who puts airplanes or helicopters in jeopardy. If this incident is true I hope they find the jerk and fine him/her the most that is allowed.

 

[sar104]

First off this is a Police Helicopter equipped with all the night vision cameras and infra red sensing cameras and Trained Police, yet on a night of celibration when the possibility of helium filled silver Ballons from many party goers and children around the city are like to floating around the sky from lost owners, NZs best equipped men and helicopter see what they think is a drone and run for home with their tail between their legs crying.
Trained to handle a situation but with all the best nigh vision cameras on board could not track and follow so called drone back to operator and call for ground forces to intercept and arrest. Either somthing doesn't add up or our police force is super inadequate.
Even on Utube the English police can come across a drone at night at closes quarters, compose themselves and track via night vision back to operator for an arrest. But not in NZ, it's attack of the ballons, get me outta here.

That must be the answer. The NZ police pilots are small felines.

 

[DiggerNZ]

First off this is a Police Helicopter equipped with all the night vision cameras and infra red sensing cameras and Trained Police, yet on a night of celibration when the possibility of helium filled silver Ballons from many party goers and children around the city are like to floating around the sky from lost owners, NZs best equipped men and helicopter see what they think is a drone and run for home with their tail between their legs crying.
Trained to handle a situation but with all the best nigh vision cameras on board could not track and follow so called drone back to operator and call for ground forces to intercept and arrest. Either somthing doesn't add up or our police force is super inadequate.
Even on Utube the English police can come across a drone at night at closes quarters, compose themselves and track via night vision back to operator for an arrest. But not in NZ, it's attack of the ballons, get me outta here.

Tell me. As a pilot would you know what the intentions of someone flying a drone towards a Police helicopter would be? Would it not be possible that knowing you are flying a police helicopter, something that most people on the ground in Auckland know the sound of, that you would be more inclined to think someone was actually flying it at you, I mean unless you have no brain, why the hell would you be flying a drone that high when the police are flying around.
“Turns there tails and run”
You have thousands of people below. You don’t know if it’s aimed at you and if it will continue to come at you. Best course of action, turn and get the **** out of there for the sake of those on board and all the innocent people below. What would you suggest they do?

 

[FoxhallGH]

Tell me. As a pilot would you know what the intentions of someone flying a drone towards a Police helicopter would be? Would it not be possible that knowing you are flying a police helicopter, something that most people on the ground in Auckland know the sound of, that you would be more inclined to think someone was actually flying it at you, I mean unless you have no brain, why the **** would you be flying a drone that high when the police are flying around.
“Turns there tails and run”
You have thousands of people below. You don’t know if it’s aimed at you and if it will continue to come at you. Best course of action, turn and get the **** out of there for the sake of those on board and all the innocent people below. What would you suggest they do?

With you on that one @DiggerNZ ... Isn't 20-20 hindsight a wonderful thing! It's very easy to talk about what you would have done and criticise people for doing something else - but - if you are actually that helicopter pilot with the responsibility for the aircraft, its crew and the populace below - you have to make a split second decision. Unlike the 'glorified' movie depicted combat pilots @Dragonfly - you'll find that 'real' pilots have safety in mind ... Just like real Drone pilots also do ...

 

[Point Zero]

All the peeps that keep saying the hobby is under threat need to realise how much money, effort and technology is currently being pumped into civil and commercial drone development. The laws currently in place are going to be relaxed as this new tech is further integrated into our everyday lives.

There are many posts right here regarding this.

Like someone else pointed out regarding the deaths and utter carnage caused by guns, yet they don't seem to really raise an eyebrow to that and yet scream out loud at the top of their misguided voices of the evil that some drone pilots do! I mean to say that its laughable would be a gross understatement. That's why these posts always get so heated. On one side you have rational human beings that look at the bigger picture and on the other you have a few tiny minded fear-mongers that sit glued to their fake news stations ready to write another BS post.

I love the fact that @JDawg drone identification post got so may likes. That should tell you how the majority feel lol.

Don't give these drone near miss stories the time of day, they are not worth the paper they are printed on!

 

[FoxhallGH]

All the peeps that keep saying the hobby is under threat need to realise how much money, effort and technology is currently being pumped into civil and commercial drone development. The laws currently in place are going to be relaxed as this new tech is further integrated into our everyday lives.

There are many posts right here regarding this.

Like someone else pointed out regarding the deaths and utter carnage caused by guns, yet they don't seem to really raise an eyebrow to that and yet scream out loud at the top of their misguided voices of the evil that some drone pilots do! I mean to say that its laughable would be a gross understatement. That's why these posts always get so heated. On one side you have rational human beings that look at the bigger picture and on the other you have a few tiny minded fear-mongers that sit glued to their fake news stations ready to write another BS post.

I love the fact that @JDawg drone identification post got so may likes. That should tell you how the majority feel lol.

Don't give these drone near miss stories the time of day, they are not worth the paper they are printed on!

You are probably right with 99% of what you say there ... Unfortunately just ignoring these stories won't make them go away! By discussing them, it gives us a forum to talk about the impact of such 'stories' and formulate some sort of response that allows us to put something sensible to people who question us about these 'near misses' - in an authoritive way - and in a way that shows we are concerned and responsible. Otherwise, we all get tarred with the same brush ...

 

[Bella]

OMG just release all the hate already. Flying a helicopter ain't exactly easy. Must've been a scary experience for the PIC, fellow pilot and human being. Balloons don't hover much like drones. And spotting anything while flying inside of an aircraft is often very difficult in the best of conditions. A drone is tiny, tiny to spot and if it was close enough to see, it's too darn close. There apparently hasn't been any documented drone collisions, but there have been plenty of documented bird collisions, many resulting in death. I think rather than dismissing the pilot's account as some other object, consider it as something that could have happened and make an effort to show some compassion.