Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[787steve]

I remember reading a few years ago about an experiment that was done at an air field where pilots in small aircraft tried to spot drones in the air below them They were flying at much slower speeds than a jetliner on approach. Even though they knew there were drones there and were specifically looking for them, they were almost always unable to spot them.

Old professional pilot here. Many times I have had ATC call passing traffic within 2000' of our position. Airliner size traffic which neither pilot in the cockpit could pick out. One of the major problems is it is hard to focus your eyes to a distance without something being there to lock on to. And, I have often seen something as small as a child's loose helium balloon floating by at higher altitudes and speeds. It's a crap shoot. Everything I read in the article is plausible. It may or may not be real.

 

[787steve]

All the discussion as to the accuracy of this report is irrelevant to me. We simply dont have enough info to confirm one way or the other. But the posts that seem to promote a belief that a drone couldn't bring down an airplane really bother me. Too often I hear about small aircraft or helicopters, being too slow to cause problems. I do not have enough experience in those to know. Also, I hear about airliners which are too big to be adversely impacted. I have experience there, and, while unlikely, I would not say that it could not happen. What no one seems to address is high speed low altitude aircraft. You may not know it, but in the US, military fighters have routes where they fly quite low at rather extreme speeds. I know of one instance where a turkey buzzard (estimated at 3lbs.) penetrated the cockpit of an A-4 at 500 ft and approx 450mph. It hit the pilot square in the face. He was saved by his helmet, his visor, and his O2 mask. Unfortunately, he was only semi conscious and at very low altitude. His only choice was to eject. He recovered, but the airplane was lost. Happily it impacted in an unpopulated area doing minimum damage.

I bothers me when some of these posts seem to say that the report is fake, then go on to imply that even if it is true, it's no big deal. You could not be more wrong. I especially loved the comment about the FAA not outlawing birds. That is ridiculous. They know that birds wouldn't pay any more attention that the idiot drone pilot who illegally filmed airplanes on final to Tel Aviv airport, following up by doing a dronie of himself on the same video. Talk about bird brains!

Mavic Pro driver

 

[Genzeka]

I'm sorry, but you are making an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Yes - commerical airlines should be able to take a drone strike to one engine and still fly. But what about control surfaces? No studies have established that yet. What about GA, where most likely the windshield will not survive, let alone control surfaces? And your fundamental point, which appears to be that it's okay to take out an airliner engine because it should still be able to fly and that isn't a problem, is patently ridiculous.

Obviously you can’t read because my point is that people are going crazy over this picture & everyone thinks the drone will take down a plane. The point is know some facts about planes & know that the windshield will shatter these drones.

 

[SDSHOBBY]

Who can really tell that is a Phantom? It only appears a white spot, maybe sth white on the ground.

 

[sar104]

Obviously you can’t read because my point is that people are going crazy over this picture & everyone thinks the drone will take down a plane. The point is know some facts about planes & know that the windshield will shatter these drones.

You probably saw the results of the recent Chinese study that impacted a mocked up airliner windshield with a drone, and while it cracked the windshield it did not break it. That's one data point, but not unexpected and reasonably supported by finite-element modeling.

But a couple of points of context are useful:

The fact that an airliner may survive a drone hit to the windshield is not the point - it may, instead, hit a control surface or an engine, neither of which are engineered to withstand this kind of projectile. A recent finite-element study of that type of collision indicated a potential for serious damage.

Even if an airliner survives such a collision - is that event really acceptable?

What if it's not an airliner, but a regular GA aircraft - there is little chance of one of those windshields surviving.​

And more generally than that, the suggestion that no one should be worried because such a collision likely won't disable or bring down an airliner is never going to be accepted by the FAA, the aviation industry or the general public, and nor should it be. Have you even stopped to consider how that message sounds to the wider population? Are you really surprised at the level of consternation this subject is generating? It's not about this one photograph, which has to be considered very suspect at this point - it's about the overall situation comprising the documented, confirmed evidence showing drones intruding on airport approach lanes, at least one confirmed collision with (luckily) a relatively robust military helicopter, and a rapidly increasing user base of recreational UAVs.

In my opinion the only path forwards that doesn't lead to draconian regulation is for the recreational UAV community to accept that it is now playing in the NAS and to be very serious about accepting the hazards and mitigating them. Unfortunately for that community, based on the comments and behavior on display in this forum and Youtube, I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The point is know some facts about planes & know that the windshield will shatter these drones.

Depends on the plane. I fly a Cessna 172. What do you think a P4P would do to my 1/8 - 1/4 inch untempered plexiglass windshield at 100 knots?

 

[Lon Denard]

Incorrect. The media whipping people into a fear-induced frenzy is making things worse.

Exactly! I completely admit that I'm not as articulate as some on here. I'm basically a mechanic and an ex grunt. However, that was my main point all along. Regardless of how clumsily I may have stated it, the problem is the media AND some in the drone community that immediately pile on with them. Instantly condemning the pilot and often the drone community itself. Calling us "yahoos", "idiots", etc at every and any possibility. Most of us, except these incredibly perfect guys like Sar104, break some guideline every time we fly! Line of sight being number one on the list. I bet even some of you part 107 guys break that one with the Mavic. Well not Sar104 he never breaks any guideline ever...

 

[Lon Denard]

Where is the info on the pilots history? I'd like to see that.

I fully admitted that it was hearsay from guys in the unit, not written evidence, calm down.

Oh wait, apparently it was true that he was flying really low.

 

[Lon Denard]

These are definitely no consumer drones ... Given the fact you have enough money, put one of these into your shopping cart:

• Freefly Alta 8 / GTOW 40 lbs (18,1 kg) @ MSL Freefly ALTA 8 Specifications - Dimensions, Weight & Payload
• DJI Agras MGS-1 / GTOW 52,9 lbs (24 kg) @MSL Agras MG-1’s Spezifikationen - DJI
• Pulseaero Vapor 55 / GTOW 55 lbs (24,9 kg) @MSL and a ceiling of 15.000 ft. Vapor 55 Helicopter UAV / Drone - Pulse Aerospace

Nah, I'm not a farmer or surveyer. In fact, they don't do anything (that I want) better than an Inspire or maybe even a P4P. I'm considering the Inspire 2 with a Z7 but we'll see. That'll be spring if I do it. I figure I'll wait to see what DJI does in the next few months, ie P5P or Mavic 2. I really like the Mavic portability and I've gotten over 2T of media so far but the camera and my editing skills need some work for sure!

 

[Lon Denard]

Depends on the plane. I fly a Cessna 172. What do you think a P4P would do to my 1/8 - 1/4 inch untempered plexiglass windshield at 100 knots?

I don't know... Have you ever struck a Canadian goose? What happened? I personally believe that in most cases, it'll bounce off doing minimal damage. However, I certainly concede that it's possible that it might crack.

Btw we always use lexan on race cars and motorcycles.... Just a thought if you're really worried about it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Lon Denard]

You probably saw the results of the recent Chinese study that impacted a mocked up airliner windshield with a drone, and while it cracked the windshield it did not break it. That's one data point, but not unexpected and reasonably supported by finite-element modeling.

But a couple of points of context are useful:

The fact that an airliner may survive a drone hit to the windshield is not the point - it may, instead, hit a control surface or an engine, neither of which are engineered to withstand this kind of projectile. A recent finite-element study of that type of collision indicated a potential for serious damage.

Even if an airliner survives such a collision - is that event really acceptable?

What if it's not an airliner, but a regular GA aircraft - there is little chance of one of those windshields surviving.​

And more generally than that, the suggestion that no one should be worried because such a collision likely won't disable or bring down an airliner is never going to be accepted by the FAA, the aviation industry or the general public, and nor should it be. Have you even stopped to consider how that message sounds to the wider population? Are you really surprised at the level of consternation this subject is generating? It's not about this one photograph, which has to be considered very suspect at this point - it's about the overall situation comprising the documented, confirmed evidence showing drones intruding on airport approach lanes, at least one confirmed collision with (luckily) a relatively robust military helicopter, and a rapidly increasing user base of recreational UAVs.

In my opinion the only path forwards that doesn't lead to draconian regulation is for the recreational UAV community to accept that it is now playing in the NAS and to be very serious about accepting the hazards and mitigating them. Unfortunately for that community, based on the comments and behavior on display in this forum and Youtube, I don't think it's going to happen.

See but the vast majority of pilots don't do anything that crazy. In fact, considering how hard you and your cronies are looking for incidents, it's amazing there are so few. You guys keep talking about what could happen but I'm talking about what has or in this case hasn't happened. You can insult my barely made it through high school intellect all you want, it won't make all of your fear mongering the truth. When I went in to renew my Homeland security badge, I asked airport security if they had had any drone sightings and they said none.

The problem I have with most of you chicken little types is that you equate my flying my Mavic 500' agl in the middle of no where with a guy flying around an airport.

 

[Lon Denard]

Firstly, that's guidance on the FAA website, not the law. There's a difference. The law is much more specific. You should try reading it. But anyway, which nationwide, community-based organization guideline do you follow? I have no allegiance to AMA. I'm not a member and I don't fly recreationally - Part 107 only.

My basis for "amazing facts"? "Repel training"? What on earth are you blathering on about now?



If you are still talking about the NY incident, the collision occurred offshore in the vicinity of Hoffman Island, not over a residential area. Maybe that's one of those "amazing facts" that you had missed by not actually reading that report either? Do you actually know anything at all about that incident?

You really don't understand anything about the relationship between Part 101 and Part 107. To be covered by Part 101 you have to follow the guidelines. If you don't follow them then you simply fall, instead, under Part 107. Part 107 regulations are not guidelines - they are law.

This is the article I read. If you have something else, if like to see it. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything but in my experience most beaches are parks or recreational areas.

It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island — when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood, authorities said Friday.

The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when the drone struck the chopper at around 8:15 p.m. Thursday, causing damage to its rotor blades.

The uninjured pilot was able to land safely at nearby Linden Airport in New Jersey.

The Fort Bragg, North Carolina-based helicopters were in the Big Apple for the United Nations General Assembly this week.

“Our aircraft was not targeted, this was a civilian drone,” said Army Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, the spokesman for the 82nd Airborne.

“It struck on the left side of fuselage. There were no adverse impacts to the flight,” he said. “One blade was damaged [and] dented in two spots and requires replacement and there is a dented window.”

Buccino added: “Our paratroopers from the 82nd are the best trained and they were able to act very quickly and very appropriately.”

He described the pilot heading the struck helicopter as an “all-American paratrooper.”

The NYPD and the military are investigating — but no arrests have been made.

The Federal Aviation Administration restricts the flying of drones and model aircrafts within five miles of airports in any direction.

Under FAA guidelines, the drones should not be flown near buildings or bridges or more than 400 feet in the air.

They are also illegal to fly anywhere in the Big Apple except in parks.

“Drones can pose a definite risk to aircrafts, especially helicopters. If they smash into a windshield they could cause copter to crash,” said a law enforcement source.

“Drones can also distract pilots causing them to lose control.

“Last night, an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities.”

 

[Hollow Dog]

For a thread that began on an at best, a very shaky FB post,it's become and emochinal battle that has been based on

See but the vast majority of pilots don't do anything that crazy. In fact, considering how hard you and your cronies are looking for incidents, it's amazing there are so few. You guys keep talking about what could happen but I'm talking about what has or in this case hasn't happened. You can insult my barely made it through high school intellect all you want, it won't make all of your fear mongering the truth. When I went in to renew my Homeland security badge, I asked airport security if they had had any drone sightings and they said none.

The problem I have with most of you chicken little types is that you equate my flying my Mavic 500' agl in the middle of no where with a guy flying around an airport.

Apparently someone else was flying their Phantom near LAX, close enough to a commercial plane for a passenger to get a picture of it...

Man's Photo Shows DJI Drone Near His Plane While Landing in LA

Yes Imaginationland
https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...ved=0ahUKEwja4OjAzanYAhVJ5WMKHWheA9gQvwUIJSgA
is real.

 

[Lon Denard]

All the discussion as to the accuracy of this report is irrelevant to me. We simply dont have enough info to confirm one way or the other. But the posts that seem to promote a belief that a drone couldn't bring down an airplane really bother me. Too often I hear about small aircraft or helicopters, being too slow to cause problems. I do not have enough experience in those to know. Also, I hear about airliners which are too big to be adversely impacted. I have experience there, and, while unlikely, I would not say that it could not happen. What no one seems to address is high speed low altitude aircraft. You may not know it, but in the US, military fighters have routes where they fly quite low at rather extreme speeds. I know of one instance where a turkey buzzard (estimated at 3lbs.) penetrated the cockpit of an A-4 at 500 ft and approx 450mph. It hit the pilot square in the face. He was saved by his helmet, his visor, and his O2 mask. Unfortunately, he was only semi conscious and at very low altitude. His only choice was to eject. He recovered, but the airplane was lost. Happily it impacted in an unpopulated area doing minimum damage.

I bothers me when some of these posts seem to say that the report is fake, then go on to imply that even if it is true, it's no big deal. You could not be more wrong. I especially loved the comment about the FAA not outlawing birds. That is ridiculous. They know that birds wouldn't pay any more attention that the idiot drone pilot who illegally filmed airplanes on final to Tel Aviv airport, following up by doing a dronie of himself on the same video. Talk about bird brains!

Mavic Pro driver

So I shouldn't fly my Mavic at 600' agl above the park by my house because an A10 Thunderbolt 2 might come screaming by? Say what? Hahaha!

Didn't that guy in Tel Aviv get arrested? Why is that a "drone community" problem? Why can't I just fly my drone without being brow beaten by you holier than thou types constantly telling me how stupid I am because I won't immediately condemn some guy flying his drone in a way that you think is irresponsible?

That's another thing, how about you all talk about some realistic guidelines that take actual risk probabilities into account? Seriously, I'm flying my drone 1000' agl out in the middle of no where. What are the real probabilities that a jet liner will crash killing everyone aboard? You talk like planes are flying overhead like ships in New York on Futurama or the 5th Element. I've been flying drones for almost a decade now and I've never even come close to an airplane.

 

[sar104]

This is the article I read. If you have something else, if like to see it. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything but in my experience most beaches are parks or recreational areas.

It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island — when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood, authorities said Friday.

The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when the drone struck the chopper at around 8:15 p.m. Thursday, causing damage to its rotor blades.

The uninjured pilot was able to land safely at nearby Linden Airport in New Jersey.

The Fort Bragg, North Carolina-based helicopters were in the Big Apple for the United Nations General Assembly this week.

“Our aircraft was not targeted, this was a civilian drone,” said Army Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, the spokesman for the 82nd Airborne.

“It struck on the left side of fuselage. There were no adverse impacts to the flight,” he said. “One blade was damaged [and] dented in two spots and requires replacement and there is a dented window.”

Buccino added: “Our paratroopers from the 82nd are the best trained and they were able to act very quickly and very appropriately.”

He described the pilot heading the struck helicopter as an “all-American paratrooper.”

The NYPD and the military are investigating — but no arrests have been made.

The Federal Aviation Administration restricts the flying of drones and model aircrafts within five miles of airports in any direction.

Under FAA guidelines, the drones should not be flown near buildings or bridges or more than 400 feet in the air.

They are also illegal to fly anywhere in the Big Apple except in parks.

“Drones can pose a definite risk to aircrafts, especially helicopters. If they smash into a windshield they could cause copter to crash,” said a law enforcement source.

“Drones can also distract pilots causing them to lose control.

“Last night, an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities.”

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

 

[sar104]

See but the vast majority of pilots don't do anything that crazy. In fact, considering how hard you and your cronies are looking for incidents, it's amazing there are so few. You guys keep talking about what could happen but I'm talking about what has or in this case hasn't happened. You can insult my barely made it through high school intellect all you want, it won't make all of your fear mongering the truth. When I went in to renew my Homeland security badge, I asked airport security if they had had any drone sightings and they said none.

The problem I have with most of you chicken little types is that you equate my flying my Mavic 500' agl in the middle of no where with a guy flying around an airport.

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't know... Have you ever struck a Canadian goose? What happened? I personally believe that in most cases, it'll bounce off doing minimal damage. However, I certainly concede that it's possible that it might crack.

Btw we always use lexan on race cars and motorcycles.... Just a thought if you're really worried about it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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!

 

[pftarch]

As I've indicated in another post on another thread, I am NOT indicating that the UAS operator, who was flying outside of VLOS AND in a TFR was blameless in this scenario. The pilots of the helicopter could have easily been killed and I am not trying to downplay this. However, the sensational nature of reporting of this incident bothers me as a UAS operator. (Please note I am not blaming the poster of this, they are simply showing what was written in an article.) Lets look at these points:

"This is the article I read. If you have something else, if like to see it. ......."

(The NTSB report is out and contradicts many statements in this article, see https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170922X54600&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=IA)

"It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island......."

(There was damage to the helicopter, but I personally feel that "Black Hawk down" is over the top and it wasn't over Staten Island)

" — when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood......"

(The collision occurred 2.5 miles offshore near what appears to be an abandoned island)

"The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when the drone struck the chopper........."

(The helicopter was at less than 300' agl when the collision occurred, and the collision was over two miles from the beach.)

"Under FAA guidelines, the drones should not be flown near buildings or bridges or more than 400 feet in the air............."

(I am unaware of the bridge and building restriction, and the drone was being flown at 300' agl miles away from buildings or bridges.)

“Last night, an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities.”

(Again, this reads much more sensational than "A military helicopter flying low struck a drone 2.5 miles away from any people and sustained minor damage.)

My "dream" is that at some point in the future UAS operations below 400' (and away from REASONABLY restricted areas such as airport flight paths, disaster scenes, reasonable TFR's, etc.) will be safe from collisions with manned aircraft. I know that Flyboy and others disagree with this sentiment, and I understand their opinion, but I feel that it is not unreasonable to indicate to manned aircraft that if you are flying below 500' agl in a non restricted area you may very likely encounter UAS traffic. I doubt that I will see this in my lifetime, but it is my dream.

I want to use my Mavic professionally (I am certified) and I fear that between operators behaving recklessly (as is the case above) and a general hysteria about the dangers of drones, it is going to be nearly impossible for me to use my UAS in a legal and prudent manner anywhere that I need to use it. (I am an architect and wish to do site, building, and roof photography).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My "dream" is that at some point in the future UAS operations below 400' (and away from REASONABLY restricted areas such as airport flight paths, disaster scenes, reasonable TFR's, etc.) will be safe from collisions with manned aircraft. I know that Flyboy and others disagree with this sentiment, and I understand their opinion, but I feel that it is not unreasonable to indicate to manned aircraft that if you are flying below 500' agl in a non restricted area you may very likely encounter UAS traffic. I doubt that I will see this in my lifetime, but it is my dream.

You may see this as there has been talk about having transponders and ADS-B installed on commercial drones. That may solve some of these problems but will also increase the price of every commercial drone.

The Case for Low Power ADS-B for Drones