Final Report on 2021 Police Drone Collision with Cessna - A Very Interesting Analysis

[PBDawg]

The Transportation Safety Board has released its final report regarding a collision between a police drone and a Cessna in 2021, as the Cessna made its final approach into Buttonville Airport. In this video, Don Joyce provides a fascinating analysis of the incident and the report. In the video, Don does mistakenly refer to the airport as "Buttonwood", but his analysis is solid.

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

 

[GFields]

Thanks for sharing

 

[AnAvailableUsername]

The Transportation Safety Board has released its final report regarding a collision between a police drone and a Cessna in 2021, as the Cessna made its final approach into Buttonville Airport. In this video, Don Joyce provides a fascinating analysis of the incident and the report. In the video, Don does mistakenly refer to the airport as "Buttonwood", but his analysis is solid.

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

To summarise, a cop flew a drone into controlled airspace without requesting or receiving permission, hovered at 120m directly in the approach path, hit a Cessna, and the TSB said it was the Cessna's fault!

 

[Ty Pilot]

To summarise, a cop flew a drone into controlled airspace without requesting or receiving permission, hovered at 120m directly in the approach path, hit a Cessna, and the TSB said it was the Cessna's fault!

Trudeau's Canada.

To be fair, they listed the Cessna's pilots' lack of successfully scanning the airspace before listing the Police UA Pilot's multiple mistakes. But yeah, I agree, this had nothing to do with the Cessna and everything to do the Police UA pilot and their system failing on so many levels.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Also we have to keep in mind that; (as mentioned in the video), the agency that produced that report does not assign blame or prosecute, their mission is to determine what went wrong and make recommendations on how to avoid in the future.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

At what range could someone in a Cessna see a drone of that size, especially if they are not looking for and drone but perhaps other manned aircraft?
Also what is the pilot's field of view over the plane's nose?

 

[AnAvailableUsername]

At what range could someone in a Cessna see a drone of that size, especially if they are not looking for and drone but perhaps other manned aircraft?
Also what is the pilot's field of view over the plane's nose?

Having flown similar style single engine aircraft, chances of seeing it are low to zero.
From a long distance it would be simply too small and once closer, the engine bay is in front blocking anything that may be approaching from slightly underneath.
Vision over the nose is limited even more with full flaps before landing.

 

[timinator]

The Cessna occupants had virtually no chance of seeing a small black stationary object on final approach below the horizon. It would completely blend in with the urban terrain. ALL Of the responsibility remains with the YRP rpas operator.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Having flown similar style single engine aircraft, chances of seeing it are low to zero.
From a long distance it would be simply too small and once closer, the engine bay is in front blocking anything that may be approaching from slightly underneath.
Vision over the nose is limited even more with full flaps before landing.

That's what I was thinking, so a bit unfair to imply the Cessna pilots should have seen it or that they failed to notice it ...... isn't it?

 

[timinator]

That's what I was thinking, so a bit unfair to imply the Cessna pilots should have seen it or that they failed to notice it ...... isn't it?

Indeed, especially in a student and instructor flight.

 

[JimCunn]

The 172 was on final, so slow, which means it was nose high. 172 has a high instrument panel anyway, making the situation worse. The drone was below the horizon and encroaching on the airport approach. in a place where it shouldn't have been. Chances of seeing if were infinitesimal. That part of the report was unusually placed and oddly worded. The 172 was not at fault.

 

[4 inch pistons]

In the USA the wording is that way for a judge to influence a possible jury to make a decision.

 

[lookout]

The Cessna occupants had virtually no chance of seeing a small black stationary object on final approach below the horizon. It would completely blend in with the urban terrain. ALL Of the responsibility remains with the YRP rpas operator.

Practically anywhere in flight it would have a hard time seeing the drone at all.

 

[Gagey52]

As a former holder of a PPL, and driver of bug smashers, I can’t believe that they would find fault with the pilot on final, you have enough to do without looking for drones. It hard enough to see other light aircraft in the circuit.
My thoughts.
Regards

 

[sar104]

That's what I was thinking, so a bit unfair to imply the Cessna pilots should have seen it or that they failed to notice it ...... isn't it?

The report doesn't in any way blame the Cessna crew. It simply notes that they did not see the Matrice, and in fact goes on to explain why it would have been almost impossible for them to have seen it, even if they had been notified (which they were not) that it was in the area.

Yet another example of where it is better, and faster, to read the actual report rather than watching YouTube.

Air transportation safety investigation report A21O0069 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

www.bst-tsb.gc.ca

 

[15PSI]

To summarise, a cop flew a drone into controlled airspace without requesting or receiving permission, hovered at 120m directly in the approach path, hit a Cessna, and the TSB said it was the Cessna's fault!

To summarise, a cop flew a drone into controlled airspace without requesting or receiving permission, hovered at 120m directly in the approach path, hit a Cessna, and the TSB said it was the Cessna's fault!

I read the full report. It did not in any way place blame on the 172. The report indicated numerous procedural failures on the PDs part, which eventually led to changes in their SOPs for their drone operators.

 

[AnAvailableUsername]

I read the full report. It did not in any way place blame on the 172. The report indicated numerous procedural failures on the PDs part, which eventually led to changes in their SOPs for their drone operators.

I don't quite agree.

I too read the report.

I accept that it didn't say "it was the Cessna's pilots fault", I was exaggerating just a little.

However, as the YT video points out, the first item under the heading 'Finding as to causes and contributing factors' is the 'active scanning' of the flight crew [was] 'unsuccessful'.

Whilst this report does not apportion blame directly, a third party unfamiliar with the facts, would infer from this report that the flight crew should have seen it but didn't.
Despite the previous paragraph saying it would be literally impossible for the pilot to see.

That's why I am uncomfortable with the report and why the original YT reviewer took issue with this aspect.

Sometimes conclusions look like they're written to suit a narrative.

 

[Robert Prior]

The report doesn't in any way blame the Cessna crew. It simply notes that they did not see the Matrice

Is it usual to mention things like that in investigations into collisions?

If this was an incident report in my own field (education), mentioning that someone didn't see something would imply that they should have seen it. And listing it first in the findings would imply that it was the most important factor.

I read the report before I watched Don's video, and I had the same reaction to item 1 in the findings (3.1). I also noted that in item 3 the report reiterated that the RPAS pilot was likely task saturated (as mentioned earlier in the report), but item 1 didn't mention that the drone was likely below the visual acuity of the pilots and hard to spot in urban clutter (which was also mentioned earlier).

In both engineering (which I think Don is and I was) and education (which I am in now) if something is in the body of a report but not in the findings or action items it is basically buried and will be ignored.

(I should note that, unlike the TSB, our incident reports were often entirely about assigning blame and covering butts, usually through coded language. I'm struggling not to read the TSB report like that even though I know that's the wrong way to read it — my brain keeps trying to read between the lines, as I've had to spend the last three decades doing.)

 

[Robert Prior]

On the bright side, this has given me an idea for a physics assignment: have the students work out the maximum distance the Matrice would have been visible (based on visual acuity and drone size) and how much reaction time the pilots would have had (based on their speed).

 

[lookout]

On the bright side, this has given me an idea for a physics assignment: have the students work out the maximum distance the Matrice would have been visible (based on visual acuity and drone size) and how much reaction time the pilots would have had (based on their speed).

Half a mile at best and no reaction time. So where do these reports of drone sightings while flying come from?