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

[jephoto]

Excel

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

Excellent and thoughtful review. And highlighting the mentality police often exhibit of being above the law- or basic safety issues- because they have a badge.
It was incredibly irresponsible of the police drone pilot to be flying where he was without even contacting a ATC to let them know about his operation. I’d question the quality of their pilot certification program at the least.
It would’ve been so easy for the pilot to have tasked his “visual observer“ with making a simple phone call to AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT) while setting up or on the way to the scene. And that’s the least of what he should’ve done.
Also, the fact that they have all of the built in software alerts for the drone pilot to at least let him know he’s in a restricted area, and the path of it is turned off is crazy.

 

[Robert Prior]

It would’ve been so easy for the pilot to have tasked his “visual observer“ with making a simple phone call to AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT) while setting up or on the way to the scene.

From what I read in the report, the pilot asked one of the other officers at the scene if they could act as a visual observer and one said OK.

The RPA pilot began his 1st flight at 1232. The purpose was to conduct a reconnaissance of the operational area, including attempts to locate a potentially armed individual. Shortly after the RPA had become airborne, the RPA pilot made a request to the group of police members standing nearby, asking for somebody to watch the RPA during the flight, and 1 of the nearby officers acknowledged this request.

Page 6 of the report.

And it looks like the visual observer was watching the video feed, not the drone in the air.

And yet we still get people insisting that they have far better situational awareness (and safety) from their drone camera than from looking at the drone in the air.

 

[rjwmorrell]

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!

That's not what I got out of the report.

The police spotter crew member had zero training, received no briefing, and the police failed to communicate with ATC for permission to operate in their Class E airspace. Those seemed to be the more relevant contributing factors.

 

[PBDawg]

For those watching this thread . . . Don Joyce (creator of the video) has been reaching out to the Transportation Safety Board, Transport Canada, the York Regional Police, and the flight school that owns the Cessna. He has created an equally interesting (and scathing) video reporting the further information that he has found.

Link:

Further (scathing) Analysis re. Final Report on Police Drone - Cessna Collision

On January 21st, I posted a thread on the the report from the Transporation Safety Board of Canada regarding the 2021 collision of a police drone with a Cessna 172 over the final approach to Buttonville Airport. I included a link to a video by Don Joyce with his take on the report. More...

mavicpilots.com

 

[rickmurray1989]

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

Agreed. It seems that most YouTubers use sensationalist clickbait to garner views and likes these days.

 

[lookout]

Agreed. It seems that most YouTubers use sensationalist clickbait to garner views and likes these days.

Don't forget to like and subscribe either. Got to have an account just to do that.

 

[Robert Prior]

It seems that most YouTubers use sensationalist clickbait to garner views and likes these days.

That doesn't apply to Don Joyce. He's always taken a measured approach to flying, and is one of the people Transport Canada talks to about drone regulations.

 

[Robert Prior]

Follow-up video:

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

Interesting note from an email from Transport Canada in the followup video (displayed at 3:41), that Transport Canada lists contributing factors "usually in chronological order".

The failure of the visual observer to actually observe and the task saturation of the RPAS pilot are listed after the failure of the Cessna pilot to spot the drone.

If they were actually listed in chronological order, surely the lack of briefing/training for the visual observer and task saturation would come before anything about the Cessna pilot, who only had a few seconds to see and evade the stationary drone?

Also of note: according to the Cessna's owner, the damage to the aircraft listed in the report was understated (prop need replacing, internal damage to engine, etc.). They apparently eventually got the repairs paid for by the YRP insurance, but received no compensation for the aircraft being out of service for months.

Apparently York Regional Police were not fined, and the pilot received a $1000 fine for operations close to an airport (or wasn't fined at all — that's the only fine listed for the date). Nothing about no visual observer (untrained VO was watching the camera view, not the drone), flying beyond VLOS, flying in controlled airspace, etc.

 

[BroomRider]

Follow-up video:

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

Interesting note from an email from Transport Canada in the followup video (displayed at 3:41), that Transport Canada lists contributing factors "usually in chronological order".

The failure of the visual observer to actually observe and the task saturation of the RPAS pilot are listed after the failure of the Cessna pilot to spot the drone.

If they were actually listed in chronological order, surely the lack of briefing/training for the visual observer and task saturation would come before anything about the Cessna pilot, who only had a few seconds to see and evade the stationary drone?

Also of note: according to the Cessna's owner, the damage to the aircraft listed in the report was understated (prop need replacing, internal damage to engine, etc.). They apparently eventually got the repairs paid for by the YRP insurance, but received no compensation for the aircraft being out of service for months.

Apparently York Regional Police were not fined, and the pilot received a $1000 fine for operations close to an airport (or wasn't fined at all — that's the only fine listed for the date). Nothing about no visual observer (untrained VO was watching the camera view, not the drone), flying beyond VLOS, flying in controlled airspace, etc.

Perhaps, either a serious review of, or even removal of, the LEO Qualified Immunity would improve the matters of accountability in cases such as this.

A $1K fine is a relative slap on the wrist in comparison, & I'm sure, is nowhere near the damages to all parties.

Those include not only to the pilot of the Cessna, etc. despite, as posted, “eventually [getting] the repairs paid for by the YRP insurance” – includes the time lost too.

Not often mentioned is also the cost to those who ultimately actually fund (in this case) the YRP: the taxpayers. Insurance rates, etc. would have to rise as a consequence, & the entirety of the costs of the incident, at the taxpayers' expense.

Being personally responsible tends to be a great motivator.

 

[Robert Prior]

Not often mentioned is also the cost to those who ultimately actually fund (in this case) the YRP: the taxpayers.

I'm one of those taxpayers. $50k to repair the Cessna, plus whatever police time was spent dealing with the incident (reviewing the TSB report etc), not to mention a new Matrice ($10k+).

As to the Cessna, it rents for roughly $200/hour in this area. No idea what the net profit is to the company that owns it, how many hours they rent it out per week (or use it for lessons), etc.

 

[Robert Prior]

Had lunch with a friend who's a retired police officer. Asked him, based on his knowledge of police culture (in this area — other jurisdictions may differ), what he thought of the report, and whether the drone pilot was possibly pressured into skipping procedures and flying quickly.

In a nutshell, his opinion was that it was quite likely that the pilot was ordered to 'get in the air right away' and may have felt that they had no choice. Hierarchical organization with a strong emphasis on following orders (not following an illegal order can be career-ending).

 

[zinnware]

Here is a Flight Simulation of the Cessna 172N flight on August 10, 2021 that collided with a a drone near the Buttonville Municipal Airport outside of Toronto, Canada. It included approximate time of day weather conditions and collision location as reported by the Canada Transportation Safety Board in their report. See if you as a Cessna pilot could pick out the stationary drone.

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