Got reported and a call from the FAA

[Don Testme]

Why can't first responder aircraft or helicopters just go over (increase altitude) or go around a drone that is simply hovering? Why can't they proceed to their mission location just because a drone is maybe 1000-2000 feet away horizontally? Why not just go up and or around?

If a drone is flying at 100ft AGL, hovering, or at tree level and not in the area where the heli needs to land, the risk of an incident seems virtually impossible.

It seems like first responders are being taught that drones are more dangerous than they really are and no risk whatsoever can be taken flying near one. Even if that risk is .0001 of a major incident occuring if the drone actually hit the heli.

 

[Siam]

Why can't first responder aircraft or helicopters just go over (increase altitude) or go around a drone that is simply hovering? Why can't they proceed to their mission location just because a drone is maybe 1000-2000 feet away horizontally? Why not just go up and or around?

If a drone is flying at 100ft AGL, hovering, or at tree level and not in the area where the heli needs to land, the risk of an incident seems virtually impossible.

It seems like first responders are being taught that drones are more dangerous than they really are and no risk whatsoever can be taken flying near one. Even if that risk is .0001 of a major incident occuring if the drone actually hit the heli.

I assume that was rhetorical LOL My last flight in a OV-1 Mohawk was almost a disaster. (1990) We did a pass over the runway at max speed to do a pitch out and we had a bird strike. Anything small can cause an aircraft to crash. Video of how a my plane flew....

The point of the video is to illustrate that a pilot flying a real plane/heli cannot react like you think they can. A drone or bird will give you much less than 2 seconds' warning..MAX

Plus..it is a cool video. Thanks for all that served and sacrificed.

Go to 2:10 of the video if you want to just see the flight.

 

[MS Coast]

Why can't first responder aircraft or helicopters just go over (increase altitude) or go around a drone that is simply hovering? Why can't they proceed to their mission location just because a drone is maybe 1000-2000 feet away horizontally? Why not just go up and or around?

Seriously?

Because there's no time.

Let's assume an airspeed of only 100 mph. That's 50 yards per second. How far away do you think a pilot could see a drone? In this case it was night. And in most situations, the drone would not be silhouetted against the sky but against a very dense and "busy" background. In an emergency response situation at low altitude, the pilot would have just a few other things to do besides looking for drones.

"Even if that risk is .0001 of a major incident occuring if the drone actually hit the heli."

Again, seriously? Is that a number you got from the NTSB?

 

[Don Testme]

Seriously?

Because there's no time.

Let's assume an airspeed of only 100 mph. That's 50 yards per second. How far away do you think a pilot could see a drone? In this case it was night. And in most situations, the drone would not be silhouetted against the sky but against a very dense and "busy" background. In an emergency response situation at low altitude, the pilot would have just a few other things to do besides looking for drones.

"Even if that risk is .0001 of a major incident occuring if the drone actually hit the heli."

Again, seriously? Is that a number you got from the NTSB?

Of course not. 0.0001 is just a guestimate. My guess is based on the number of incidents versus actual physical drone and heli contact. I've looked at the NTSB website. I can't find much in the way of drone accidents. There has been very few incidents, especially of physical contact.

From : DRONELIFE.COM
“While drones have the best safety record in aviation, with zero fatal accidents over an estimated 88 million flights per year, DJI, as one of the only drone companies to have been a party to an NTSB drone investigation, always welcomes the safety lessons that can be learned from an evidence-based investigation of any significant incident.”

 

[BigAl07]

Of course not. 0.0001 is just a guestimate. My guess is based on the number of incidents versus actual physical drone and heli contact. I've looked at the NTSB website. I can't find much in the way of drone accidents. There has been very few incidents, especially of physical contact.

From : DRONELIFE.COM
“While drones have the best safety record in aviation, with zero fatal accidents over an estimated 88 million flights per year, DJI, as one of the only drone companies to have been a party to an NTSB drone investigation, always welcomes the safety lessons that can be learned from an evidence-based investigation of any significant incident.”

In the US there have been (7) UAS to helicopter "physical contact" incidents and (2) UAS to fixed wing physical contact incidents (to date).

While those #'s are very low (thankfully), would you want to be INSIDE any of the manned aircraft who did in fact impact with a UAS? Would you want one of your loved ones on that aircraft with their LIFE in jeopardy? I mean the ODDS are so low what could it hurt?

Aviation is about RISK Avoidance and keeping EVERYONE in the AIR and on the GROUND as safe as is possible.

The mere thought/suggestion that an Emergency Response Aircraft "get higher or go around" a "hovering drone" has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on this forum. The Emergency Response Aircraft has no CLUE what the intentions, skill level, or even aircraft ability are of the drone and to be blunt, it's a freaking UAS and at the very BOTTOM of the totem pole (as it should be). If your loved one were hanging onto life by a mere thread and waiting for the EMS heli to arrive, would you be ok with it being forced to make deviations etc because Donboy is flying his toy drone in the area? Would you also be ok for a Fire Truck getting detoured coming to your house to put out your fire because Donboy is playing with his toy R/C car in the middle of the highway? When seconds count we don't want ANY delays even if it does "inconvenience" others in the area.

Let's get REAL and put that silly suggestion into REALITY!!! It's a totally BS and a grossly Narcissistic suggestion with ZERO merit.

 

[karlblessing]

Was only looking at him so would have to guess 300 to 400 feet high and a couple hundred feet away.

That's too close (less than 300) in my opinion to an air ambulance doing preparations (as you were aware the helipad was not empty).

I'm guessing while the motors weren't running they did have their lights going?

There's not exactly a black and white in every situation, but if I notice a helicopter flashing (prop noise or not) on top of the hospital or hotel here, I get below 100feet if I can't just land it right away (the helipads atop are 318ft agl).

 

[gw812]

I think the answer is practicality. The drone pilot is in the far better position to respond to the heli than the other way around and must take the responsibility. Aircraft speed, field of view, it all adds up. I don't like it but it is what it is. Experiencing it firsthand is quite harrowing.

While I'd love for more consideration to be placed on giving room for both - perhaps limiting helis to staying above 400AGL except for takeoff/landing, perhaps - It isn't going to happen until drones are a far larger and more commonplace part of everyday life and aviation.

 

[Siam]

I am starting to think that some folks here just troll or are complete imbeciles. Sadly, some may be both. Anyone that thinks a heli or plane should get out of the way of a drone is a moron.

 

[gw812]

In the US there have been (7) UAS to helicopter "physical contact" incidents and (2) UAS to fixed wing physical contact incidents (to date).

While those #'s are very low (thankfully), would you want to be INSIDE any of the manned aircraft who did in fact impact with a UAS? Would you want one of your loved ones on that aircraft with their LIFE in jeopardy? I mean the ODDS are so low what could it hurt?

Aviation is about RISK Avoidance and keeping EVERYONE in the AIR and on the GROUND as safe as is possible.

The mere thought/suggestion that an Emergency Response Aircraft "get higher or go around" a "hovering drone" has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on this forum. The Emergency Response Aircraft has no CLUE what the intentions, skill level, or even aircraft ability are of the drone and to be blunt, it's a freaking UAS and at the very BOTTOM of the totem pole (as it should be). If your loved one were hanging onto life by a mere thread and waiting for the EMS heli to arrive, would you be ok with it being forced to make deviations etc because Donboy is flying his toy drone in the area? Would you also be ok for a Fire Truck getting detoured coming to your house to put out your fire because Donboy is playing with his toy R/C car in the middle of the highway? When seconds count we don't want ANY delays even if it does "inconvenience" others in the area.

Let's get REAL and put that silly suggestion into REALITY!!! It's a totally BS and a grossly Narcissistic suggestion with ZERO merit.

I think the poster gets the idea without all of that.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The drone pilot is in the far better position to respond to the heli than the other way around

Absolutely . . . and I know you know it, but only when the drone is close enough to to drone pilot to be able to work out what's what (situational awareness) and respond accordingly to both aircraft noise or visual, approx direction, approx speed, approx altitude, and then react appropriately.
This would normally be land if safe, or drop altitude quickly, to a height AGL the aircraft is very unlikely to be flying in.

I personally feel the UK (and EU ?) 500m rule for clear VLOS is probably about right, even if you can see you drone beyond a little more.
After all, situational awareness is only half of seeing the drone, working out any potential manned aircraft proximity, position, and those other factors is the other half.
(This is equally as important at night, when some pilots incorrectly think their strobes gives them a 3 mile distance allowance !)

Yes, it'd be nice if all aircraft outside airport / heliport landing and departure areas did stay above 500', and drones stay below 400', that 100' separation if able to be made near 100% of the time would make risk of the 2 meeting extremely negligible.

edit typo

 

[MS Coast]

I think the poster gets the idea without all of that.

See post #41 and 21.

 

[KI5RLL]

Did the OP pilot check local media to see if anything made it to media (police blotter, local newpapers, online news outlets etc?)
We would like to know how it may have been depicted based on “Medicav helicopter saw and reported to FAA that a drone was flying in his area” or however it is written online or in print.
We have already seen instances of flight data quite divergent from media depiction.
It is the close calls that will be published. Not the millions of safe flights.
So a single ADS-B alarm or manned pilot sighting could mean a manned pilot report, which may be seriously amplified against us.
I say we must all make greater effort to avoid this any way we can.
Every single one is just not “forgotten” by FAA.

 

[Chip]

While those #'s are very low (thankfully), would you want to be INSIDE any of the manned aircraft who did in fact impact with a UAS? Would you want one of your loved ones on that aircraft with their LIFE in jeopardy? I mean the ODDS are so low what could it hurt?

golden rule​

Golden rule argument is an argument made by a lawyer during a jury trial to ask the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim or the injured person and deliver the verdict that they would wish to receive if they were in that person's position. For example, if the plaintiff in a personal injury case has suffered severe scarring, the plaintiff's lawyer might ask the jury to come back with the verdict they themselves would want to receive had they been disfigured in such a manner. Generally, the Golden Rule Argument is condemned by the judges and is considered improper in some states because jurors are supposed to consider the facts of a case in an objective manner free from personal bias. In U.S. v. Palma, while condemning the Golden Rule, the Eighth Circuit held that “A so-called ‘golden rule’ argument which asks the jurors to place themselves in the position of a party ‘is universally condemned because it encourages the jury to ‘depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.’”

golden rule argument

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[BigAl07]

golden rule​

Golden rule argument is an argument made by a lawyer during a jury trial to ask the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim or the injured person and deliver the verdict that they would wish to receive if they were in that person's position. For example, if the plaintiff in a personal injury case has suffered severe scarring, the plaintiff's lawyer might ask the jury to come back with the verdict they themselves would want to receive had they been disfigured in such a manner. Generally, the Golden Rule Argument is condemned by the judges and is considered improper in some states because jurors are supposed to consider the facts of a case in an objective manner free from personal bias. In U.S. v. Palma, while condemning the Golden Rule, the Eighth Circuit held that “A so-called ‘golden rule’ argument which asks the jurors to place themselves in the position of a party ‘is universally condemned because it encourages the jury to ‘depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.’”

golden rule argument

www.law.cornell.edu

Totally a waste of our time in this instance. I'm not Judge nor Jury and my point of thinking is very relevant in the conversation at hand. @Chip you're welcome to quote whatever you want and talk in as many circles as you like but that adds zero validity to your comments and also takes nothing away from mine. AKA it's just pure fluff and nothing more.

 

[BigAl07]

I think the poster gets the idea without all of that.

In this case, you're flat WRONG! This is an ongoing conversation and the conversation has evolved MUCH further than the OP's "original post". You may want to take the time to read ALL of the back-n-forth of this post before interjecting your short sighted and pointless chatter.

 

[AMann]

You ABSOLUTELY should have landed it. Keep in mind the pilot of the Helo has no idea what your experience level is, training level, and no clue what your INTENTIONS are. Merely seeing a UAS will often cause a manned to abort the flight and re-route to another location.

If you took off AFTER knowing the MediVac was in the area that's even worse but immediately landing is the RIGHT thing to do regardless of the regulations.

Let me put 2 "final thoughts" out there to ponder/discuss:

• 1) How would you feel if one of our Loved Ones was waiting on Live Saving assistance from that Air Ambulance or if they were onboard and the aircraft aborted? This could literally be LIFE OR DEATH and not just a golden Photo Opp!
• 2) You say you hate things not in Black & White... careful what you ask for. Our Govt loves to Over Regulate and if given the authority you could be regulated (in black and white) to not flying UAS every again. Regulations is a very slippery slope and if we all exercised more Common Sense we wouldn't need many of our current regulations.
• 3) Aviation is all about What-If and Risk Mitigation.... What-If you had some strange Loss of Signal event and your aircraft went into RTH. Is you RTH height low enough to NOT get into the estimated flight altitude of the helo? Once again, the Manned Pilot has no clue and has to act/react as if it's Life or Death (and it is) . . .

This was one of those situations where, "just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it." Think BIG PICTURE and well outside of the box.

Al is right- merely taking the pilots’ attention away from what they were doing interfered with the operations of the helicopter.

 

[dart106]

My fear is that questionable incidents like this will only increase the level of regulation and limit an already limited ability for pilots to fly in many areas where they could be flown safely, for commercial purposes. I think there needs to be different rules for commercial vs. recreational pilots. It is indeed a slippery slope and my fear is things will continue to get even more restrictive in the future.

Well, that is the way of bureaucrats. They typically have no in depth knowledge of a subject but, will readily make a new law to prevent bad judgement from happening. We all know how that doesn’t work.

 

[Don Testme]

The Air Ambulance was in one night to our base. I was in the area but not all that close to him (not that it seems to make any difference). It was late at night in this small town so very quite. Up with my Firehouse strobes I knew the pilot could see me. He alerted the ground crew that a drone was in the area. I heard him start up his engine and started moving quickly back to home point. Finally got the first warning of aircraft in area now back home. I was down to 53 feet when he passed where home point was. Found out later they had even sent one of the officers out to find me and could not. All info is recorded on AirData and I had even sent a pix to the FAA (which they appreciated) along with the Trust certificate and drone registration. If this would have been during the day I doubt that I would have even been seen. I told the FAA I broke no rules and all clearance was given to the helicopter. My son (107) said of the night he pilot could not see how far away I was and would not have known I was one of the good guys. The file has been closed and the FAA is a little more particular on these emergency flights. On one side I was wrong but on the other side I did nothing wrong. Discussion?

I keep telling people to fly incognito i.e. stealthy.
THAT MEANS NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT.
AND, FLY HIGH DURING THE DAY.
ALSO, DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN VIEW OF PEOPLE WHEN FLYING. They may see the drone, but don't let them see you.

When I first started flying drones, I was often confronted by police. They always thought I was up to nefarious things. After several months and 5 times of being questioned by police, I made sure I was hidden when flying and made sure my drone was almost never seen or heard.

It worked.

However, now, with RID approaching I'm going to be extremely cautious with the way I fly. If I see a manned aircraft anywhere, I will fly as low as possible without losing signal or land at my home point immediately. We all know landing a drone that is too far away, will cause signal loss. If you aren't landing in a completely safe area, your drone will likely crash.

 

[GFields]

THAT MEANS NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT.

Your suggestion is completely illegal and therefore, poor advice.

 

[karlblessing]

Your suggestion is completely illegal and therefore, poor advice.

What he said. Going to cause more problems than you solve.