Low flying helicopters in UK

[Cymru]

Here we go, 2 Chinooks Malvern area right now:-




Low level MLAT so the flight path/speeds wont be too accurate.

"Electricity 99" passed over about an hour ago as well.

 

[jaybee2786]

I’m hoping someone in the UK can help. I have had 3 instances of Chinook helicopters flying well below 100m over my home in the past few months, the last one just last week. This morning an electricity company helicopter low flew over, presumably checking overhead power lines. In none of those cases was I flying my MA2 but I could have been which could have been disastrous. I’m not in a NFZ normally, near an airport etc. I have many tall trees on my land so typically fly between 50-100m to maintain VLOS at a distance.

So my question is how do I find out if one of these is scheduled to fly over before I launch my drone? Or do I just rely on my ears?

You will have more chance of a bird strike than hitting another aircraft.all I can say is the boys scout saying be prepared.

 

[Pushkur]

I occasionally use a cheap binocular laser measure to check the height of buildings, trees, pylons etc, where I might fly my M2Z.
Measure is the type used by golfers to choose the correct club.
I have recorded helicopters flying over head as low as 125 meters, the noise is very loud,here in Thailand.

 

[maelstrom]

I occasionally use a cheap binocular laser measure to check the height of buildings, trees, pylons etc, where I might fly my M2Z.
Measure is the type used by golfers to choose the correct club.
I have recorded helicopters flying over head as low as 125 meters, the noise is very loud,here in Thailand.

As a general principle, I'd advise against shining a laser at an aircraft. It's illegal in many countries, not to mention potentially dangerous if it shines in the eyes of the crew (particularly if they're flying at low-level).

 

[je72]

Its standard airlaw (and international).
Unmanned is always responsible for avoiding conflict with manned.
CAP 722 Section 2.1.1 requires the unmanned operator to "avoid any risk of collision with any manned aircraft" then links to the annexes.
Its standard stuff globally. If you're unmanned you're entirely responsible for conflict with manned.



In short, if there's a collision its your fault.

On top of that the various articles of the Air Navigation Order confirm it.

There's no law that says Chinooks or fast jets must not overfly gardens, homes or even towns. They try to avoid it, sometimes its not practical or possible. All entirely legal for them to do.

I live in LFA7/TTA where aircraft are allowed down to 100ft AGL within certain rules. Its just something you get used to and factor in before a drone flight.

I've just re-read that CAP and those annexes. I have read them before which is why I was surprised to see your assertions. The CAP you specify absolutely does not say or imply that "if there's a collision its your fault" I'm sure you mean well, but you are incorrect. It is illogical to be able to hold somebody responsible for an accident that they have taken every humanly possible safeguard specified in CAP's, Anexxes, Laws, Common sense etc etc etc to avoid.

If a low flying fast manned vehicle collided with your unmanned drone and you had no chance of seeing it, or hearing its approach until it was too late, I refute that it would still be your fault. I'm not talking about seeing or hearing a manned vehicle and failing to take avoiding immediate action, I'm talking about collisions with vehicles that appear in such a way that it would be impossible to avoid them.

I fully suspect you'll come back again. But if you do I look forward to seeing in undisputable terms that accidents are always the responsibility of the UA.

 

[Cymru]

You have collided. Therefore you haven't avoided any risk of collision with manned aircraft.
You should contact the CAA but that is the law and its the law pretty much globally.

Its not illogical. The unmanned is harder to spot, its operated closer to an operator, the operator is untrained than manned.
So yes, under the ANO, you are flying completely within the CAP, you hit a manned aircraft, its your fault entirely. No blame is placed on the manned aircraft.

There should never BE a situation where the situation is impossible to avoid - that means you haven't taken all the actions to avoid any risk of a collision.

Again, contact the CAA for it in writing. They'll provide it and you'll see the premise is true. If manned hits unmanned, the unmanned is always responsible.



This is from the CAP.

 

[maelstrom]

If a low flying fast manned vehicle collided with your unmanned drone and you had no chance of seeing it, or hearing its approach until it was too late, I refute that it would still be your fault.

As Cymru pointed out above, it’s always the responsibility of the remote pilot to avoid a collision (as difficult as that may seem sometimes). However, I would imagine that whether or not you would be prosecuted for it would depend on the circumstances.

Speaking as a retired helicopter pilot, being able to spot a drone is incredibly difficult and the few near misses I had with them over the years were more a case of luck than good judgement. Just as with most bird strikes, by the time you see it, it’s either going to hit you or miss you and it’s usually too late to actively do anything to influence the outcome.

 

[je72]

You have collided. Therefore you haven't avoided any risk of collision with manned aircraft.
You should contact the CAA but that is the law and its the law pretty much globally.

Its not illogical. The unmanned is harder to spot, its operated closer to an operator, the operator is untrained than manned.
So yes, under the ANO, you are flying completely within the CAP, you hit a manned aircraft, its your fault entirely. No blame is placed on the manned aircraft.

There should never BE a situation where the situation is impossible to avoid - that means you haven't taken all the actions to avoid any risk of a collision.

Again, contact the CAA for it in writing. They'll provide it and you'll see the premise is true. If manned hits unmanned, the unmanned is always responsible.

View attachment 124677

This is from the CAP.

"There should never BE a situation where the situation is impossible to avoid - that means you haven't taken all the actions to avoid any risk of a collision."

I think there is. This is all hypothetical because I'm a fairly nervous flyer and don't fly to 100m, but what about this situation:

I live on the side of a hill range that runs north to south, my house is at approx. 250m (MAMSL), I want to take a sunset photo with my drone so I fly 100m up from my garden (as stated hypothetically speaking) I'm looking east at my drone which is also facing east, I have full VLOS, the drone would be at approx. 350m (MAMSL). 300 meters behind me to the west is a hill range that dips to 303m (MAMSL) between higher peaks, the heli approaches from east altitude of 350m (MAMSL) travelling at 150mph. It covers 300m in 4 seconds at 150 mph through the lower gap between higher peaks. The wind is blowing east to west helping to hide the sound of the approaching heli, furthermore the noise is also blocked by the hills, realistically speaking it is not detectable by a human. From the moment I become aware of the heli, I start my manoeuvre to avoid It which is just under 1 second the drone has moved 10m up down left right, it doesn't really matter because sadly the heli collides with the drone. I couldn't avoided it and I followed all the rules, the pilot as far as I'm aware didn't follow the rules. This is still my fault?

 

[Cymru]

"There should never BE a situation where the situation is impossible to avoid - that means you haven't taken all the actions to avoid any risk of a collision."

I think there is. This is all hypothetical because I'm a fairly nervous flyer and don't fly to 100m, but what about this situation:

I live on the side of a hill range that runs north to south, my house is at approx. 250m (MAMSL), I want to take a sunset photo with my drone so I fly 100m up from my garden (as stated hypothetically speaking) I'm looking east at my drone which is also facing east, I have full VLOS, the drone would be at approx. 350m (MAMSL). 300 meters behind me to the west is a hill range that dips to 303m (MAMSL) between higher peaks, the heli approaches from east altitude of 350m (MAMSL) travelling at 150mph. It covers 300m in 4 seconds at 150 mph through the lower gap between higher peaks. The wind is blowing east to west helping to hide the sound of the approaching heli, furthermore the noise is also blocked by the hills, realistically speaking it is not detectable by a human. From the moment I become aware of the heli, I start my manoeuvre to avoid It which is just under 1 second the drone has moved 10m up down left right, it doesn't really matter because sadly the heli collides with the drone. I couldn't avoided it and I followed all the rules, the pilot as far as I'm aware didn't follow the rules. This is still my fault?

Yep. As the CAP makes clear, its still your fault.
You did not avoid any risk of collision.

Arguments they could use the flight was not conducted in such a way - the wind noise masking, the drone too far away for adequate reaction time to detect and avoid a collision, didnt factor in the hills.
What they'd argue probably is the distance of flight combined with terrain and weather meant you couldnt guarantee collision avoidance.

VLOS is designed to allow full situational awareness. Its not a fixed distance where its "ok".

So yes, as unfair as it seems its still 100% your fault under the regulations.

Quite simply the argument is you aren't following all the rules as the flight was conducted in a manner where insufficient precautions were taken to avoid any risk of a collision. The situational awareness was such that a collision ocurred.

 

[je72]

As Cymru pointed out above, it’s always the responsibility of the remote pilot to avoid a collision (as difficult as that may seem sometimes). However, I would imagine that whether or not you would be prosecuted for it would depend on the circumstances.

Speaking as a retired helicopter pilot, being able to spot a drone is incredibly difficult and the few near misses I had with them over the years were more a case of luck than good judgement. Just as with most bird strikes, by the time you see it, it’s either going to hit you or miss you and it’s usually too late to actively do anything to influence the outcome.

Hi Maelstrom, I fear that I may have become a little dogmatic over this point, so thanks for adding more input.

My fear is that in the event of a collision that a drone flyer could not have avoided within the powers of their human ability and by following all the rules before, during and after a flight, that it could be said they would STILL be held responsible. I accept that the manned vehicle would have very little chance of avoidance and the blame should not be apportioned to them either. I just can't get my head around that by "default" it would be the drone flyers fault, even if the manned vehicle was breaking some rules.

 

[je72]

Yep. As the CAP makes clear, its still your fault.
You did not avoid any risk of collision.

Arguments they could use the flight was not conducted in such a way - the wind noise masking, the drone too far away for adequate reaction time to detect and avoid a collision, didnt factor in the hills.
What they'd argue probably is the distance of flight combined with terrain and weather meant you couldnt guarantee collision avoidance.

VLOS is designed to allow full situational awareness. Its not a fixed distance where its "ok".

So yes, as unfair as it seems its still 100% your fault under the regulations.

Quite simply the argument is you aren't following all the rules as the flight was conducted in a manner where insufficient precautions were taken to avoid any risk of a collision. The situational awareness was such that a collision ocurred.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I'll consider myself schooled.

 

[old man mavic]

@je72 to be perfectly honest with you,if you are going to spend all of your time worrying about flying your drone then maybe a hobby that stays on the ground would be a better bet ,in the scenario you painted in your post #48 then the only helis likely to be flying at sunset are air ambulance or the police to fly a heli in low light conditions or at night the pilot has to be instrument rated and most private pilots who fly the small light helis for fun are not its the same with small private aircraft ,none of us on this forum, or i suspect anyone else flying UAV s, want to have a situation where their drone has collided with a manned aircraft ,before each flight you do a risk assessment and make a informed decision based on your knowledge, and then you either fly or not as the case may be ,UAVs are at the bottom of the pecking order in the big scheme of things ,and we have to do everything in our power to mitigate risk ,but the definition of an accident is an unplanned event over which no one has any control

 

[je72]

@je72 to be perfectly honest with you,if you are going to spend all of your time worrying about flying your drone then maybe a hobby that stays on the ground would be a better bet ,in the scenario you painted in your post #48 then the only helis likely to be flying at sunset are air ambulance or the police to fly a heli in low light conditions or at night the pilot has to be instrument rated and most private pilots who fly the small light helis for fun are not its the same with small private aircraft ,none of us on this forum, or i suspect anyone else flying UAV s, want to have a situation where their drone has collided with a manned aircraft ,before each flight you do a risk assessment and make a informed decision based on your knowledge, and then you either fly or not as the case may be ,UAVs are at the bottom of the pecking order in the big scheme of things ,and we have to do everything in our power to mitigate risk ,but the definition of an accident is an unplanned event over which no one has any control

More good input, apart from inferring I should have a different hobby! I'm a nervous flyer mostly because I purchased my drone in the middle of the 1st global pandemic in 100 years which has severely restricted my ability to practice, I was a nervous car driver for the 1st few months too, but now I'm a competent and safe driver and enjoy driving.

The avoidance of an incident is much more preferable to defending your actions that led up to the incident. I have changed my opinion somewhat after @Cymru determined and polite arguments. I accept that in any circumstance an accident will be the unmanned ops fault, so I'll take care and then take more care and then a bit more. (edit: I was already taking care anyway )

 

[Cymru]

Its worth adding as someone else did, in reality the risk of *prosecution* for a very odd incident are very very slim even if the blame is 100% one sided.

What the intent of the ruling is to ensure people act responsibility and do correct risk assessments. A series of "What ifs".
You can never eliminate all risk but you can go a hell of a way to reducing them to a level that its insignificant and of no concern.

Think of it as an analogue to a car crash - if someone crashes into the back of you, its their fault. It doesn't matter if you braked hard, had an arrestor cable to stop instantly etc, under the law its their fault for not avoiding that risk by staying further away/being more alert.

Just look at the drone from a manned a/c point of view here:-
(i) they're pretty much impossible to spot due to their size and relative lack of movement
(ii) they operate at low level so more likely to be in the way of helis
(iii) Generally unpredictable erratic movements in 3 dimensions
(iv) have no detect and avoid on-craft
(v) The drone is invisible to all ATC, radars, ADSB and so on
(vi) the operator has far less situational awareness
(vii) the operator is by and large completely untrained in any aviation or air law
(viii) the risk of a collision can lead to expense or loss of life in the aircraft or the ground so the negative effects of an incident are very high

That's the rationale for placing the burden solely on the operator.

It wasn't designed to rip your scenario apart but to provide counter points.
If you admitted 350m might be "too far" then its too far
If you admitted the hill might mask noise or approach then its a potential hazard so needs to be mitigated etc.
Just to get you thinking. Nobody is suggesting you're flying recklessly.

From my own personal use, last year i was in North Wales/Ogwen Valley. Beautiful mountain scenery.
Perfectly legal to fly a drone there.
However, its also in the "Mach Loop" used for low level training with fast jets down to 150ft and 450kts screaming up the valley.
Even though i could legally fly there, i knew there were aircraft up earlier in the day, suspected they may still be around and also knew, even flying totally legally there's no way i could minimise a risk from an aircraft that low at that speed with no notice in exactly the same place i wanted to fly.
So i didn't fly that day. I waited until the next day when i knew Valley was closed and there was no flying planned from anyone.

From my day job (well, pre covid when it existed) ultimately we were always taught act in a way that if it ended up before a judge you could stand by them and justify them.
Overkill for this maybe but you get the point.