Near miss with helicopter at South Hollywood beach, Florida.

[Red Baron]

Are you serious? Did you look at the frame grab I posted above? The guy in the light-colored jacket in the right seat?

Dead serious I do not see any pilots in that cockpit

 

[Nfhill]

When viewing the video of this event, one may want to keep a few things in mind. We know that the helicopter is approaching and because of that we perceive that fact well before the drone pilot would have. It's easy to say that the drone pilot should have, or could have, seen, or heard, the helicopter approaching, put doing that in real time and real life is a lot harder.

There is no question that we are required to yield the airspace to manned aircraft but that doesn't mean that yielding is always going to be possible, let alone actually happen. Given the reality of the likelihood of drones being present in low altitude airspace like this example, is it really prudent, or wise, for pilots of manned aircraft to base the safety of themselves, their aircraft, and their passengers on the FAA's rule that UAV's are required to get out of the way. It seems to me that if a manned aircraft pilot is planning to fly for miles along a densely populated beach that the likelihood that there will be a drone somewhere along the way is high enough that flying higher than the drone is likely to be flying would be a wise idea. But that's just me. I've spent a lot of time in the air a low altitudes and the view from 800', or even higher, is still pretty good.

Nick

 

[aokusman]

You can hear an aircraft a mile away. He should have immediately lowered his altitude.

 

[Nfhill]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the aircraft you hear is approaching, it very well may never get close to you. lf you land every time you hear an aircraft, you may as well have stayed home.

Even so, that is really not the point. Basing your safety on the concept that "I have the right of way and therefore everyone will get out of my way" is not a wise plan. In my experience, many people will try to follow the rules, but it is much safer to expect and plan that they won't. Having the right of way may allow your heirs to collect a civil settlement, but it won't restore your life. Flying higher is wiser.

Nick

 

[sar104]

Dead serious I do not see any pilots in that cockpit

This is getting ridiculous. I have no idea even how to begin to discuss this with you. What, exactly, do you see in the right seat in the image I posted? A mannequin?

 

[Red Baron]

This is getting ridiculous. I have no idea even how to begin to discuss this with you. What, exactly, do you see in the right seat in the image I posted? A mannequin?

Aghhh--- An empty cockpit

 

[Qoncussion]

[...]There is no question that we are required to yield the airspace to manned aircraft but that doesn't mean that yielding is always going to be possible, let alone actually happen. Given the reality of the likelihood of drones being present in low altitude airspace like this example, is it really prudent, or wise, for pilots of manned aircraft to base the safety of themselves, their aircraft, and their passengers on the FAA's rule that UAV's are required to get out of the way. It seems to me that if a manned aircraft pilot is planning to fly for miles along a densely populated beach that the likelihood that there will be a drone somewhere along the way is high enough that flying higher than the drone is likely to be flying would be a wise idea. But that's just me. I've spent a lot of time in the air a low altitudes and the view from 800', or even higher, is still pretty good.

Nick

Nick, I find this to be one of the better points made in this thread. To which I would add: helicopter pilots, especially news, fire and sightseeing pilots ARE AWARE nowadays that drones are *out there* ~ especially along a populous beach, such as the one in this video. It baffles me that sightseeing and private heli pilots are not self-regulating and incorporating their knowledge of drones into their flight plans; even just as a matter of common sense.

A year ago I flew over a deserted beach in northern Oregon state, early in the morning. I had changed my initial takeoff location, as I was within four miles of a sightseeing helipad. I contacted the sightseeing company at 6:30am, even though I had moved to a location that was six miles north of them, only because of the altitudes at which I had seen them flying the previous day; easily below 400ft (no BS), right on the shoreline. My call was sent to voicemail, as they did not open until 9:am. I left a message, letting them know of my location and intended flight plan ~ to launch from a deserted beach six miles north of them at 7:30am, maintaining an altitude not to exceed 200ft. The beach was mildly foggy that morning. As I was taking my Mavic out of its case, one of their copters flew very low, inland from the shoreline by at least a hundred feet - at an altitude of, I can only guess, around 300-400ft. I canceled my flight - but was baffled. Assuming they never got my message - they still left themselves no room for error, and no room for a known variable: drones. I continue to wonder when such pilots and organizations are going to realize that their former version of reality has changed, and they must take steps to allow for it.

Now, before I get pissed on here... No, I don't expect fire scoopers (copters) to plan for drones, but they must certainly be aware of them (and shame on any drone operator who launches during an active fire event to get footage). But when every safety precaution was taken by me with regards to the sightseeing company and they continue to be ignorant of the *possibility*.......... The industry is just waiting for its first drone related fatality.

 

[gnirtS]

Even so, that is really not the point. Basing your safety on the concept that "I have the right of way and therefore everyone will get out of my way" is not a wise plan. In my experience, many people will try to follow the rules, but it is much safer to expect and plan that they won't. Having the right of way may allow your heirs to collect a civil settlement, but it won't restore your life. Flying higher is wiser.

Nick

Drones are meant to be below 400ft. Unfortunately most owners seem to ignore that and think they own the sky.
We're talking VFR flight where each pilot is responsible for looking around and maintaining separation. Why should drone owners be excluded from the rules of the air if they want to share airspace?

Their safety is NOT based on "i have the right of way". They're flying VFR. They're looking out of the window in all directions constantly other than a brief instrument scan in-between sweeps. They're looking for birds, conflicting traffic and anything else. The problem they have is that very recently small devices which are too small to see from any sort of distance are suddenly capable of violating that airspace meaning a scan isn't that effective.

Tourist stuff aside, most manned aircraft doesn't WANT to operate low. The lower you are the less safety margin you have when something breaks. Fixed wing wise you can trade altitude for speed to glide further. Even helicopters can cover more distance to a safe landing spot the higher they are. As a pilot, altitude is your friend so you're only going to be as low as you need to be.
Unfortunately lots of aircraft HAVE to operate low. If they're doing survy work, searching, following something. Taking off and landing and all kinds of other reasons (or in the military, to avoid radar and train for it).

 

[Marko9219]

You can hear an aircraft a mile away. He should have immediately lowered his altitude.

How would you know he could hear it? Where was he and what were his ambient noise levels? Maybe there were 3 guys running jack-hammers 30 ft from him.
Quit assuming you know what he could have/should have done.

 

[Marko9219]

What does this have to do with Trump??? Are you for real? Yes I supported Trump. The vid is fake- Take a close look and blow the bird up---Why is there no one in the cockpit of helicopter?? I assume you voted for Hillary. Moron

You assumed wrong about who I voted for, so I was right about you but you were wrong about me, (and the video too.)
I'm guessing you believe the moon landings were faked too?

 

[AnzacJack]

Is this one of those visual puzzles. I don’t see a dude

 

[Nfhill]

Drones are meant to be below 400ft. Unfortunately most owners seem to ignore that and think they own the sky.
We're talking VFR flight where each pilot is responsible for looking around and maintaining separation. Why should drone owners be excluded from the rules of the air if they want to share airspace?

Their safety is NOT based on "i have the right of way". They're flying VFR. They're looking out of the window in all directions constantly other than a brief instrument scan in-between sweeps. They're looking for birds, conflicting traffic and anything else. The problem they have is that very recently small devices which are too small to see from any sort of distance are suddenly capable of violating that airspace meaning a scan isn't that effective.

Tourist stuff aside, most manned aircraft doesn't WANT to operate low. The lower you are the less safety margin you have when something breaks. Fixed wing wise you can trade altitude for speed to glide further. Even helicopters can cover more distance to a safe landing spot the higher they are. As a pilot, altitude is your friend so you're only going to be as low as you need to be.
Unfortunately lots of aircraft HAVE to operate low. If they're doing survy work, searching, following something. Taking off and landing and all kinds of other reasons (or in the military, to avoid radar and train for it).

I find myself at somewhat of a loss as to how to respond to your post.

You say most drone owners ignore the 400' limit. Really? Based on what? I certainly never said drone flyers should ignore the recommended 400' AGL limit. I did not say that drones should be excluded from the rules of the air. I know well what VFR flight is and what the pilot should be doing. I also know human nature and that the helicopter pilot was also doing a fair amount of sightseeing. I agree that seeing something as small as a Mavic Pro is quite unlikely. That is why I opined that flying a few hundred feet higher would have been much wiser.

I understand that there are reasons for some flight operations to be conducted at very low altitudes. Are you arguing that this helicopter pilot was conducting such an operation? I see nothing in this video to conclude that the pilot was flying below 400' with good reason to take on the higher risk.

Nick

 

[dvarapala]

View attachment 44004 Is this one of those visual puzzles. I don’t see a dude

I do - and his dress is gold and white.

 

[Lapeer20m]

In st Pete beach I saw a sight seeing helicopter fly just off the beach at less than 150 feet agl almost every evening near sunset.

 

[AnzacJack]

I do - and his dress is gold and white.

Haha. Now I see him

 

[Marko9219]

View attachment 44008
Haha. Now I see him

Wrong side

 

[AnzacJack]

Wrong side

That’s the right seat

 

[gnirtS]

I find myself at somewhat of a loss as to how to respond to your post.

You say most drone owners ignore the 400' limit. Really? Based on what?

Lets see, posts and flight logs here, the same on the DJI forum, the flight logs. The number of people claiming they're "unaware" of rules, the number of people you see actively out flouting them. Its hardly rare.

That is why I opined that flying a few hundred feet higher would have been much wiser.

Why? He's allowed to be where he is. Why should he alter his flight path just in case people fancy flying drones irresponsibly and in front of him? Why not make everything fly at 1700ft in case drone owners fancy operating lower? It makes no sense.

I understand that there are reasons for some flight operations to be conducted at very low altitudes. Are you arguing that this helicopter pilot was conducting such an operation? I see nothing in this video to conclude that the pilot was flying below 400' with good reason to take on the higher risk.

Nick

On the video the drone is either at or above 400ft. Its clear from the actual footage he's high. Near or above the legal limit. The helicopter is likely at 500ft minima or there abouts. The operator is most likely on the beach meaning he doesnt have adequate VLOS to operate the drone as well (as is proven by the proximity incident in the first place).
We also have no idea what the helicopters mission was. IF he was below 500ft (and nothing suggests he is) he may have been in the process of descending to land, take off or any other variety of functions.

We own supermarket available low cost RC toys that serve no essential or useful function what-so-ever. Drone operators also have no training, are entirely unaware of and/or ignore the laws governing them routinely. I struggle to see why they should alter legal, regulated airspace use to cater for this.

 

[gnirtS]

Wrong side

Thats the right side. And it's also the side you'd expect the PIC to be sitting in a helicopter.

 

[Thwyllo]

In st Pete beach I saw a sight seeing helicopter fly just off the beach at less than 150 feet agl almost every evening near sunset.

Which is not very smart when you consider that, in the event of a problem, most helicopters require several hundred feet (depending on velocity) to get into autorotation in order to perform a safe, survivable landing.