Plane hits drone in Oregon

[Meta4]

I could build a program that cross references google earth ground altitudes with GPS data and automatically sends enforcement letters to the the offending pilots when their MSL altitude minus the ground altitude of the gps coordinate dips below 1000. It would send the enforcement letter to the address produced by cross referencing the registration# of the aircraft with the address on file for the registration and I could probably do it in 5 days and cost under $10000.

If it’s for their own safety and the safety of the skies I’m sure there would be widespread support amount pilots given their widespread and vocal concern on this matter.

Fabulous .. a brave new world awaits.
Big Brother would love it.
At the moment the FAA don't spend their time looking at every second of flight time looking for any infringement.
Instead they put their time in where it's most needed - investigating actual incidents.
I guess that once they have implemented your scheme and employed a team to administer it, you'd be happy for them do do a similar thing with drones?
And then we could go on to detecting any minor infringements on the highways?

 

[brett8883]

Fabulous .. a brave new world awaits.
Big Brother would love it.
At the moment the FAA don't spend their time looking at every second of flight time looking for any infringement.
Instead they put their time in where it's most needed - investigating actual incidents.
I guess that once they have implemented your scheme and employed a team to administer it, you'd be happy for them do do a similar thing with drones?
And then we could go on to detecting any minor infringements on the highways?

Tuche. Still would like the rule however

 

[430Ferrari]

Not to be contrarian, but who’s to say the manned aircraft was a fault for hitting the drone? I’ll bet he wasn’t taking off or landing and most likely flying below VFR minimums.

Why is it that the public immediately wants to blame the drone operator before the NTSB investigates an accident or in-flight incident?

Manned aircraft should stay at or above 1,000’ AGL unless they’re landing or taking off.

I don’t plan to fly below 1,000 for my own safety when flying an airplane. Let’s use some common sense here and safely share the airspace folks.

 

[430Ferrari]

Fabulous .. a brave new world awaits.
Big Brother would love it.
At the moment the FAA don't spend their time looking at every second of flight time looking for any infringement.
Instead they put their time in where it's most needed - investigating actual incidents.
I guess that once they have implemented your scheme and employed a team to administer it, you'd be happy for them do do a similar thing with drones?
And then we could go on to detecting any minor infringements on the highways?

Not entirely correct. The NTSB, not the FAA, investigates aircraft accidents and in-flight incidents.

Ask me how I know and I’ll tell you.

 

[SmileyGC]

I thought this was what people keep telling me it’s suppose to look like when a drone hits a GA plane wing?

I thought this was what people keep telling me it’s suppose to look like when a drone hits a GA plane wing?

Wow, a Phantom that can do 238 mph and without propellers - what new thrust system has DJI developed.... Clever Chinese! ;-)

 

[¬Nomad]

Not to be contrarian, but who’s to say the manned aircraft was a fault for hitting the drone? I’ll bet he wasn’t taking off or landing and most likely flying below VFR minimums.

Why is it that the public immediately wants to blame the drone operator before the NTSB investigates an accident or in-flight incident?

Manned aircraft should stay at or above 1,000’ AGL unless they’re landing or taking off.

I don’t plan to fly below 1,000 for my own safety when flying an airplane. Let’s use some common sense here and safely share the airspace folks.

Can you point to source of this please, interested in how the law differs to the UK

Aah, just had a quick google, you forgot to add that this only applies over a congested area, so similar to UK regulations

 

[okw]

Not to be contrarian, but who’s to say the manned aircraft was a fault for hitting the drone? I’ll bet he wasn’t taking off or landing and most likely flying below VFR minimums.

Why is it that the public immediately wants to blame the drone operator before the NTSB investigates an accident or in-flight incident?

Manned aircraft should stay at or above 1,000’ AGL unless they’re landing or taking off.

I don’t plan to fly below 1,000 for my own safety when flying an airplane. Let’s use some common sense here and safely share the airspace folks.

I read a comment on a general aviation website made by the pilot of the manned aircraft mentioned in the OP. He claimed he was at 1800' AGL when he struck the drone.

Study reveals drones pose increasing risks to aircraft

Edit to add link to website. Pilot's name is Dale Weir. He commented on the linked article.

 

[spamgnome]

Aircraft can fly legally at 500' AGL when not over a populated area. Drones cant fly above 400'. If all of is follow these rules, there should not be an issue.

 

[hazy081258]

I thought this was what people keep telling me it’s suppose to look like when a drone hits a GA plane wing?

A waste of a perfectly good Phantom.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Wow, a Phantom that can do 238 mph and without propellers - what new thrust system has DJI developed.... Clever Chinese! ;-)

Real world, the Phantom wouldn't be moving but the wing would be going 238 mph.

 

[swooshdave]

Even at the low speeds of that plane would you actually see the drone before you hit it?

 

[GB1Yorkshire1]

Life is rarely that simple.
ADSB provides altitude MSL data for the benefit of other aircraft.
It's not giving altitude AGL which could vary widely ... eg. Colorado vs Florida.
For enforcement, someone would have to calculate AGL altitude and the FAA would have to have a new group to do this and carry out enforcement actions.
Do you want to pay them to do that?

Post #10 was also suggesting a big change to existing altitude rules to benefit drones.
I can't see that happening.

I have a condo in New Smyrna Beach, FL. I cannot fly my drone as it is in a no fly zone, where aircraft turn to approach a small private airport. The airport is used by low and slow flying aircraft dragging advertising up and down the beach, often the aircraft are very close to stall speed and if my math is correct (using triangulation ) at between 80-200 ft. approx.500 yards off the beach...…….how can the commercial pilots get away with this?

Is there a special dispensation or am I just not understanding...……….

 

[Paul StL]

I just returned from vacation in Seaside, FL. There were multiple times when military helicopters and Osprey (the plane, not the bird) flew along the beach and I know they were below 500'. I estimate around 300-350' based on perspective relative to how high I flew my drone and the height of a 20 story condominium complex slightly down from me. They were very low and in at least one case, they had to be right along the water line. I even commented to my wife on one of the fly-bys that it was a good thing I wasn't flying the drone. It definitely made me nervous and more alert to plane/heli rotor noise when I was flying. All of this begs the question, who is at fault and liable when a plane hits a drone flying under 400'?

 

[BigAl07]

I have a condo in New Smyrna Beach, FL. I cannot fly my drone as it is in a no fly zone, where aircraft turn to approach a small private airport. The airport is used by low and slow flying aircraft dragging advertising up and down the beach, often the aircraft are very close to stall speed and if my math is correct (using triangulation ) at between 80-200 ft. approx.500 yards off the beach...…….how can the commercial pilots get away with this?

Is there a special dispensation or am I just not understanding...……….

Get away with it? It's part of their job and if they are over water (or a sparsely populated area) they don't have to maintain 500'AGL. Crop Dusters, Banner Towing, Sight Seeing, Utility Inspections, Herd Management.... and the list goes on for the reason a manned aircraft "could" be below 500'AGL.

Here's a more official terminology about it (only a partial quote)
14 CFR § 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
.
.
.
.

(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[BigAl07]

I just returned from vacation in Seaside, FL. There were multiple times when military helicopters and Osprey (the plane, not the bird) flew along the beach and I know they were below 500'. I estimate around 300-350' based on perspective relative to how high I flew my drone and the height of a 20 story condominium complex slightly down from me. They were very low and in at least one case, they had to be right along the water line. I even commented to my wife on one of the fly-bys that it was a good thing I wasn't flying the drone. It definitely made me nervous and more alert to plane/heli rotor noise when I was flying. All of this begs the question, who is at fault and liable when a plane hits a drone flying under 400'?

Your ultimate task is to See & Avoid at all cost. That puts the responsibility squarely on our shoulders.

 

[GB1Yorkshire1]

I have a condo in New Smyrna Beach, FL. I cannot fly my drone as it is in a no fly zone, where aircraft turn to approach a small private airport. The airport is used by low and slow flying aircraft dragging advertising up and down the beach, often the aircraft are very close to stall speed and if my math is correct (using triangulation ) at between 80-200 ft. approx.500 yards off the beach...…….how can the commercial pilots get away with this?

Is there a special dispensation or am I just not understanding...……….

Thanks for the detailed reply

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Your ultimate task is to See & Avoid at all cost. That puts the responsibility squarely on our shoulders.

True.

One of the problems with this is perception and judging distance between two moving objects that are significantly different in size, increasingly so as distance and altitude increase. I had an experience with a helicopter a while back. I was at 300 feet high and 500 feet away horizontally. The helicopter came from behind me (heard it before I saw it), passed the position where I was standing and it was very difficult to judge the proximity between the helicopter and the drone as it approached the area where the drone was located. Given the uncertainty it was difficult to judge what would be best course of evasive action. Down seemed to be the most logical but that descent seemed like it was taking forever. You very rarely see any aircraft that low in this area.

To this day I couldn't tell you how close the two aircraft really came to one another. I'm pretty sure the helicopter was below 500 feet in what is NOT a sparely populated area. Having been a manned aircraft pilot I know how difficult it can be to spot other aircraft, especially aircraft that are below you in a suburban area with a lot of buildings and stuff in the background, even when ATC is telling you their location. I had zero confidence the helicopter pilot would see the drone so that puts the onus on the drone pilot to see and avoid.

 

[Meta4]

Even at the low speeds of that plane would you actually see the drone before you hit it?

Even at higher speeds, it's quite possible to see birds quite clearly if they are in the right position.

 

[Jackcutrone]

Of course we’re all drone pilots but give me a break. With the plane at 1800 agl there is no way that drone should have been there but the deniers will all say how do we know it was a drone? May have missed it but didn’t see one comment in the thread talking about the idiot who flew that high being the one at fault.

 

[Meta4]

With the plane at 1800 agl there is no way that drone should have been there but the deniers will all say how do we know it was a drone? May have missed it but didn’t see one comment in the thread talking about the idiot who flew that high being the one at fault.

If it was a drone, obviously the owner would have been at fault.
Details of the incident are hard to find, but you'd imagine if there was any proof that a drone was involved that the incident would be much better known.
In the link in post #27, the pilot of the plane couldn't say it was a drone.
The only details he gives are: I had a midair with a “Drone” or Model Airplane” with my C170B at 1800ft AGL in class D airspace while communicating with the tower.
That sounds like he didn't see whatever it was that he hit.
Without evidence, I'd hold back from making any assumptions.