Do you know how long it takes to close a 20m distance between two aircraft? It doesn't take much to damage a rotor on a chopper. On the ground, not too bad, but under 1200 ft, and you stand to lose auto rotation capabilities.
Pure Bull from the media - even the pilot and observer stated that there was no danger to the aircraft or patientStuff
www.stuff.co.nz
I’m glad during my hay day although we had tools, jaws etc. I used my elbow on side glass windows to gain access. It was always on me and it worked well. I don’t in fact teach this Neanderthal like technique. Lol. Although I would teach students to try opening the car door to reach a patient before wasting time busting through glass with or without laminate seal. -GodspeedNot quite any longer.
Older classic era cars used to have toughened / tempered windscreens, and side / rear glass.
Would break into thousands of relatively harmless (try telling that to your bare feet though !!) particles, not capable of cutting arteries etc.
Very hard to break though, like it can take multiple hammer blows, edges more susceptible to impact, but covered in a vehicle build of course.
Modern vehicles all have laminated glass, easier to break, but holds together if broken by impact.
Usually glancing impacts on cars, so seem relatively suited for this use, though star cracks from stones etc are a main issue.
Side and rear glasses are usually still toughened, but some euro models are moving to side laminated glass too.
Perspex (or more likely polycarbonate) in the heli windows (and many aircraft windows) are very strong in the curved shapes.
Almost impossible to break apart from a very strong hammer blow, or frozen chickens shot at it
UV light damages it more readily than glass though, so after some 10 years perhaps it could become a lot more likely to shatter / dull / craze.
I’m glad during my hay day although we had tools, jaws etc. I used my elbow on side glass windows to gain access. It was always on me and it worked well. I don’t in fact teach this Neanderthal like technique. Lol. Although I would teach students to try opening the car door to reach a patient before wasting time busting through glass with or without laminate seal. -Not quite any longer.
Older classic era cars used to have toughened / tempered windscreens, and side / rear glass.
Would break into thousands of relatively harmless (try telling that to your bare feet though !!) particles, not capable of cutting arteries etc.
Very hard to break though, like it can take multiple hammer blows, edges more susceptible to impact, but covered in a vehicle build of course.
Modern vehicles all have laminated glass, easier to break, but holds together if broken by impact.
Usually glancing impacts on cars, so seem relatively suited for this use, though star cracks from stones etc are a main issue.
Side and rear glasses are usually still toughened, but some euro models are moving to side laminated glass too.
Perspex (or more likely polycarbonate) in the heli windows (and many aircraft windows) are very strong in the curved shapes.
Almost impossible to break apart from a very strong hammer blow, or frozen chickens shot at it
UV light damages it more readily than glass though, so after some 10 years perhaps it could become a lot more likely to shatter / dull / craze.
interesting.We use protective boards and wedges to go down door glass to get our special bars down to do PDR (paintless dent repairs).
Have to check each model now especially euros, as laminated is getting far more common.
Toughened, no probs, can lever off the protected glass surface easily, never broken one (or lam) yet
In fixed wing aircraft, particularly larger ones, I'd agree. Helicopters (especially light helicopters) not so much. Some years ago I was doing a job which required 2 helicopters and necessitated remaining below 200ft because of the proximity of a busy airfield on the coast. I'd just got airborne to follow the other aircraft which was about a mile ahead and almost immediately after setting off I heard a mayday from the other aircraft. It was flying at about 90 kts when a seagull {the remains of which were later found on the back seat!) flew into the screen directly in front the pilot. The screen shattered and the bird, along with lots of pieces of plastic, hit the pilot, stunning him and causing some lacerations to his lower face - he was lucky to be wearing a helmet with the visor down or things could have been a lot worse. Even more fortunate, he had a qualified pilot in the other seat who was able to take control and carry out a forced landing. It was quite a small seagull but the damage to the cockpit windscreen was extensive. I would imagine that most drones would be at least the same weight as the bird, if not more, and would have harder, sharper components which would probably do more damage.
Yes there are tons of Scenarios. But those are just guesses, like what ifs, if you will, but no factual data, in fact the actual data is the opposite of reported. One can't go though life guessing and speculating. As far as rules that is the opposite of everything that at least the FAA has shown. There are literally hundreds of aircraft incidences annually none involving drones where there are no rules governing manned aviation craft that result in fatalities and severe injury. Yet they still are given less interest than the FAA is promoting to the "Drones" which to date have very little in injuries and no fatalities. IT just amazes me that the media gets away with such stories. At what point do we know that had this drone been on scene or close and waited till it landed and just rose over a wall nearby and popped up? Certainly a huge mistake and should be punished, but to speculate a what if and turn it into peril?
Again I don't condone such actions, but we already have rules and regulations for such action, there is no need for any more as apparently we are headed for. Rules are for the law abiding and don't seem to ever apply to those who wish to do what they want. They serve only as a deterrent and some wish to challenge even that. It is just the fear mongering that I take issue with I guess, it isn't helping our cause and record as the one highest form of aviation with a near 100% saftey record sans two (That I have heard) r/c heli incidences resulting in fatalities and given the amount of flights globally done daily with these little fun flying gizmos, I think we should be given the earned credit deserved. Oh well...enough venting nothing will change, well except our hobby with such reporting. Good day to all
I have to agree, seems most of these so called “ close calls “ are nothing but BS. And the pilots overreacting trying to get attention. Also the fake news media having diarrhea of the mouth !!!
ADS-B In can help identify aircraft in controlled airspace, but ADS-B Out is not required in Class G airspace by all aircraft. It was already determined that ADS-B Out on drones would not be feasible as it would greatly overload the present system.
If the ADS-B Out were somehow limited to flights in critical areas, it may not overload the system. Something you only turn on when you get a clearance to fly. It could be only for professional flights above a certain altitude, like 200'. Below that it's off. Obviously it's an extreme solution but it would be nice to be able to fly in congested areas, near airports with the same awareness that you have in a full size aircraft. Acceptable distances are the same for any aircraft. Down low it's visual separation by the pilots with the help of controllers when possible. Without a transponder or ADS-B Out the controllers can't help.
