Was your drone knocked off its flight by a helicopter?

[hoggdoc]

You're welcome. I have nothing against pilots. I've known many that I would share a foxhole with. But this notion that they are all beyond reproach is wet dream. There likely isn't day that goes by in this country where one doesn't taxi an aircraft into a piece of support equipment and it doesn't make the evening news.

But as soon as a drone operator farts, OMG Activate the launch sequence… the sky is going to fall and commies have hopped the wire. Please spare us this BS already. For every good pilot I've known there was another that couldn't find his own butt cheeks until he was informed that he was sitting on them.

This is what I have been saying about the FAA not doing anything about the ever increasing number of near misses with commercial and general aviation. A few weeks ago in Southern California on Super Bowl Sunday a twin engine plane came down in a housing development killing the pilot and at least 4 on the ground. I bet the news never left SOCAL. But just yesterday there was another unproven drone sighting at yet another UK airport shutting it down for some time.

This is not just a USA thing it's worldwide and growing, ever ask yourself what is really behind the whole thing because to me it makes no sense at all.

 

[hoggdoc]

Here's the actual Law from the FAA, the BOLD and color were added by ME for emphasis:

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas – Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas – An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters – Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

OMG so helicopters can fly wherever they want to? It's just plain stupid of the FAA to say they can if they are operated "without hazard to persons or property on the surface" . They are a potential hazard to anyone or anything on the surface just by flying over the area.

 

[ChoccyBoy]

OMG so helicopters can fly wherever they want to? It's just plain stupid of the FAA to say they can if they are operated "without hazard to persons or property on the surface" . They are a potential hazard to anyone or anything on the surface just by flying over the area.

There are several things about helos that make them less risky than airplanes. Predominantly, many of them are twin engined and they can land, after autorotating, on a dime (or maybe a 50 cent piece in Australia). They can effectively use a small park or garden to land with minimal risk, provided they start off high enough - ie outside the deadman’s curve and within autorotation distance of a relatively small landing zone.

Operationally they often have to operate at low altitudes, for example when winching or inspecting power lines, etc.

They are, however, also more complex mechanically than fixed wings, but maintenance schedules and industry experience mitigates that fairly effectively these days.

Most low level helicopter flights around here in Australia take place in the bush or over water on the coastline, thus not endangering people below them.

 

[ChoccyBoy]

Yes, it seems crazy. I wonder if the event promoter even has the legal right to exclude the public from taking pictures in a public place whether by drone or otherwise? Where would such a right come from? I thought no one and everyone owned the air whether its over my backyard or the Pacific ocean or anywhere in between.

Yep. My understanding is that Copyright would only come into effect if the footage was used in ‘passing off’. What about anyone on the shore with a handycam with a 200x Zoom (lens, not drone)?

 

[ChoccyBoy]

To auto rotate effectively a helicopter needs altidtue. Forward motion helps as it provides transitional lift. Even then it is a difficult task and not accurate. From a hover at below 500ft it’s going nowhere but straight down with little choice about where.

I think you mean ‘translational lift’, the lift gained by the forward movement of the rotor disc.

Transitional lift is, well, not a thing. Transition is going from hover to forward flight and vice versa.

The deadman’s curve depends on several factors, mostly the type of helicopter, and is not a fixed 500’.

 

[BigAl07]

OMG so helicopters can fly wherever they want to? It's just plain stupid of the FAA to say they can if they are operated "without hazard to persons or property on the surface" . They are a potential hazard to anyone or anything on the surface just by flying over the area.

Everyone is allowed their opinion even if it's very inaccurate.

There are several things about helos that make them less risky than airplanes. Predominantly, many of them are twin engined and they can land, after autorotating, on a dime (or maybe a 50 cent piece in Australia). They can effectively use a small park or garden to land with minimal risk, provided they start off high enough - ie outside the deadman’s curve and within autorotation distance of a relatively small landing zone.

Operationally they often have to operate at low altitudes, for example when winching or inspecting power lines, etc.

They are, however, also more complex mechanically than fixed wings, but maintenance schedules and industry experience mitigates that fairly effectively these days.

Most low level helicopter flights around here in Australia take place in the bush or over water on the coastline, thus not endangering people below them.

Finally some actual facts to add to the conversation.

Also keep in mind that these pilots are trained in emergency operations, credentialed heavily, and the aircraft have strict and regulated maintenance/inspection procedure.

 

[ChoccyBoy]

I read an article somewhere that claimed the event sponsor expected to have the exclusive rights to any potential footage because they were footing the bills. If they directed the helo pilot to purposely interfere with the drone which appeared to be in public airspace, that seems to be unsafe, unethical and probably a violation of their waiver for the event. They should be accountable in my opinion.

Quite possibly, however the pilot was the captain of the aircraft and any direction for him to act illegally, if there was one, would be issued illegally and he would not be obligated to follow that direction. Quite the opposite.

Then there’s commercial reality and future contracts.

 

[deleted member 877]

Finally some actual facts to add to the conversation.

Also keep in mind that these pilots are trained in emergency operations, credentialed heavily, and the aircraft have strict and regulated maintenance/inspection procedure.

Thanks for reiterating my sentiments posted earlier in this thread. The massive differences in skill/experience levels when comparing an average helicopter pilot with an average recreational pilot would heavily influence the outcome of the vast majority of "emergency" situations.

And before someone wants to nitpick and suggest that the drone pilot involved in this particular incident may well have been a professional, think about how incredibly unlikely that would be.

 

[ChoccyBoy]

Thanks for reiterating my sentiments posted earlier in this thread. The massive differences in skill/experience levels when comparing an average helicopter pilot with an average recreational pilot would heavily influence the outcome of the vast majority of "emergency" situations.

And before someone wants to nitpick and suggest that the drone pilot involved in this particular incident may well have been a professional, think about how incredibly unlikely that would be.

But don’t get me wrong, IMHO pretty much everyone involved here was in the wrong - the ambitious drone pilot being the root cause, the helicopter pilot for all the reasons outlined in this thread, the lifeguards for throwing stuff and not considering the law or the possible effects of their actions and, if an order was passed to down the drone, then whoever gave that order (organisers?).

Whilst I agree that generally helicopter pilots are highly trained (at least the military trained ones I know), it might also be said that perhaps the majority of them, perhaps mostly the younger ones, are pretty gung-ho and willing to take quickly assessed risks to achieve outcomes. No doubt the pilot saw the small drone (unlikely to cause serious injuries to anyone, especially from a few metres high) was over water and would be washed down away from his chopper as he approached fairly rapidly to avoid a vortex ring condition occurring.

Finally, this video is highly sus to me. Starts off with well taken video of a surf event then rapidly changes to handycam footage of what could very well be a fake reality video, a few things flying through the air, a few seconds of a helicopter then something getting quite wet and some jet skis moving into position. Might be real, but might not - graphics are widespread these days.

And as noted, it took over a year to be picked up by this press article. Any more coverage I wonder...?