Drone vs Wing

luvflyin

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
15,792
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Luvflyin
Got this email this morning.

AirHaven residents and friends,

Earlier this week one of our pilots was flying N.W. of Canby within Aurora’s airspace at 2,000 feet and experienced a Mid-Air with a drone. The pilot is fine, but the right wing of the plane was damaged. This is a good reminder for all of us that we need to keep our eyes open and outside of the cockpit while flying.

Lenhardt Airpark
 
I'm curious, what is Aurora's airspace? What regulations were violated by the drone's remote pilot? (Obviously see-and-avoid was violated, and probably he did not have continuous line of sight to his drone, but what regulations were violated just by flying in this airspace?)

Meanwhile, I have a DJI Mavic Pro, which is on the small end of medium-sized hobby drones, and it can be difficult to spot in the air even when you're standing still expecting to see it. It would be much more difficult to see when you are at the controls of a moving airplane, especially if it is in the ground clutter up until shortly before you run into it.

Hobby drones are a serious problem because of two features. They are hard to spot and easy for an irresponsible person to fly. Remote-control airplanes, at the hands of the unwashed masses, generally crash into the ground long before they get in the way of a real airplane. And even at the hands of a good but irresponsible remote pilot, they don't last long if they are out of the remote pilot's sight. Drones are too easy to fly out of the remote pilot's line of sight, and the remote pilot being able to see things with the drone that he can't with his own eyes is probably the most common motivation for flying them in the first place.

I don't have the answer. More regulations are not going to solve the problem. Looking outside the cockpit as the OP's quoted e-mail suggests is a 1% solution. The other 99% of the time, you can be looking vigilantly and not see the drone even after you hear it impact your wing. Flying at higher altitudes reduces your risk, because most responsible drone manufacturers put altitude limits into the drone software (user-adjustable--I think my Mavic Pro can go up to 400 meters AGL), and even if an irresponsible remote pilot defeats those limits, it takes a long time for a little drone to climb up very far. But that only helps so much.

What strategies have the brain trust here at POA found to actually avoid colliding with small consumer-grade drones operated by irresponsible remote pilots?
 
iamtheari said:
I'm curious, what is Aurora's airspace? What regulations were violated by the drone's remote pilot? (Obviously see-and-avoid was violated, and probably he did not have continuous line of sight to his drone, but what regulations were violated just by flying in this airspace?)

Meanwhile, I have a DJI Mavic Pro, which is on the small end of medium-sized hobby drones, and it can be difficult to spot in the air even when you're standing still expecting to see it. It would be much more difficult to see when you are at the controls of a moving airplane, especially if it is in the ground clutter up until shortly before you run into it.

Hobby drones are a serious problem because of two features. They are hard to spot and easy for an irresponsible person to fly. Remote-control airplanes, at the hands of the unwashed masses, generally crash into the ground long before they get in the way of a real airplane. And even at the hands of a good but irresponsible remote pilot, they don't last long if they are out of the remote pilot's sight. Drones are too easy to fly out of the remote pilot's line of sight, and the remote pilot being able to see things with the drone that he can't with his own eyes is probably the most common motivation for flying them in the first place.

I don't have the answer. More regulations are not going to solve the problem. Looking outside the cockpit as the OP's quoted e-mail suggests is a 1% solution. The other 99% of the time, you can be looking vigilantly and not see the drone even after you hear it impact your wing. Flying at higher altitudes reduces your risk, because most responsible drone manufacturers put altitude limits into the drone software (user-adjustable--I think my Mavic Pro can go up to 400 meters AGL), and even if an irresponsible remote pilot defeats those limits, it takes a long time for a little drone to climb up very far. But that only helps so much.

What strategies have the brain trust here at POA found to actually avoid colliding with small consumer-grade drones operated by irresponsible remote pilots?
Click to expand...
Looks to be within class D airspace. He shouldn't have been more than 500 feet AGL. Depending on how far from the airport, he either needed to let the control tower know of if he had a drone certificate, get a clearance (I'm keeping it simple here- the FAA lists the drone regulations on their web page).

Some POA members have said drones aren't a hazard.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Looks to be within class D airspace. He shouldn't have been more than 500 feet AGL. Depending on how far from the airport, he either needed to let the control tower know of if he had a drone certificate, get a clearance (I'm keeping it simple here- the FAA lists the drone regulations on their web page).

Some POA members have said drones aren't a hazard.
Click to expand...
Remote-piloted drones aren't a hazard. Irresponsible remote pilots definitely are, though. What we're up against is the proverbial wisdom of the philosopher Ron White: You can't fix stupid.
 
iamtheari said:
I'm curious, what is Aurora's airspace? What regulations were violated by the drone's remote pilot? (Obviously see-and-avoid was violated, and probably he did not have continuous line of sight to his drone, but what regulations were violated just by flying in this airspace?)

Meanwhile, I have a DJI Mavic Pro, which is on the small end of medium-sized hobby drones, and it can be difficult to spot in the air even when you're standing still expecting to see it. It would be much more difficult to see when you are at the controls of a moving airplane, especially if it is in the ground clutter up until shortly before you run into it.

Hobby drones are a serious problem because of two features. They are hard to spot and easy for an irresponsible person to fly. Remote-control airplanes, at the hands of the unwashed masses, generally crash into the ground long before they get in the way of a real airplane. And even at the hands of a good but irresponsible remote pilot, they don't last long if they are out of the remote pilot's sight. Drones are too easy to fly out of the remote pilot's line of sight, and the remote pilot being able to see things with the drone that he can't with his own eyes is probably the most common motivation for flying them in the first place.

I don't have the answer. More regulations are not going to solve the problem. Looking outside the cockpit as the OP's quoted e-mail suggests is a 1% solution. The other 99% of the time, you can be looking vigilantly and not see the drone even after you hear it impact your wing. Flying at higher altitudes reduces your risk, because most responsible drone manufacturers put altitude limits into the drone software (user-adjustable--I think my Mavic Pro can go up to 400 meters AGL), and even if an irresponsible remote pilot defeats those limits, it takes a long time for a little drone to climb up very far. But that only helps so much.

What strategies have the brain trust here at POA found to actually avoid colliding with small consumer-grade drones operated by irresponsible remote pilots?
Click to expand...
Aurora is UAO. Typical 5 mile Delta. I don't know all the regs but I do recall reading them once and there are rules about proximity to airports. 2000 feet within 5 miles of an Airport sounds like a no-no to me. Yeah, I agree seeing and avoiding something that small is about a 1% solution. My wife saw one once. We were about 5 miles Northwest of SAN at around 3500. I never saw it.
 
luvflyin said:
Aurora is UAO. Typical 5 mile Delta. I don't know all the regs but I do recall reading them once and there are rules about proximity to airports. 2000 feet within 5 miles of an Airport sounds like a no-no to me. Yeah, I agree seeing and avoiding something that small is about a 1% solution. My wife saw one once. We were about 5 miles Northwest of SAN at around 3500. I never saw it.
Click to expand...
Oh, that Aurora. I think that it's very likely this drone was in violation of numerous things other than just the rule against flying in front of manned aircraft.
 
iamtheari said:
Remote-piloted drones aren't a hazard. Irresponsible remote pilots definitely are, though. What we're up against is the proverbial wisdom of the philosopher Ron White: You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. but some of the PoA "experts" have claimed that a drone strike is a non-event. I should have been more clear.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I agree with you. but some of the PoA "experts" have claimed that a drone strike is a non-event. I should have been more clear.
Click to expand...
I caught your drift. And I doubt anyone who has actually hit a drone with an airplane has later thought it was a non-event. I know that a wing repair isn’t the kind of thing I would be able to just brush off like nothing happened. Maybe some people carry $20,000 around in their car’s cup holder and don’t mind being without an airplane for a few months.
 
If the drone was in Class D, hobbyist or not, it is required that the pilot contact both the airport operator and the control tower to let them know.

"Recreational operators are required to give notice for flights within five miles of an airport to both the airport operator and air traffic control tower, if the airport has a tower. However, recreational operations are not permitted in Class B airspace around most major airports without specific air traffic permission and coordination."
https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/airspace_restrictions/

There are many irresponsible drone pilots out there - YouTube has compilation after compilation of such behavior. If the irresponsible recreational pilot gets caught, I'm certain the FAA will lay the smack down.
 
Cool story, got any pics and a NTSB link?
 
They could just geofence the drones so that they cannot go any further than 500' up. No need for them to go higher than that anyway.
 
SoonerAviator said:
They could just geofence the drones so that they cannot go any further than 500' up. No need for them to go higher than that anyway.
Click to expand...
First thing I can think of is cell tower inspections. FAA regs say that you can fly to the height of a structure plus 400 feet.
 
Somehow I think they could treat those like a commercial drone operator. If you are a commercial operator, you are able to purchase/utilize equipment which has expanded geo-fencing in order to complete the needed tasks. Ensures that the hobbyists playing in the backyard stay under 500', and those that need to look at radio towers can do what they need to with the appropriate licencing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top