Helicopter crashes after evading drone

Ryanb said:
The only thing that I would argue, is that RC airplanes don’t exactly have the capabilities that some of the drones have. There are some that have a higher range or power level than the smaller ones, but those are going to be flown by more experienced RCer’s who would more than likely understand the rule set and boundaries more so than a novice would. RC’s are also more commonly flown within line of sight, whereas a lot of drones are not or have the ability to be flown out of sight. I also believe that line of sight restricts one from flying higher than mandated, which is why RC’s are less of an issue to aircraft.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as my RC experience is limited.
Click to expand...

I’ll type up a response tomorrow haha
 
I was doing home inspections today 1000-1200 feet under airliners today. And they had no idea I was there :eek:

I am a huge proponent of drone education, at the very least understanding airspace. I've talked with contractors/roofers with drones a lot and a scary majority don't have a 107/haven't heard of it/have never seen a sectional. They don't know or care what class airspace they are in. 4 months into the job I was the only person calling into one of the airports in Fort Worth. Not even kidding...

//edit

Also tomorrow I have a flight 2000ft directly off the end of a runway. I am glad it's me flying the place instead of someone else because I do it right but it definitely makes me think...
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
I’m just sitting here lmao...

So many people want the Feds to stay out of it and not be proactive, but than when something happens the same people say “see, they don’t do anything”.
Click to expand...

It is funny.... it is like people that complain about cars speeding through the neighborhood, then complain when they get a ticket for speeding...
 
We don’t know if the suspected UAS operator was 101 or 107. Doesn’t matter anyway because BOTH are required to give way to manned aircraft.

Said it many times before, unless you completely outlaw all UASs, you’ll always have those who are operating outside of both 101 and 107 rules.
 
I dunno, below the treetops the drones should rule. I don't think it's fair to regulate them in that arena of operation. If you're going to operate your vehicle at treetop level you probably have more to fear from birds than UAVs anyway.

I'm with Jessie, the story smells anyway.
 
It isn't the first one and it won't be the last. A drone had a mid-air with an Army helicopter last Sept, clipping a rotor blade and forcing them to land. There's well known issues with drones interfering with fire fighting and emergency evac efforts, sooner or later they're going to bring down a life flight or fire fighting helicopter.

But the laws are already there. Why don't people know about them?
 
steingar said:
I dunno, below the treetops the drones should rule. I don't think it's fair to regulate them in that arena of operation. If you're going to operate your vehicle at treetop level you probably have more to fear from birds than UAVs anyway.

I'm with Jessie, the story smells anyway.
Click to expand...

So helicopters can never takeoff or land? At some point we're all below the treetops. Drones must avoid all other aircraft, period.
 
bflynn said:
It isn't the first one and it won't be the last. A drone had a mid-air with an Army helicopter last Sept, clipping a rotor blade and forcing them to land. There's well known issues with drones interfering with fire fighting and emergency evac efforts, sooner or later they're going to bring down a life flight or fire fighting helicopter.

But the laws are already there. Why don't people know about them?
Click to expand...

Two reasons. First, there is no regulation requiring operating rules to be placed in the instruction manual of a UAS. Second, doesn’t matter if they’re published or not, plenty of people just disregard the rules and do what they want. Like texting and driving, no way to stop it.
 
Part 91 Helicopters don’t have a min altitude other than “undue hazards to persons or property on the surface.”
 
bflynn said:
It isn't the first one and it won't be the last. A drone had a mid-air with an Army helicopter last Sept, clipping a rotor blade and forcing them to land. There's well known issues with drones interfering with fire fighting and emergency evac efforts, sooner or later they're going to bring down a life flight or fire fighting helicopter.

But the laws are already there. Why don't people know about them?
Click to expand...

I have seen pics on Facebook of a light sport pilot flying a drone in places that are unequivocally in surface Bravo airspace. He has to know he shouldn't be flying that area...

In my opinion it is harder than it should be to get a straight answer from the regs or FAA about where you can or can't. Heliports for example, do they count as airports, do you have to call each one in a 5mi radius for recreational flights? What if they don't answer?

I think making it a bit easier to understand for the general public and requiring a quick and easy to read copy of the regs with drones. But then again I just said there was an actual pilot disregarding the rules with knowledge of airspace who should know better so regulation wouldn't fix that for him.
 
bflynn said:
It isn't the first one and it won't be the last. A drone had a mid-air with an Army helicopter last Sept, clipping a rotor blade and forcing them to land. There's well known issues with drones interfering with fire fighting and emergency evac efforts, sooner or later they're going to bring down a life flight or fire fighting helicopter.

But the laws are already there. Why don't people know about them?
Click to expand...
Because they are not being educated.
 
Brad Z said:
So helicopters can never takeoff or land? At some point we're all below the treetops. Drones must avoid all other aircraft, period.
Click to expand...
Helicopters take off an land at airports, where drones aren't allowed. I do think someone should be able to fly their little drone around their back yard and in the park.
 
Ryanb said:
The only thing that I would argue, is that RC airplanes don’t exactly have the capabilities that some of the drones have. There are some that have a higher range or power level than the smaller ones, but those are going to be flown by more experienced RCer’s who would more than likely understand the rule set and boundaries more so than a novice would. RC’s are also more commonly flown within line of sight, whereas a lot of drones are not or have the ability to be flown out of sight. I also believe that line of sight restricts one from flying higher than mandated, which is why RC’s are less of an issue to aircraft.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as my RC experience is limited.
Click to expand...

Alrighty I'm back. There is some truth that drones have some capabilities that drones don't have due to the way the unique ways that a drone can fly (hover, etc). That said many companies are producing more and more FPV wings (think of like a B2 Bomber shape). They tend to be much cheaper than drones and can be flown quite easily due to the added stability of gyros that can auto level, etc. They aren't much different than a drone other than the fact that they fly a bit differently. Yes, most rc fixed wing, helis, etc are flown line of sight, but that isn't the case with FPV (first person view) fixed wing aircraft (which again are becoming more and more popular as well).

AMA has the 400 foot rule. Trying to determine how high 400 feet is from the ground is not exactly easy and the sight picture varies depending on how big or small the aircraft is. The guys flying 250mph jets at my club bust through that in a heartbeat (but they aren't above that for long). There have been a few occasions where KDVT Tower has actually called our field because a pilot reported seeing an RC plane flying too high (honestly in almost all these reports the RC plane was not anywhere near the full scale airplane). So line of sight doesn't automatically mean it is less likely to cause issues with other aircraft. In fact, I would argue that you lose some of your situational awareness when flying line of sight because you are so focused on one thing in the sky (hence why our field requires you to fly with a spotter - someone who looks out for other aircraft). Again, I would argue that FPV gives you better situational awareness. Keep in mind that most DJIs are flown with a screen/iPad/etc. This does not give you the same immersive situational awareness that a pair of goggles would. Obviously it still doesn't address or prevent someone from flying it where they shouldn't be.

I would bet that most of these "incidents" are happening with DJI or DJI-like drones and not so much the FPV racing drones or custom built FPV long range drones. Reason being is that the DJI stuff is so easy to fly and is focused around the average Joe consumer. That said, I know they already have altitude limits built in (someone said you can remove this if your tech savy though), airspace warnings, etc. I think DJI is probably doing their best to prevent people from flying where they shouldn't. Like anything though...you can't stop everything, especially if someone is determined to do it anyways.

The reality is like most things, the majority of people flying drones due it in a way that isn't harmful to others. It is the small minority that ruin it for everyone else unfortunately.
 
If I am flying less than 500-1000ft away, I would say FPV would give me less situational awareness in regards to aircraft. Unless they are supersonic, I always hear aircraft before they get close. I don't get that from the goggles/audio and unless I'm looking in the right direction and at the sky, I won't see them. It is different than flying fixed wing though, you do have to maintain eyes on the aircraft and the Phantom will happily hover while you look.
 
overdrive148 said:
If I am flying less than 500-1000ft away, I would say FPV would give me less situational awareness in regards to aircraft. Unless they are supersonic, I always hear aircraft before they get close. I don't get that from the goggles/audio and unless I'm looking in the right direction and at the sky, I won't see them. It is different than flying fixed wing though, you do have to maintain eyes on the aircraft and the Phantom will happily hover while you look.
Click to expand...

Yea that is true with something like the Phantom it is different because it will hover while you can look around.
 
CC268 said:
Alrighty I'm back. There is some truth that drones have some capabilities that drones don't have due to the way the unique ways that a drone can fly (hover, etc). That said many companies are producing more and more FPV wings (think of like a B2 Bomber shape). They tend to be much cheaper than drones and can be flown quite easily due to the added stability of gyros that can auto level, etc. They aren't much different than a drone other than the fact that they fly a bit differently. Yes, most rc fixed wing, helis, etc are flown line of sight, but that isn't the case with FPV (first person view) fixed wing aircraft (which again are becoming more and more popular as well).

AMA has the 400 foot rule. Trying to determine how high 400 feet is from the ground is not exactly easy and the sight picture varies depending on how big or small the aircraft is. The guys flying 250mph jets at my club bust through that in a heartbeat (but they aren't above that for long). There have been a few occasions where KDVT Tower has actually called our field because a pilot reported seeing an RC plane flying too high (honestly in almost all these reports the RC plane was not anywhere near the full scale airplane). So line of sight doesn't automatically mean it is less likely to cause issues with other aircraft. In fact, I would argue that you lose some of your situational awareness when flying line of sight because you are so focused on one thing in the sky (hence why our field requires you to fly with a spotter - someone who looks out for other aircraft). Again, I would argue that FPV gives you better situational awareness. Keep in mind that most DJIs are flown with a screen/iPad/etc. This does not give you the same immersive situational awareness that a pair of goggles would. Obviously it still doesn't address or prevent someone from flying it where they shouldn't be.

I would bet that most of these "incidents" are happening with DJI or DJI-like drones and not so much the FPV racing drones or custom built FPV long range drones. Reason being is that the DJI stuff is so easy to fly and is focused around the average Joe consumer. That said, I know they already have altitude limits built in (someone said you can remove this if your tech savy though), airspace warnings, etc. I think DJI is probably doing their best to prevent people from flying where they shouldn't. Like anything though...you can't stop everything, especially if someone is determined to do it anyways.

The reality is like most things, the majority of people flying drones due it in a way that isn't harmful to others. It is the small minority that ruin it for everyone else unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Good points. I’ll stand corrected.
 
I guess what I am trying to say is that I'm not sure what the solution is for these drone issues...
 
steingar said:
Helicopters take off an land at airports, where drones aren't allowed. I do think someone should be able to fly their little drone around their back yard and in the park.
Click to expand...
Drones aren't prohibited from airports. Can you point to a regulation otherwise?

Should they be able to fly their drone around their yard or park and interfere with a helicopter taking off or landing?
 
Brad Z said:
Drones aren't prohibited from airports. Can you point to a regulation otherwise?
Click to expand...

Why yes, drone operators must give the FAA notice if they are to fly within 5 miles of an airport.

Brad Z said:
Should they be able to fly their drone around their yard or park and interfere with a helicopter taking off or landing?
Click to expand...

Helicopters should not be taking off or landing in people's back yards or municipal parks.
 
steingar said:
Why yes, drone operators must give the FAA notice if they are to fly within 5 miles of an airport.


Helicopters should not be taking off or landing in people's back yards or municipal parks.
Click to expand...

That’s just a notice, not a prohibition. It’s the airport manager/operator also and not the FAA. If it’s a towered field, then ATC (FAA). If it’s class G and operating part 107, no call is even required.

It’s a waste of a call anyway. The FAA has already stated that the manager/operator can’t deny access to the UAS operator anyway. It’s basically saying, here I am, and this is what I’m doing.

I land a helicopter in backyards and parks on a weekly basis.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Why yes, drone operators must give the FAA notice if they are to fly within 5 miles of an airport.
Click to expand...

Remote pilots are not required to give notice at all; they only need authorization if operating in controlled airspace. Hobbyists are required to give the airport operator or ATCT notice, but it's not permission, and certainly not a prohibition.

steingar said:
Helicopters should not be taking off or landing in people's back yards or municipal parks.
Click to expand...

Medevac helicopters do it all of the time. Hopefully they'll get the memo soon.
 
So what’s the solution guys? Make drones illegal? No one has provided their own solution yet.
 
CC268 said:
So what’s the solution guys? Make drones illegal? No one has provided their own solution yet.
Click to expand...

Make everyone a little happy and ban everything....:lol::lol:

I worry a whole lot more about birds than drones or even other aircraft...... and we get C-130s and Ospreys flying low level in this area.
 
CC268 said:
So what’s the solution guys? Make drones illegal? No one has provided their own solution yet.
Click to expand...

That’s because there isn’t one. Our current situation with mass shootings is a perfect example. Either outlaw the operation (guns / drones) completely or accept the consequences of those that ignore the laws.

It would be a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist anyway.
 
Velocity173 said:
That’s because there isn’t one. Our current situation with mass shootings is a perfect example. Either outlaw the operation (guns / drones) completely or accept the consequences of those that ignore the laws.
Click to expand...

Yep. I agree.
 
I've only been annoyed over RC aircraft once. I was on a cross-country in the Flybaby which had a pretty awful range. You were generally committed to whatever your selected fuel stop was. I believe this was at an airport in Missouri. Maybe Kansas.

As I approached the airport I noticed multiple high-speed RC aircraft being operated at the airport. I set myself up at about 2,000 AGL in a circle directly over-top of the airport. They kept on flying. Bitched on CTAF to no avail.

At this point I was burning through my last 2 gallons of fuel - finally said **** it and threw it into a steep slip. I came screaming down into their RC airplane mess and landed right where they were landing their RC airplanes (not the runway). I decided to join their little RC airplane pattern versus conflict with it.

Shutdown in front of them. Some immediate discussion was had. They weren't aware that me circling the airfield was an indicator that I wanted to land and was uncomfortable doing so given their high speed rc aircraft. Those things were 2X-3X faster than my airplane was. No NOTAMS indicated this was going to be happening. Anyhow. Wasn't that big of a deal. Just annoying.
 
Velocity173 said:
That’s because there isn’t one. Our current situation with mass shootings is a perfect example. Either outlaw the operation (guns / drones) completely or accept the consequences of those that ignore the laws.

It would be a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist anyway.
Click to expand...

As I've said UAS has proven to not be much of a major threat.

And I'd also like to see the results of the investigation to see if it was really a drone strike, or if the guy did something else and blamed it on a drone


The illegal shooting thing is a perfect example of how "gun control" doesn't work, and how "drone control" wouldn't work, just like how outlawing drugs hasn't stopped addiction, the people it "stops" wouldn't have started in the first place, and the people who want to do illegal things really don't care about the law in the first place. It's just a feel good tactic that gives our massive government yet one more thing to control and tax

For decent size sUAS, it's simple, I'd like to see some type of non individual identifying ADSB factory installed on the main board, this doesn't have to be on the palm sized quad copter you got your 8yr old from the mall, but on the boards for ships that are more likely to be larger or go FPV and the like, also don't require registration, just put the ADSB out for all of them all on a single N number that identifies as sUAS, then it's just see and avoid.
 
The guns versus UAS analogy is a reasonable one, although there is no equivalent 2nd amendment for UAS. The government may regulate air commerce (and does, of course), so Congress could pass all sorts of laws limiting, banning, etc. UAS operations... whether it would be effective or politically acceptable is a different story.
 
James331 said:
As I've said UAS has proven to not be much of a major threat.

And I'd also like to see the results of the investigation to see if it was really a drone strike, or if the guy did something else and blamed it on a drone


The illegal shooting thing is a perfect example of how "gun control" doesn't work, and how "drone control" wouldn't work, just like how outlawing drugs hasn't stopped addiction, the people it "stops" wouldn't have started in the first place, and the people who want to do illegal things really don't care about the law in the first place. It's just a feel good tactic that gives our massive government yet one more thing to control and tax

For decent size sUAS, it's simple, I'd like to see some type of non individual identifying ADSB factory installed on the main board, this doesn't have to be on the palm sized quad copter you got your 8yr old from the mall, but on the boards for ships that are more likely to be larger or go FPV and the like, also don't require registration, just put the ADSB out for all of them all on a single N number that identifies as sUAS, then it's just see and avoid.
Click to expand...

Well I’m not saying banning anything is a solution. Might make a dent, but there would always be a black market that would bypass the law.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well I’m not saying banning anything is a solution. Might make a dent, but there would always be a black market that would bypass the law.
Click to expand...

Well it's already against the law to fly your drone into an aircraft, would this be like a double secrets probation type thing, or like illegal squared?
 
James331 said:
For decent size sUAS, it's simple, I'd like to see some type of non individual identifying ADSB factory installed on the main board, this doesn't have to be on the palm sized quad copter you got your 8yr old from the mall, but on the boards for ships that are more likely to be larger or go FPV and the like, also don't require registration, just put the ADSB out for all of them all on a single N number that identifies as sUAS, then it's just see and avoid.
Click to expand...

Or do it the other way, the drone only needs ADSB in, if another aircraft is transmitting within some distance the drone self destructs.
 
Or both, but it's more important that the planes know where the drone is, than some photographer who knows much less about aviation
 
Regardless of what you guys think about drones...I’m still gonna send it with my drones

 
James331 said:
The genie is out of the bottle, has been for over half a century, since we called them RC airplanes, the tech is out there and it ain't going away.


Again most of it is just media hype, and your standard issue government "think of the children" marketing.

Think-of-the-Children.jpg


Again, more American citizens have been targeted and killed by the federal governments drones than civilian sUAS, as in a huge margin since not a single person has been killed by a sUAS, and I don't hear the media or the FAA, or these forums warning and worrying about the federal government killing you with a drone strike, even though based on math it's waaaay more likely.

Of course we all know you're a zillion times more likely to be killed by your fatty gut, poor diet, or bad breeding than all of the above combined. Maybe you should ask the government to make it illegal for fat people to eat more than XX calories per day, food rationing for the fatties would save way more lives than "drone regulation"





I got 99 problems, but a drone ain't one.
Click to expand...

People have been killed by RC aircraft in the USA. Not intentionally, but deaths have resulted from the operation of remotely piloted aerial vehicles. Google will prove you wrong every time, no matter who you are. ;)
 
Ryanb said:
The only thing that I would argue, is that RC airplanes don’t exactly have the capabilities that some of the drones have. There are some that have a higher range or power level than the smaller ones, but those are going to be flown by more experienced RCer’s who would more than likely understand the rule set and boundaries more so than a novice would. RC’s are also more commonly flown within line of sight, whereas a lot of drones are not or have the ability to be flown out of sight. I also believe that line of sight restricts one from flying higher than mandated, which is why RC’s are less of an issue to aircraft.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as my RC experience is limited.
Click to expand...

RC airplanes require some skill to fly, by which I mean to fly at all. A person who just picks up the controller with no training at all is probably going to crash his RC airplane on his first flight. That keeps the real idiots out of the hobby. They either get some instruction or they get tired of crashing expensive models and find some other hobby. It's kind of like RC aviation's implementation of Darwinism.

Drones, on the other hand, are easy enough to fly and durable enough that they tend to survive initial flights by idiots, who may in time even become reasonably competent in controlling them in more complex maneuvers. But if they're idiots, then all their improved competency does is make them more dangerous. They may be able to control the UAS, but they have no idea how to do so safely.

I wouldn't mind a requirement that all RC and drone pilots (other than those holding an FAA UAS certificate) hold membership in AMA or some other qualified organization and pass a training course sponsored by the organization before being allowed to fly anything capable of flying more than 20 feet from the controller (which would effectively exclude obvious toys). An online course covering the basics of airspace, safety, and regulations would be enough, possibly with added "ratings" intended more to help people avoid crashing their models / drones / toys / or whatever.

Manufacturers could provide vouchers for an introductory membership and for the online course with the model or drone in order to encourage people to at least take the course. Throw in a certificate, an official-looking wallet card, and an embroidered patch upon completion of the course to encourage children (including adults whose mental age fits the bill) to actually complete it, and I think it could work to at least make people more safety-conscious.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent idiots from buying drones and flying them with no training or understanding at all. But it would be better than nothing and minimally invasive.

Rich
 
Lachlan said:
So, we WANT the government to regulate drones, but DON’T WANT the government to regulate guns. Got it.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is a right, not a privilege.

As much as I love everything north of the blue line, most New Yorkers lean towards some commie views.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top