Another drone takes down another helicopter 12

[Sparweb]

Not the first time.
In its report, the NTSB noted that it has now completed three investigations where a collision with a drone has been confirmed, and gathered information on two other collisions where the evidence is consistent with a drone strike.

The drone was operating above 400 feet AGL in airspace that did not permit this, and at night when this is not normally permitted either. The type of drone that probably hit the helicopter (based on the damage) is not the kind that would be equipped with proper anti-collision lights that would make night flight possible.

Here is another example, probably not in the NTSB count - although a much more avoidable one that should not have happened.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

Takes down is an overstatement. So far, general aviation kills people in large enough numbers; hobby drones have not. I agree who ever was flying the drone was above where they should be, but night lighting isn't going to make one stand out on the backdrop of LA.

Missing from the report was any mention of ADS-B OUT in use by the operators of the accident aircraft. The major drone makers are adding ADS-B IN to provide automated avoidance, but since the FAA is happy to allow mid-air collisions between full size passenger carrying aircraft by failing to mandate even a rudimentary anti-collision technology, it isn't clear they are will to do anything except legislate against other operators.

It would not surprise me if the drone in this collision was operated by LAPD in an effort to see how much they could use it in nighttime surveillance, hence the inability to find evidence. I also note that small drones are a vicious competitor to news helicopter operations. For a few thousand dollars a news organization can put a reporter on scene with better images than a million dollar helicopter can get and they can put multiple drones in multiple simultaneous locations simultaneously.

As I said before, manned helos kill people all the time:

https://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/atsb-releases-broome-r44-helicopter-accident-update/

and helo pilots are not always acting responsibly

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/lo...-helicopters-disperse-protests-washington-dc/

Sometimes they are also starting wildfires

https://www.postindependent.com/new...sends-two-to-hospital-touches-off-brush-fire/

 

[3DDave]

The FAA does not require ALL man carrying aircraft to have anti-collision systems, either with terrain or each other. That they refuse to mandate it for the aubset that continues to suffer midair collisions is evidence enough.

The DRONE cannot autonomously avoid the helicopter if the helicopter is not broadcasting and the FAA does not mandate they do so under ALL conditions. Likewise, while working to require hobbyists to go through the same level of flight school as a private pilot requires in order to operate a toy in a park, they do not require drones to use ADS-B to avoid manned aircraft - and they cannot because they refuse to MANDATE ADB-B OUT on all manned aircraft all the time.

It's not the job of the NTSB to de-conflict the airspace and not all NTSB investigations into non-fatal accidents will spend the time looking at all the recommendations that they have made over and over and over again only to be ignored by the FAA. I note the report does not mention if the helicopter was equipped with TCAS, making that a red-herring.

What blame did I place on the pilot for the collision? OUT vs IN was clear.

 

Correct me if I have the wrong impression, but are the technical limitations of drones being used as excuses when they cause these accidents?



"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[CWB1]

I also note that small drones are a vicious competitor to news helicopter operations.

Not really. Unless permitted to fly above 500' (rare), operators would have to get one helluva lot of permissions to fly over a major city.

 

[3DDave]

"I agree who ever was flying the drone was above where they should be" doesn't sound like an excuse.

The most detailed coverage of a news scene can be accomplished from a few hundred feet. Instead of making a mile long orbit around a fire, for example, a drone could cover it with a 600 foot ground track. Unlike a helicopter, there's no ring-state to settle into, allowing persistence from a single location. There can be one drone per news truck and per journalists car and be paid for with less than the operating cost of a single news helicopter for a single year. I would not hesitate to send a drone to capture footage from inside the operating volume of a fireworks display, a location already safe against misfired heavy explosives; any idea about the competition a news copter can offer in a similar way? How about under a bridge with a structural problem? Or to examine a building suffering a partial collapse? News-wise, drones should eat the manned helicopter capacity as a photography platform for lunch.

Hence the push-back from the incumbents working to keep their airspace clear of low-cost, high-effectiveness competitors.

 

[IRstuff]

The missing ingredient in UASs is SA (Situational Awareness); people think that flight simulators' soda straw views of the world is all that's necessarily to fly, but for a slow-flying aircraft, 3D SA is needed to avoid such incidences.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Sparweb]

Hi 3DDave,
It's pretty clear by now that you are on the side of the drones, at all costs, even at the cost of your integrity.

Somehow, a drone hits a helicopter, but it's the helicopter's fault?

Quite a few things you say do not compute, from a logical or human safety point of view.
I have attempted to analyze your opinions in the past - which didn't go so well, did it? Congratulations on the red-flag move, by the way. I haven't had a post deleted in a really long time.

So here's a different approach: a quiz, if you will.
Each question requires two answers; one for the helicopter, one for the drone.
My answers are based on a generic representative of each type of machine (eg. a common 5-seat light helicopter and a common 4- or 8-rotor drone). If you can't tolerate common examples, you can choose your answer based on any extreme example of each machine you choose, but what you choose has to actually exist.

[ol]
[li]For each machine, what is the consequence of a high-speed impact to the operator?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the consequence of a high-speed impact to a passenger on board?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the consequence of a high-speed impact to a person struck on the ground?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the consequence of a design flaw to the operator?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the consequence of a design flaw to a passenger on board?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the consequence of a design flaw to a person struck on the ground?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the legal consequence of violent use as a weapon by the operator?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the legal consequence of violent use as a weapon to a passenger on board?[/li]
[li]For each machine, what is the legal consequence of violent use as a weapon to a person struck on the ground?[/li]
[li]For each machine, how will compliance with design safety code be assured?[/li]
[li]For each machine, how will compliance with operational safety code be assured?[/li]
[li]For each machine, how will law enforcement identify the operator in negligent operation?[/li]
[li]For each machine, how will law enforcement identify the operator in malicious operation?[/li]
[/ol]

I'll make it easy for you and provide some answers in the following post.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Sparweb]

OK 3DDave,
I hope you took a minute to think of your own answers before skipping to the answers!
What do we have?

Helicopters / Drones:
[ol 1]
[li]Heli Pilot killed / Drone pilot unharmed[/li]
[li]Passenger killed / Drone passenger killed[/li]
[li]Bystander killed / Bystander killed[/li]
[li]Heli Pilot in danger / Drone pilot unharmed[/li]
[li]Passenger in danger / Drone passenger killed[/li]
[li]Bystander in danger / Bystander in danger[/li]
[li]Heli Pilot in danger / Drone pilot unharmed[/li]
[li]Passenger in danger / Drone passenger killed[/li]
[li]Bystander in danger / Bystander in danger[/li]
[/ol]

So I'm not done the list yet, and here we see that the consequences of accidents, negligence, flaws, and malicious use is just bad all round, for helicopters and for drones to any bystanders and to any possible passengers on board. To the bystanders, it's a question of mass. Drones capable of displacing the functions of helicopters are much more massive than the toy drones, so the consequences of accidents can be drastic as the complexity of drones increases. They just haven't built up to that level yet.

Oh wait, did I not point out that there are NO SAFETY consequences to any drone accidents to the drone operators, standing on the ground far away? Well that's a pretty significant differential in the consequences of an accident. And all the advantages fall toward the operator of the drone. Sounds great.

But what about the rest of my questions:

For helicopters:
[ul]
[li]10. Compliance with helicopter and aircraft design safety code is assured by a rigorous inspection and certification laws, already in place. Failure to comply causes seizure of the aircraft.[/li]
[li]11. Compliance with helicopter and aircraft operational safety code is assured by rigorous training and flight inspection.[/li]
[li]12. Law enforcement can identify the operator in negligent operation through the redundant registration, communication, navigation, and location records of each aircraft in the sky.[/li]
[li]13. Malicious operation of helicopter and aircraft is extremely difficult (but of course it has been successfully done) mostly because of the large number of people and computers involved in most aircraft and helicopter operations.[/li]
[/ul]

For drones:
[ul]
[li]10. A design safety code is absent.[/li]
[li]11. An operational safety code is almost absent. Concealing your identity as the operator is especially easy for BLOS drones (beyond line of sight).[/li]
[li]12. Law enforcement can rarely identify the negligent operators of drones, despite the claims of the drone protection companies. Many examples can be cited.[/li]
[li]13. Malicious operation of drones is quite easy, provided the malicious goal is suitable to the limited mass and payload capability of the drone. Obviously larger drones can do more damage or carry more harmful payloads. Tracking drones engaged in such activities is difficult over cities and almost impossible in remote areas. Finding the drone, or its debris, does not often lead law enforcement to the suspect operator.[/li]
[/ul]

So here we are.
A drone can be operated maliciously, or negligently, with a good chance of no adverse consequences to the operator. Rules that we may put in place to improve the safety of these machines may work on owners who choose to be responsible, but the adverse cost and effort will discourage most.
Meanwhile, there are not many pilots of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft that don't take seriously their own safety, when it's their own life on the line!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[CWB1]

people think that flight simulators' soda straw views of the world is all that's necessarily to fly

Agreed 110%. There are a ton of studies showing the effective limits of man's ability to operate equipment with most cameras' limited field-of-view and depth perception. These limits combined with some professions' need to operate remotely was an early driver of automation.

A really fun exercise for anyone who doubts this or believes they're heaven's gift to humanity is to borrow a set of night-vision goggles and attempt to perform routine tasks in the dark with some semblance of speed. It will give new respect for the military who are kicking in doors, flying helicopters, and otherwise operating in life/death situations while reliant on them.

 

[3DDave]

"I agree who ever was flying the drone was above where they should be" doesn't sound like an excuse.

If I repeat that a few more times will you listen?

I'll give you a quiz:

What, aside from trying to eliminate all drones from the air, has the FAA done to deconflict the situation?
1) Registration of drones. How does that deconflict the situation?
2) Pilot level ground school to operate any remote control models. Besides increasing the cost out of reasonable reach, how does that deconflict the situation?

Keep in mind this is the same FAA that let a guy who crashed a twin piston job by stalling during a landing then buy and operate a twin jet that he stalled during landing. Only this time, not only was that pilot and his passengers killed, so were a woman incinerated in her home while trapped protecting her also incinerated child - both with time to seek shelter and know what was coming.

This is the same FAA that let a helo tour company operate over water with inflatable chambers, only one of which worked, which flipped the copter upside down in a forced water landing. Why? Because the pilot let a passenger put a bag near the engine cut-out; the bag strap caught that lever and shut the engine down mid-flight. And what was the consequence? Killing all the passengers who were secured to the helicopter in a way that only ground crews could release them. Imagine their terror as they were pulled under and held there to drown, fully conscious to the end. The pilot survived. No drones involved.

I hope your list includes actual outcomes. So far it doesn't.

Your basis is one of revenge. For bad things to happen to bad people after they do bad things. (Do bad people misuse cars? It's tough to steal and misuse a drone; should cars be theft-proof? Maybe outlaw cars until they cannot be stolen.)

I want prevention - bad things avoided, but not by ensuring no things happen. Most people aren't malicious, so arguments that are based on those people is a strawman. A hobbyist Transatlantic drone flew over 10 years ago. How many have been built by non-nations and used for bad purposes anywhere but the battlefield since?

"13. Malicious operation of helicopter and aircraft is extremely difficult (but of course it has been successfully done) mostly because of the large number of people and computers involved in most aircraft and helicopter operations."

Yeah. 9/11 never happened. That has taken roughly 100,000-500,000 lives and trillions of dollars wasted, all because the FAA had not issued guidance that letting anyone who is not flight crew into the cockpit for any reason is a bad thing.

However there is fault of the FAA and manned aircraft owners not wanting to accept they have to spend money to coordinate with the drone industry to deconflict the airspace. The FAA refuses to allow ADS-B OUT to be attached to powered parachutes, for example; refuses to require it for ALL manned flight operations in ALL US airspace. Refuses to allow ADS-B OUT on drones. Refuses to require ADS-B IN for ALL manned operations. Drone makers are already including ADS-B IN, but there is no required signal for them to use.

Instead the FAA wants drone operators to have a separate, disconnected system to funnel money into the most effective lobbying firm, but only for operations where there is no option to use that system. Yeah, in the middle of nowhere they want a persistent internet connection to provide location data to a website. Where nobody has an internet connection. And prohibit operation wherever there is a possible persistent connection - near cities. Rule-making to remove drones from any legal use, except maybe the hands of law enforcement and national "security."

This at the time when agricultural drones can be used for targeted application of pesticides and fertilizers and for crop condition surveillance for accurate water delivery. When they can provide a more rapid response for search and rescue. When they can decrease the risk to inspection of infrastructure.

The FAA is working like legislators did when the first cars came out; requiring a man on foot to walk 300 feet ahead of the car and announce it was coming to avoid startling horses. No one learns from history. Then again, no one listened when the Wright brothers suggested airplanes not be allowed to fly over cities. And look how that turned out.

Also - I did not red flag anything.

 

[EdStainless]

The drones that people want to use for activities such as news footage and aerial inspection are not 1 lb hobbyist units. They are 100# ones with $10k worth of cameras on them.

The FAA has screwed up ADS so badly that it is painful to talk about. This need a swift kick to the nuts to straighten it out, but that is another issue.
And yes, the FAA only wants to deal with users that provide a source of revenue since they need those funds just to function.
But if you are flying anything for a business purpose what is a few thousand dollars? And why not openly identify yourself? After all I can track almost every airplane that there is.

The Gov in general botched handling drones badly. But that doesn't make operations in clear violation of the rules OK. But as long as your chances of being identified are nil we will continue seeing this. And that likely means no action until an aircraft is actually brought down in a drone collision.
So far collisions have only cost aircraft operator hundreds of thousands of dollars.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[JohnRBaker]

Not exactly on topic, except as perhaps a solution for those drones that are found flying where they shouldn't be:

Where Eagles Dare: French military using winged warriors to hunt down rogue drones

https://www.foxnews.com/world/where...ing-winged-warriors-to-hunt-down-rogue-drones

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Sparweb]

Yes I've heard of that, too.
I have a lot of fear for the health of these eagles. A drone of any size can threaten to injure the animal. The effectiveness and instincts of the eagle, however, can't be argued with.

The dramatic photo in the article is just training with a toy. The eagle wouldn't stand a chance against a 20kg machine.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Sparweb]

Here's the kind of nuisance that widespread abuse of drones can cause:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/uk/climate-activists-drone-heathrow-intl-gbr/index.html

The users of these drones had a political goal in mind. They did not have licenses, or training, or really accept any responsibility if anything went wrong. They just wanted to fly drones around Heathrow intending to disrupt it. Compounded the silliness by calling the police themselves. They attempted arguments that they would keep the drones at low altitude and not actually over the airfield, however this assertion was not backed up by a skilled ability to control the location of their drone at all times, or a flight plan, or any means to prevent errors in their operation.

I don't actually have a dispute with their higher political goal, but the way the went about it was an act that resembled an act of malicious endangerment. It's as if you steer your car into oncoming traffic when the road is clear - only turning back when another car approaches in the opposite lane. You can swear up and down that you always intended to steer back onto the proper side of the road, but the fact remains you were the hazard, and you caused it by a deliberate action on your own part.

This is the kind of chaos that I was referring to in questions 12 and 13 of my quiz above.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

The same can be done with helium filled balloons, or kites, if there is a breeze. Worse can be done with a deer rifle. Anyone seeking to do harm is practically unlimited in available tools for mischief. The FAA let basically 4 box-cutters kill between 100,000 and 500,000 people. Anyone going to outlaw box-cutters?

Of course they called the police. It's not much of a demonstration without publicity. Already demonstrated the last time drones were seen at Heathrow it was police drones in use looking for non-existent drones that were reported, closing the airport; didn't stop the police arresting uninvolved people and charging them.

 

[JohnRBaker]

The FAA let basically 4 box-cutters kill between 100,000 and 500,000 people.

While I think I understand how you derived the value of the number(s) that you did, I still think it's a bit disingenuous to leave the impression that those numbers were the direct result of someone using four box-cutters.

As for your question about outlawing box-cutters, have you tried to get on a plane, or for that matter, enter any building or area where you have to pass through a metal detector, with a box-cutter in your pocket? For all intents and purposes, as they relate to your claim about them, box-cutters HAVE been outlawed.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Just a tech note about ADS which I admit I have relatively little experience with apart from squirting it everyday and using radar24 to find out how long until my next aircraft arrives.

The data we see on the web is collected by a load of volunteer sensors around the world. The individual gets a "free" account of one of the relevant web sites and pumps the data in and gets the full service.

The data is delayed by 5-10 mins after its received before being made public. It is possible to restrict the public data to not show your aircraft. How you do this I have zero clue but some biz jets have this.

Now the setup up to gather this and process is utterly colossal. The people that have it say they send the data off to one of 6 server farms run by amazon.

ADS is a open none secure line of sight protocol. It was never meant to separate aircraft and was more for awareness of things within 5-10 miles in upper airspace which were limited with radar cover. Due to line of sight the number of sensors that can be seen in even high density areas reduces dramatically below 1500ft agl. Quite often its not possible to pick up ADS below 500ft due to terrain masking.

The international required collision avoidance system for civilians is called TCAS which works off secondary transponders speaking to each other on radar band. Mode S is the top level of transponder but it can offer warning against mode A but no resolution. It is expensive and relatively heavy and power hungry.

The biggest issue with ADS is that its completely unsecure and open. There are a few battery powered boxs in receivers in aircraft but they are limited to single engine piston and gliders and the like. Nobody has either been brave enough or managed to integrate it into an avionics stack and comply with regulations for ADS in. ADS out I think this year is the final year that all +5700kg aircraft require it and also in a lot of countries you need it to enter any controlled airspace class E and above. ATC use it a lot for upper airspace management where radar is problematical. I believe the North Atlantic track system they can see these days using it. They run there own system, own sensors, own servers etc. They also use it in some airports for ground monitoring with everything with power having an ADS out transmitter. Our ops also has a display showing where tech vans are, where the toilet service carts are and can see who is being de-iced etc. So they can deal with flight plans real time. But it has its own server etc.

From my limit research over the last few days ADS is not seen as a suitable method of separation mainly due to the lower levels it would need to work at and colossal sensor network required, The IT infrastructure required and also the system is way open to spoofing and abuse. IN some regards the FAA has its hands tied by international agreements in regards to class G airspace. They can't change the requirements for it without everyone agreeing. Currently you don't need even a radio to operate in class G, and only lights at night. I believe a lot of photo drones turn the lights off anyway at night even though its illegal so it doesn't effect the photo's. If they can't turn them off they put tape over them.

This is just what I have found on the subject. Being IFR fixed wing we don't play at those levels apart from landing and take off. Yes we do get a very occasional issue with drones. But I would say getting illuminated by a laser is far more frequent. In some ways the USA is leading the way with this because it has way more of the things than most places in the world and also far much more low level traffic density's. From what I can see the ADS network currently couldn't be used for low level separation of a drone and aircraft.

From what I can see nobody really knows what to do with drones or there operators. And the various solutions all hit off against technological issues with current setup or require colossal inputs of cash to create a new setup. The previous generation of RC aircraft really didn't have these issues because they were limited by line of sight and where extremely limited with what they could do. They also required a far higher level of skill to successfully complete a flight. Where as these drones you basically unbox them charge the battery and your flying, and your not likely to crash on the first landing.

BTW I have zero solutions for dealing with them. The kids models for the park I have already found you can't use anywhere near people its just to dangerous with a phone as the visuals not above 100ft. But we have plenty of places to go with no people. The big ones which are semi autonomous and are capable of height and speed I really wouldn't like to meet in the air or on the ground. And if all you can see is an ipads worth of view to see and avoid its pretty useless for moving targets especially at speed and that's with the lens pointing at the object never mine actually finding it 2D.

 

[moon161]

The FAA let basically 4 box-cutters kill between 100,000 and 500,000 people.

Anytime my wife needs beans off the top shelf and I'm not home, I'll have to call Dave. He should be able to reach them wherever he is.

 

[EdStainless]

Yes Alister, ADS was meant to provide for aircraft spacing control in places out of ATC coverage, like over oceans.
And you are also correct that this wasn't an issue with RC because of the high barrier to entry (money and skill). I have seen some RC planes that would make very scary weapons given their size and speed, but man are they hard to fly.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed