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

 

[CWB1]

Soooooo…..a couple box cutters killed hundreds of thousands of people, but when a drone being operated illegally hits a helicopter its really the helicopter's fault? As my southern friends say, "oh bless your heart!"

I don't see drones being outlawed any time soon, however I do foresee punishment increasing for operator idiocy and possibly further restrictions on their use.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

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.

My brain had to roll this one around for a second or two before it clicked...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

however I do foresee punishment increasing for operator idiocy

The problem with that is you cannot legislate for stupidity. Exhibit A is the SCROTUS tweeting from the White House.

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Everyone I am only a clueless driver on this stuff.

It did tickle my fancy so I spent 3 days having a look on the internet.

RC wise none drone I can just about land a small rc aircraft in favourable conditions. Heli sod that way to expensive.

I can land a aircraft 60 tons with my bum strapped in it. I am qualified on in a Hurricane.

Drone I have zero quals in ,and I do have a couple for keeping the kids happy. So would class my self as zero experience or knowledge. Although I do have a rather developed risk 5th sense when it comes to aviation.

 

[CWB1]

Ironic, if the operator commits an idiotic crime then yes, you can legislate against stupidity. As for your exhibit, leave the political gibberish in the "Pub" or go elsewhere. You're not yelling into an echo chamber here.

 

[Sparweb]

I'll second that. No need to make political fun here.

I get a kick out of the old story about the flagman in front of cars. It's usually told to make fun of "the people who stand in the way of progress". Sure, it was a check on progress and the introduction of automobiles, but people just weren't ready for them, either. Some people use tidbits of history to piss on the things people did in the past, but I often don't need much effort to discover that they were doing something smart. Only the quaint bits get exaggerated by someone today with an axe to grind.

There is another side to the automotive acts of the 1860's UK. Many other sides, in fact. What about the counties that maintain the roads? What about pedestrians who do not know how to react when an automobile approaches? Or vice-versa, the driver of a car who has not been informed when to expect a person to walk in front of the vehicle? What about the horses, sheep and cattle? All these people and animals hanging about on roads was not a big deal before cars showed up. So many questions had to be answered, but had not been asked yet. Driving at night? Cars need lamps. Driving on gravel? Need mudflaps. Sharp corners? Need speed limits. Soft ground? Need weight limits. And on it goes. The silly red flag was just one part of this, and much of it was sensible and necessary. Those locomotive/automotive acts (mostly in the UK) were passed by town and city councils that reacted to the appearance of these machines with a rightful "WTF". Dealing with these machines would cost them money, and they were getting an earful from citizens and businesses. The rest is democracy in action. They chose to protect people until a safe track record could be established, with some pendulum swings back and forth.

For the record, I know personally what it looks like to see a dozen cars on the same road, when few of the drivers were taught how to drive or had any traffic safety laws to obey. Sensible laws and orderly use of them does not spring up overnight, anywhere. Confronted with it in real time as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a person with no such knowledge of law or courtesy, made me very uncomfortable.

So all this is a fine example of the development of laws and regulations to control the safe use of drones in public airspaces. The real threats have not all been exposed yet, but we can guess at what they probably will be, and act to prevent them. The idea of waiting for a disaster track record to be built is not palatable to anyone, now, just like it wasn't appealing to the city councilors in the 1860's to just let cars be driven anywhere, and "figure out what's dangerous later when the death toll is high enough to count".

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

So far the death toll from 50 years of models colliding with manned aircraft is what, exactly? It's been a half century.

In the meantime, DJI is doing the FAA's work and all their drones have ADS-B In and could report nearby aircraft to the user. Too bad the drones are in airspace in which the FAA refuses to make ADS-B Out mandatory. And the FAA prevents any drone from using ADS-B Out because it's too confusing on the current aircraft instruments if there are too many transmitters nearby. The computing power to filter them to conflicting traffic is found in a 10 year old smartphone.

The FAA safety plan re the drones, applied to aircraft is: Fine the hijackers if they get in the cockpit and put them in jail.
Also the FAA plan: Fine anyone who isn't a hijacker but might be because they boarded through the door near the cockpit.
Final stage: Exclude passengers from flights. They could be hijackers, we don't know, but it's possible. But if they want to, we'll let them pay for an expensive pilot training school and then they will understand all the risks. Just like the 9-11 hijackers did.

 

[Sparweb]

Is the only thing you're grieved about is having to purchase an ADS-B In unit for your drone, but you resent paying for it and it's not as good as you would like it to be?

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

I'll second that. No need to make political fun here.

What's funny? Politics as usual is killing people by the tens of thousands, and we're all supposed to be too polite to mention it?

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

 

[SuperSalad]

It isn't about politeness. It is a problem regarding the topic at hand. Your comment had nothing to do with it and causes a pointless distraction from the conversation and content. What the president is doing and whether or not tweeting from the White House should be made illegal has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of drones interference with manned aircraft.

Exhibits A through E are the 5 posts (including this one) that should ideally be deleted from the conversation aside from maybe SparWeb's post regarding the rollout of automobile safety rules.

Edit: Unless of course those tweets were in regard to drone legislation. I assume they were not, but if that is the case, I apologize for jumping to conclusions and do please carry on.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[CWB1]

Is the only thing you're grieved about is having to purchase an ADS-B In unit for your drone, but you resent paying for it and it's not as good as you would like it to be?

Call me confused but I thought the point was that he wanted to legally share airspace currently restricted from drone use, essentially arguing for pedestrian or horse traffic on the freeway. Fancy electronics are rather pointless if never used.

 

It is a problem regarding the topic at hand.

The topic at hand involves government regulation or lack thereof, or complete failure due to incompetence and/or corruption. Which a number of posters have referenced, so I would say my post has relevance.

But now that we actually are off-topic, I will shut up.

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

 

[charliealphabravo]

I read a book as a kid by Vernor Vinge called "Across Realtime". I won't elaborate on the similarity to this polemic, but the reaction to the conflict between regulation and prerogative was miniaturization.

 

[3DDave]

Sparweb - You must be replying to someone else. It's pilots who are complaining about spending the money, which is why the FAA exempts so many from the requirement when operating in the very airspace most likely to be used by drones and R/C models. The money is already being spent by hobbyists, and gladly so, but it only works if the FAA works.

Yours is an argument against safety in favor of exclusivity.

What's odd is that the FAA sold ADS-B as part of allowing any aircraft to go anywhere they wanted because everyone would be continuously updated. ATC would no longer have to restrict commercial aircraft to certain corridors. And they would allow this because ADS-B gave pilots superior situational awareness. But now the FAA doesn't really want that. They sold everyone that ADS-B was for safety.

Why doesn't the FAA want drone operations to be safe? Instead they want no drone operations at all.


CBW1 - That's quite the comparison. Do you have a highway in your backyard? Per the FAA no one is legally allowed to fly in their own back yard, subject to 3 years in prison and $250k fine.

What I said was that all airspace will be restricted from use by hobbyist drones. All of it. Every last cubic inch. On the excuse that it is entirely unsafe for them to operate at all. There's a method to make it even more safe against mid-air collisions between manned aircraft that the FAA won't mandate because that would also make it safe for drones to share that space. The FAA would rather see people getting killed than allow drones.

 

[waross]

The FAA would rather see people getting killed than allow drones.

I am getting more and more confused by your rants.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[3DDave]

Waross,

What is your conclusion about the FAA refusal to allow ADS-B Out on drones or require ADS-B In and Out on all manned aircraft in all phases of flight?

 

[waross]

I wasn't aware that the FAA was refusing to allow the voluntary use of ADS.
Apart from that I get more than enough argument from my 14 year old son.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

What aircraft and boxes currently accept ADS-B in?

From what I can tell we all pretty much all squirt it. But none of us can accept the data, apart from a few with battery powered boxes with no link to any control systems.

It is because the protocol is completely open and unsecure and extremely open to spoofing and miss use. It was never intended in the first place for aircraft to use. It was created to allow Air traffic to know where you are as an off shoot to GPS.

 

[LionelHutz]

Is ADS actually being used as an input into a collision avoidance system on drones?

If not, how does the operator holding a remote with a display and joysticks know how to avoid a nearby plane or helicopter?

 

[CWB1]

That's quite the comparison. Do you have a highway in your backyard? Per the FAA no one is legally allowed to fly in their own back yard, subject to 3 years in prison and $250k fine.

What I said was that all airspace will be restricted from use by hobbyist drones. All of it. Every last cubic inch. On the excuse that it is entirely unsafe for them to operate at all.

NYS ran an interstate through the family farm back in the 50s, so yes, BTDT as a kid.

What disallows folks from flying what in their own backyards? One of my neighbors stores and launches his lil 2-seat sport helicopter from his backyard weekly, and I've known many others that owned their own grass strips including a cousin who is a professional bush pilot flying anything <2k lbs anywhere needed in North America. Last I knew, both were perfectly legal within common sense safety and practical limits after a number of legal hoops were jumped through. Drones are also perfectly legal over ones own property albeit subject also to common sense limits like their operating ceiling. Both must respect other property owners' rights. Common sense. Even if some draconian law were to ban drones outright it will be bc operators broke existing law, not bc of any inaction on the part of the govt. Before we get to that point tho, I would suspect the govt would simply require software limiting drone operating ceilings, which is likely simple vs the options discussed otherwise.