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

 

[JohnRBaker]

...it would be no different that if you were driving 15 mph and changed lanes into the path of a car doing 65 mph with no warning or ability for the oncoming car to avoid you.

That sort of thing actually happened, sort of.

I used to have to go to Germany almost every year for awhile to visit customers and attend engineering conferences. I can recall being their just before the wall came down and everyone was scared over what the Soviets were going to do. Of course, it all happened without a single Russian rifle round being fired. Anyway, I was back in Germany a year later and it was like the wall had never existed. Sure there were issues and the German government along with big companies were trying to sort out how to keep millions of former East Germans fed and employed while society readjusted to the new order.

But getting back to the issue of this this thread, one of the biggest adjustments that many West Germans had to make was just getting to work safely in the morning or home at night. Anyone who's ever driven on the German autobahns know how fast Germans drive. Well, during the first year or so the incidents of traffic accidents skyrocketed in Germany because these former East Germans would be coming over to the old West Germany in their Trabants or other old Soviet era cars, coming from a 'country' where the highest speed-limit was something like 100 km/h (62 MPH) and they were now driving on highways where many of them had no speed-limit at all. The big problem was that they just didn't know how drive in situations like that, often changing lanes without looking, which was something that a West German driver just didn't do, not unless he wanted some BMW or Mercedes stuck-up his tail pipe. Also, those old Soviet era cars just drove too slow (a two-stroke, 600cc engine Trabant could barely get-up to 100 km/h). It was horrible for awhile, until they could get those old death-traps off the road and until the drivers, on both sides, changed their driving habits.

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]

Hi JRB,

I don't agree with your analogy to German autobahns. If you believe that there is some similarity or near-equivalence between the drone and the helicopter, in some way that compares well with a BMW versus a Lada, sorry, no. The consequences of an accident are tipped enormously against the helicopter or any aircraft that collides with a drone. If a Trabby and a Merc collide, the odds of injury is nearly even on both sides. How far do the odds have to tip in favour of one party and against another before you consider the disadvantage to the second party to be sufficiently threatening?

A more apt comparison is a bird versus an aircraft, or a missile versus an aircraft. Both are a threat to an aircraft, and both will be destroyed if they strike the aircraft in flight. There is a crucial difference between a bird and a missile, of course, which is the intent served by each being airborne. The drone fits in the middle of the range between bird and missile. The drone is not as hostile as a missile, but a drone is definitely not as innocent as a bird.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[JohnRBaker]

I was making a reference to what IR described, not necessarily a drone and a copter.

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

 

[LionelHutz]

Only if it was there long enough for the pilot to detect him and be able to avoid him; it would be no different that if you were driving 15 mph and changed lanes into the path of a car doing 65 mph with no warning or ability for the oncoming car to avoid you. Yes, you were there first, but your movement caused the accident.

Sure, but that analogy could be false for this situation. Instead, say both cars are driving at constant speeds in a huge parking lot. A small one is going N-S at 15 MPH and a big one is going E-W at 65mph. It's then not clear when attempting to assign blame for the collision.

Looking down at the controls (camera most likely) for a few seconds doesn't mean no situational awareness. I don't want to be driving anywhere near you if you lose all situational awareness while driving when you glance at the speedometer or look at the clock on the radio.


Dan, yes it could have been automatically rising to a certain altitude. But that still doesn't make sense of the news articles. You wouldn't set a drone down on the ground and launch it straight up when a helicopter was hovering low overhead. Looking down a couple of seconds then looking back up and "suddenly" seeing a hovering helicopter "smack" your drone also makes no sense.

I believe there is a maneuver called sudden stop or quick stop a helicopter pilot needs to learn. It's possible the pilot was doing a version of this when the drone was hit. That could make it appear the helicopter was hovering when the collision occurred.

 

[IRstuff]

That could make it appear the helicopter was hovering when the collision occurred.

If it were hovering, there would have been way less damage, since the relative speeds would have been low.

Instead, say both cars are driving at constant speeds in a huge parking lot.

Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy for midnight; should be more like a parking lot filled with parked and moving cars(normal lights in the dark) and car (another light) popping out from a side aisle that you couldn't see until you were nearly into the aisle. The basic issue is that while daytime clutter is pretty bad, nighttime has its own set of clutter issues, particularly given the amount of light pollution we generate. The MAVIC, assuming that's the correct drone, has relatively tiny lights, and would otherwise be completely invisible; I'm amazed that the pilot even saw it in time to do anything at all.

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

 

[LionelHutz]

Both your analogies are more flawed then mine, But you've already clearly decided the drone pilot was at fault as soon as he decided to fly his drone at night, so there is no point posting about it any more.

 

[IRstuff]

I just don't see why everyone is blaming the helo pilot, who had a legitimate reason to fly in that air space. Nothing anyone has said shows the helo pilot was in the wrong.

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The checks and balances are the same for all commercial flight ops.

I have worked with rule 5 dispensations.

UK is very tight on with both helimed and and police ops regulation. I also know more than a few that do such ops in a variety of hardware. Touch wood we haven't had any fatalities for years.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-3-2015-g-spao-29-november-2013

This is the big one which tightened everything up.

It is never an excuse to endanger your aircraft for mission success what ever that is even if it means someone dies because you didn't.

 

[Sparweb]

Remember the week that Gatwick Airport in the UK was repeatedly closed because of drone sightings?
Here's the other side of the story. The mystery of the Gatwick drone - The Guardian - 2020 Dec 1

Some passages:

In June 2020, Sussex police settled out of court with Paul Gait and Elaine Kirk, agreeing to award the couple £200,000 in damages and legal fees for their wrongful arrest. No one else has been charged over the drone incident, and the couple’s legal team said that “serious doubts remain as to whether there were, in fact, any drones flown over the airport”.

In the US, the Federal Aviation Authority said it gets more than 100 reports every month from citizens who believe they’ve seen a drone near a plane or an airport. Back in 2015, the Academy of Model Aeronautics analysed these sightings and found that just 3.5% actually involved a near-miss between aircraft and a drone.

Back in the 60s, Percy Walker, the director of Britain’s Ministry of Aviation accident inspection branch, said that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are “almost always wrong”.

Almost 2 years later and nobody knows what was actually in the sky over the airport. As the numerous eyewitness sighting stories are collated, less and less matches up, and what is reported doesn't make sense. Eg. "hovered for hours" which is impossible with almost any drone having a battery life of <30 minutes.


There are two scenarios under consideration. The incident at Gatwick shows that everyone is prepared to believe a story cranked up by fear of evil intent, terrorism, villainy.
What the story in LA shows (as well as the incident with the RCMP in Canada last year) is that real threat is just confusion and negligence.

So all we have left is:

Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[JohnRBaker]

Some recent 'drone' news:

U.S. to allow small drones to fly over people and at night

https://news.yahoo.com/u-allow-small-drones-fly-190314774.html

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

 

[MacGyverS2000]

New drone rules...

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/29/951010863/u-s-announces-new-rules-for-drones-and-their-operators

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[Sparweb]

I like the reactions from drone operators.

As usual, the FAA has written a rule that is nearly impossible to interpret. Does this mean I DON'T need the new ID equipment if I NEVER fly at night or over people? Or does it mean that I DO need the special equipment if I operate under Part 107?

They've never read a flight operations regulation before, so they think this is crazy.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[JohnRBaker]

Speaking of drones, this might explain the recent sightings by airline pilots in the LAX area of a so-called 'jet-pack' guy in their airspace:

Airliner Pilot Says Jet Pack Guy Over Los Angeles Looked Just Like This Crazy Drone

Months after the first sighting of the jet pack guy over Southern California, we get new insights into the official investigation into the incidents.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...los-angeles-looked-just-like-this-crazy-drone

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]

A helicopter of the Chilean Navy had a collision with a drone, which broke through the windscreen and injured the on-board mechanic.

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Sparweb]

You may also be interested in this recent webcast from CASI.

AIR-TO-AIR COLLISIONS: DRONE IMPACT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ON AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE

These are drone collision tests using an actual drone and actual aircraft structure. This is jet aircraft structure so the speeds are higher. Collision speeds at 140 knots and 240 knots were simulated (typical of takeoff, approach speeds). The damage was substantial in many cases. Windshield impacts were terrible - fragmentation that would severely injure/incapacitate the flight crew. Damage to control surfaces (slats) rendered them non-functional. Components of the drone or the entire drone remained embedded in the structure in several cases. A case of primary structural damage occurred (not just skin damage). A case of lithium battery combustion was observed.

Some highlights:

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[kontiki99]

I had to stop reading through this thread. It's simple in my mind, per Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 91 rules, VFR flight in US airspace is based on see and avoid. For IFR flight in US Controlled airspace, ATC is responsible for providing separation services, regardless of weather, although if you can see you always need to avoid. All other systems, capability of personal electronic devices, fancy do hickeys and concepts are moot. It's been this way for a very long time.

Drones present a lot of opportunities, but working them into the operational environment is non trivial. US airspace, as well as EU 'single sky" airspace, and Transport Canada airspace, (Nav Canada?) are very complex already well engineered, controlled and regulated environments.

Like any air ops, if you don't know what you are doing, nobody that does want's you there, stay on the ground. Just saying.

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm professionally affiliated with.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Nothing is going to change until there is a major incident and they are forced to do something politically. And that's a global comment not country specific.

You just can't see the things in the air until you can't avoid them.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Speaking of drones and helicopters, while they haven't had any 'crashes' yet, apparently there's been some close calls:

Police Helicopter Crew Says Mysterious Craft They Chased Was “Not Like Any Other” Drone

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ot-like-any-other-police-had-ever-encountered

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

 

[dik]

Neat drone... and they will only get better.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[1503-44]

USA drone incidents mapped here

https://uavgeography.com