Helicopter & Drone Midair Collision 3

[Sparweb]

Nobody was hurt. It's a hint of things to come.
This one is pretty embarrassing:

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/rcmp-drone-flying-wrong-altitude-collided-helicopter-bc/

It turns out both the drone operator and the helicopter pilot were operating for the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police: national police service). Questions...

Were they not coordinating their activities?
Were they in communication with each other?
What qualifications does the drone operator have?
Did the drone operator have a way to monitor its proximity to the helicopter?

There's a subsequent problem in that the RCMP didn't report the incident - waiting for 4 months which could be a violation of their operational rules (hard to be sure without reading their operations manual, something a civvie like me will never see).

The thing about metric VS imperial altitude measurements is just icing on the cake.

I would prefer to see the Transportation Safety Board investigating, rather than the RCMP investigating themselves. The Mounties have historically had problems doing this.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

xjet on YouTube has been hammering away on the drone regulation front and caught this about a week ago.

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

From the skies article:
"The helicopter and drone were taking part in policing activities during the Wet’suwet’en protests"

Why does it require military grade surveillance to handle a protest?

Seems to me it's time to get manned helicopters out of the sky when used as observation/video platforms.

Also of note is the FAA reluctance to force ADS-B Out onto all manned aircraft no matter what airspace they occupy over the US, meaning that the cheap solution of an ADS-B receiver on drones that would allow drones to autonomously evade and for ground operators to monitor receivers for air traffic isn't happening. The drone makers are doing their part. It's the "safety conscious" manned aircraft operators failing to do theirs.* In particular the FAA requirement is to permanently affix to a solid fuselage location; so much for ultralights and powered parachute operators having them even if they wanted to. It's just a matter of time before a helo pilot hits a powered parachute and kills some people.

Not that this will always work. The US military is so worried about taking a Stinger missile over US territory I'm sure they will go radio silent and manage to hit another drone, say with a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk

I also don't understand how the RCMP drone could collide - they should have an observer with eyes on the drone and scanning about to tell the drone operator of any approaching aircraft; in addition it's a given that pilots flying at far higher speeds have been able to read the product labels on drones while landing commercial passenger jets <sarcasm>.

*

https://uavionix.com/drone-repellent/

-

Here’s something to think about. It’s likely there are already more ADS-B IN equipped drones in the U.S. than active rotorcraft and experimental aircraft combined. Within one year of implementation of DJI’s plan, there will be more ADS-B IN equipped drones than the entire U.S. fleet of manned aircraft.

That’s pretty astounding, and it presents a HUGE opportunity to do more.

Like what? How do we convince the other (roughly) 50% of manned aircraft equipped in order to complete the circle? Per the existing ADS-B mandate – tens of thousands of aircraft aren’t required to equip because they don’t fly in controlled airspace. Yet – I would argue these are the small, low, and slow aircraft that are at the biggest risk of a collision with a drone.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Speaking of "military grade surveillance" tools being used to monitor protests:

Drone surveillance of protests comes under fire

Predator drone was observed flying over protests in Minneapolis on May 29

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/drone-surveillance-protests

And for those not familiar with what a Predator drone looks like, it's not like the ones shown in that totally irrelevant video included with the above news item. I'm not sure why Faux News even used that video since it had absolutely nothing to do with the story that the Boarder Patrol was using Predator drones to surveil protestors in more than one American city. Here's what a Predator drone looks like:

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

 

[IRstuff]

Any other drone, even a Global Hawk, would be less of an issue, I think; the Predator as used by the US military, can be armed with Hellfires, so there is a connoted intimidation factor.

The Predator's sensors, assuming they're the same as the military ones, have enough resolution do to facial recognition from the video being collected.

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

Since these drones were reported to have been deployed by US Customs and Border Protection (AKA the border patrol), which is part of the US Department of Homeland Security, I would assume that they do indeed have the same surveillance capabilities as does the ones used by the military in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

 

[IRstuff]

That's not always the case; Coast Guard and Border Patrol are usually low on the budget totem pole for fancy equipment.

In any case, if the sensors are the same, then with something like Clearview facial recognition, anyone in the protest with sufficient personal photos can be identified and tracked.

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

 

[1503-44]

They are trying to tell you. The police have been steadly militarizing since 9/11. It is now a blue, uncoordinated, over-equipped, inadequately trained, under controlled, domestic army force.

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

 

[Sparweb]

This is the drone that struck the RCMP helicopter. It's nothing like a Predator.

https://www.uvt.us/pages/skyranger-r60

This is a link to the CADORS (Reporting System) report:

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Su...t=&cmkdl=C&cmkxt=&rt=QR&hypl=y&cnum=2020P0775

2020-06-03
Narrative:
C-GMPN, an Aerospatiale AS350-B3 operated by RCMP Air Services, was conducting policing activities 24nm SW of Houston (CAM5), BC with 3 persons on board. Also operating in the area were two RCMP operated RPAS units. During low level flight (below 300 feet AGL), the helicopter and 1 RPAS (FLIR SkyRanger R60 - 2.4 kg) collided. The helicopter suffered some initial vibration and the pilot completed a precautionary landing on a road without further incident. Maintenance staff found damage primarily to the main rotor blades along with superficial damage on the tail boom and tail rotor. The effected components were removed as per the maintenance manual for repairs or overhaul as required. The RPAS was destroyed. There were no injuries to persons in the aircraft or on the ground.

@3DDave,
I listened to the point of view offered by "Xjet" in the Youtube video, but I'm not impressed by it all. I do share his opinion that the operator of the drone in that case may have been underqualified/ undertained (but not sure). I can't agree when he says that the threat to aircraft from drones is exaggerated. I think the threat is large and growing. Xjet mentions his own troubles with regulation and operation of drones, so he's probably PO'd because it's so inconsistent and confusing. Without knowing the details of Xjet's history with drones, it sounds like he's had trouble with drones, too.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yea, a Predator would have taken down that 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

 

[3DDave]

xjet has been in the hobby at least 20 years. He's PO'd because the government is taking away rights for no reason and criminalizing a long standing hobby with a good safety record in the name of national security. The regulations are applicable to R/C airplanes and free-flight models, for which the FAA is trying to require a pilot's license to operate.

In the times between drone reports it seems between 10 and 20 people die in helicopter crashes in the USA, many of them due to operator incompetence. For example - the NY tour flight crash where the passengers were drowned following a relatively gentle water landing. I cannot picture the horror of being dragged and held under water to die fully aware. The FAA reaction? Nothing. Even though deployable float failures are expected and adding an inflatable float at the top of the helicopter would prevent it rolling inverted, which can happen even if both main floats deploy.

The threat could be nearly eliminated by eliminating manned helicopters from observation usage and by eliminating private pilots from flying. Even in small commercial flights there are frequent enough mid-air collisions between licensed professionals consider more strict regulations; let's start with what kills people before worrying about what does not.

 

[Sparweb]

Hi Dave,
You and Xjet seem to have the same bees in your bonnets. I wouldn't go that far - but hey I make my living off of planes, and their pilots young and old.

It seems to be a long reach from the uncertain safety record of a young industry (drones) to the record of another industry that's shown continuous progress in safety for 100 years. The distrust in drones may or may not be founded - the information is lacking, but I would not extrapolate that to general aviation as a whole deserving no trust.

The story I get from this is the robustness of the typical helicopter design, and its ability to resist impacts. I don't know how that relates to accidents on water and subsequent rollovers. A hazard and a fatal one for sure, but that didn't happen in this particular accident. Unless you find it appropriate for every discussion about any flying machine to also be about helicopter accident records. If so, then every bridge discussion is necessarily about the Tacoma Narrows, every spacecraft discussion is about the Challenger blow-up, and every software release is about Bill Gates getting the blue screen of death.

Wrapping private pilots into this discussion is also not relevant. No private pilots involved in the accident at hand. The RCMP pilot involved in the accident would almost necessarily be a commercial pilot, and the operation of the helicopter needs to be controlled by an air operator's certificate. I can't see how it would be legal otherwise. Of course that doesn't mean that I automatically excuse the pilot of the helicopter from culpability in the accident. But I do assert that the operator of the drone likely has more culpability than the helicopter pilot, since the drone operation is inherently stabilized and uncomplicated by passengers. The helicopter pilot has many many more responsibilities than a drone operator. I will not speak or write the term "drone pilot" except as a joke or to highlight the nonsense in such a phrase.

Just explaining why I don't get Xjet's position on drone usage.
It is definitely not piloting.
The more that drone operators resent their treatment as pilots, the more they emphasize their inferiority in the sky.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

The point is the FAA is doing everything about drones that they turn a blind eye to with manned aviation.

A few years ago a guy operating a twin prop stalled and crashed on approach. To improve his situation he bought a light twin jet. Which he stalled and crashed on approach. The second time he hit a house, dousing it with jet fuel and incinerating a woman and her child who were trapped on an upper floor - the lower portion engulfed in flames. The bodies were found in a bathtub where the woman had retreated in a failed attempt to escape the flames.

This would not have happened if the FAA had mandated that manned aircraft were prohibited from flying over people.

What would the FAA reaction had been if those deaths had been from an unmanned drone? Oh, wait - unmanned drones aren't filled with thousands of gallons of flammable liquids.

The FAA direction, as they are looking to apply to drones would, applied to manned aircraft, eliminate all non-full time towered airports, including helicopter operations. And it would cap the towered airfields to those in existence at the moment - no one would be allowed to open a new airport under any circumstance.

The main level of stupid is this: to operate a drone anywhere except the few and decreasing number of grandfathered club owned fields the FAA is trying to mandate that a drone needs a live internet connection to some not-yet-existent private company. Which means, in the center of Montana, away from any aircraft, it would be illegal to fly a drone or an R/C model or a free flight model. In the places where there have been zero problems with the model hobby over the last 100 years.