FAA says Geese are Safe within 1 Mile of my local Airport?

[Rod Cambridge]

Attached is FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B,

It advises all airports that Geese and all waterfowl are welcome within a 1 to 2 miles distance for an airport. 1 mile from a piston driven airplane airport and 2 miles from a turbine driven airport. Wetlands and waterfowl habitat are deemed safe, or safe enough, to be within this perimeter. Meaning Geese, Ducks, Gulls, Pelicans can share the airports airspace even though these species have damaged and crashed commercial aircraft.
But my poor little Phantom Drone is a serious safety hazard and I should be prosecuted for flying 4 and 9/10 miles, and under 400 feet from an airport without notification.

Full grown Geese 14 lbs, fly in formation at any altitude and don't know enough to get out of an airplane's way.

Phantom Drone 2.2 lbs, not usually in formation and intelligently controlled.

This is why I have serious problems with the FAA telling me I'm a hazard.

see page 2 of the Circular for the diagram.

 

[AyeYo]

Turbines are tested to survive bird strikes with... birds, made of soft feathers and hollow, tiny bones. I haven't seen a test of a plastic and metal Phantom with an explosive battery getting sucked into a turbine.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

Hey Yo,

But turbines don't survive bird strikes. Ask Chesley Sullenberger, aka Sully about landing in the river. Check the FAA website about how many people have died from bird strikes. (And exploding batteries is a bit exaggerated.) .......... LOL

 

[AyeYo]

Then it sounds like what we need isn't drones closer to airports, but wetlands further from airports.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

Yo, to be consistent yes we need wetlands further or drones closer. My point is the FAA thinks Geese are really not much of a hazard. But they want to make our Lawmakers think our drones are. That is not consistent. And if you want to point out that Terrorist also need to be kept away from airports I get it but, Terrorist are not going to worry about FAA regulations. Laws do not stop Terrorists.

 

[daveisim]

It advises all airports that Geese and all waterfowl are welcome within a 1 to 2 miles distance for an airport.

"Welcome?" Your word. Not theirs. They are talking about "attractant" areas and risk assessment.

Sticking to the facts:

"1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports."

"1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE. For all airports, the FAA recommends a distance of 5 statute miles between the farthest edge of the airport’s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace."

This will be my one and only post to this thread, avoiding any ongoing non-nonsensical debate like other threads that deteriorated to being closed.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

Hi daveisim,

All the waterfowl in those areas 1 mile from the airfield have advised me that they will indeed follow the circulars clear guidelines. Thanks for using big words like nonsensical! So you tell me dave, do you think drones are a bigger threat to aircraft than geese? How many large birds are in the sky and flying through controlled airspace every day? Do you have a guess? And once again I state that my little Phantom is a tiny problem in comparison.

 

[tcope]

Hey Yo,

But turbines don't survive bird strikes. Ask Chesley Sullenberger, aka Sully about landing in the river. Check the FAA website about how many people have died from bird strikes. (And exploding batteries is a bit exaggerated.) .......... LOL

In looking into this, I found this statement funny:

"The majority of bird strikes (65%) cause little damage to the aircraft;[5] however the collision is usually fatal to the bird(s) involved."

You think?

A plane hitting a flock of birds is extremely rare. Planes hit birds all the time and it rarely creates an issue.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but there is an huge and obvious difference. Birds are a natural, unavoidable hazard. Someone flying their drone near a plane is 100% avoidable and unacceptable.

Again, I think it's 99% media hype as well as the FAA and (very few) pilots lying to people.

 

[BigAl07]

Rod, thank you for your service to our Country. That debt can never be repaid and I sincerely thank you.

On the other hand, this whole thread is completely silly and absurd at best. Why compare wild animals to R/C aircraft? It makes ZERO sense and honestly you're seriously grabbing at straws here.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

Hi BigA107,

Just so you know I'm also a Private Pilot and received a 333 exemption. I thank you for your input. But I'm perplexed by you not seeing the obvious. With 1000's of objects in Controlled Airspace that have brought down commercial aircraft compared to the small number of drones in the air. Do you really think all the regulations are justified for a 2.2 lb Phantom Drone? I don't.
I live 3 miles from a small airport. I've lived here for 20 years. I've never seen a plane or helicopter fly under 400 feet over my house. I could fly a 20lb kite at 500 feet and and not call the airport for permission. If you can help me to see your point of view I would welcome it.

Rod Cambridge

 

[sar104]

Hi BigA107,

Just so you know I'm also a Private Pilot and received a 333 exemption. I thank you for your input. But I'm perplexed by you not seeing the obvious. With 1000's of objects in Controlled Airspace that have brought down commercial aircraft compared to the small number of drones in the air. Do you really think all the regulations are justified for a 2.2 lb Phantom Drone? I don't.
I live 3 miles from a small airport. I've lived here for 20 years. I've never seen a plane or helicopter fly under 400 feet over my house. I could fly a 20lb kite at 500 feet and and not call the airport for permission. If you can help me to see your point of view I would welcome it.

Rod Cambridge

I think what others are trying to say is that the presence of uncontrolled, and basically uncontrollable, risks, such as birds, is not a justification for not attempting to control other, controllable risks.

Assessment of probability, as well as consequence, is obviously relevant, but currently there are few data on the effects of drone collisions with aircraft, and so a conservative approach is being taken. That said, my professional opinion would be that a relatively rigid object, such as a drone, would present a significantly greater risk of damage to turbines and penetration of windshields than would a goose or other bird, even though those may well be heavier. Quite different dynamic material response. Considerable design effort has gone into bird-proofing aircraft; none into drone-proofing them.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

sar104,

Thank you for your comment. I'm going to read it a few more times and think about it. But to be clear, you think all the regulation is justified.

 

[Erised]

For those who say that bird strikes are rare, this is from FAA

The number of strikes annually reported to the FAA has increased 7.4-fold from 1,847 in 1990 to a record 13,795 in 2015. The 2015 total was an increase of 103 strikes (<1 percent) compared to the 13,692 strikes reported in 2014 (Table 1, Figure 1). For the 26-year period (1990–2015), 169,856 strikes were reported of which 166,276 (98 percent) occurred in the USA1 . In 2015, birds were involved in 95.8 percent of the reported strikes in the USA, terrestrial mammals in 1.6 percent, bats in 2.3 percent and reptiles in 0.3 percent

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2015.pdf

 

[sar104]

sar104,

Thank you for your comment. I'm going to read it a few more times and think about it. But to be clear, you think all the regulation is justified.

I haven't thought too much about whether the regulations are exactly appropriate or too restrictive. You might think that with most small airport patterns at 800 - 100 ft AGL, and UAV altitude maximum at 400 AGL, then only the approach and departure lines would be an issue. However, under Part 101 the altitude maximum is only stated as a guideline (even though you actually lose 101 protection and fall under 107 law if you break it), and traffic density increases with proximity to the airport, so I'm not going to say that the 5 mile Part 101 requirement is too burdensome.

 

[jwmcgrath]

I think what others are trying to say is that the presence of uncontrolled, and basically uncontrollable, risks, such as birds, is not a justification for not attempting to control other, controllable risks.

Assessment of probability, as well as consequence, is obviously relevant, but currently there are few data on the effects of drone collisions with aircraft, and so a conservative approach is being taken. That said, my professional opinion would be that a relatively rigid object, such as a drone, would present a significantly greater risk of damage to turbines and penetration of windshields than would a goose or other bird, even though those may well be heavier. Quite different dynamic material response. Considerable design effort has gone into bird-proofing aircraft; none into drone-proofing them.

This is probably by far one of if not the most lucid statements on this subject.

Simply put, they can't control birds. They CAN control drones. So they will... or they will try.

Rod, I too concur that there is somewhat of a similarity between the intent: one thing hitting a plane should be seen as similarly as another... however I also see the point of officials standing over a plane wreck cause by a drone strike thinking "we could have done something about this. We didn't think it would be worse than a bird".

I tend to view it in understandable terms... much like Mythbusters might try to replicate it.

Imagine if you can a device that can fire bird guts at a potentially fragile object like a windshield, propellor or turbine, at say 2-300mph.

Now imagine firing just a phantom battery alone, never mind the entire aircraft, at the same velocity at the same object.

I can understand the difference in potential damage and I'm no physicist.

Many of you may see that I'm actively upset in the Drone use in Canada thread and wonder why my position here may seem counterintuitive... so let me clarify.

It's NOT the potential for damage and the impact on my enjoyment of the hobby that has me so frustrated. It's the process, and the failure to follow protocol. It's the logic, or lack thereof. It's the inconsistencies. It's the terminology and the ambiguity of it.

No one in the private sector could never get away with the "nonsensical" foolishness they released, the way they did, with the words they used and the errors they made.

THAT is what angers me. These people are my government. I'm embarrassed.

 

[BigAl07]

I just can't see a fair or accurate comparison of a wild bird (which obeys only the laws of Mother Nature) and an R/C aircraft.

For one thing the bird "can" at least try to see & avoid. More often then not R/C operators have tunnel vision and are not skilled at scanning the sky for conflicts.

The mere density of the Drone (more specifically the battery unit) is a lot more "potentially" dangerous to manned aircraft than a bird, guts, hollow bones etc. Without typing it all out I'll suffice to say I think sar104 pretty much hit the nail on the head in his most recent comment above.

I think what others are trying to say is that the presence of uncontrolled, and basically uncontrollable, risks, such as birds, is not a justification for not attempting to control other, controllable risks.

Assessment of probability, as well as consequence, is obviously relevant, but currently there are few data on the effects of drone collisions with aircraft, and so a conservative approach is being taken. That said, my professional opinion would be that a relatively rigid object, such as a drone, would present a significantly greater risk of damage to turbines and penetration of windshields than would a goose or other bird, even though those may well be heavier. Quite different dynamic material response. Considerable design effort has gone into bird-proofing aircraft; none into drone-proofing them.

I think you and I may have to agree to disagree.

 

[jwmcgrath]

Everyone remembers Fabio getting hit in the face with a bird on a roller coaster...

Anyone wanna wonder what that would have looked like had it been a Phantom battery?

 

[Rod Cambridge]

I appreciate the logical dialogue. And I have some further thinking to do. I think sar104 used a key term, "conservative" meaning it's better safe than sorry. But my problem is I'd rather it be conservative the other way. Rather that bow to some hysterical notions that life and limb are at immediate peril because of this new technology, time is taken to evaluate what the true risk assessment might be by using the data we currently have, and looking to create new tests and real world examples. Has a Remote Controlled plane ever hit and damaged an aircraft prior to the dawn of drones?? Once legislation is in place restricting any aspect of our lives it rarely get rescinded or curtailed. What if? seems to control us. "What if" can be tailored to excuse most any restrictive legislation. "What if" without any any real example, without a shred of data.

I also think our bureaucrats and legislators should ask themselves how the rules they propose work within the framework of a free society. I'm not opposed to logical rules, someone once said that laws should fit a man like a loose set of clothes. Meaning a society's rules should be something that's comfortable to live in.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

Everyone remembers Fabio getting hit in the face with a bird on a roller coaster...

Anyone wanna wonder what that would have looked like had it been a Phantom battery?

Wow, looks awful. But hopeful we'll all have collision avoidance systems to keep this from happening.

 

[Rod Cambridge]

For those who say that bird strikes are rare, this is from FAA

The number of strikes annually reported to the FAA has increased 7.4-fold from 1,847 in 1990 to a record 13,795 in 2015. The 2015 total was an increase of 103 strikes (<1 percent) compared to the 13,692 strikes reported in 2014 (Table 1, Figure 1). For the 26-year period (1990–2015), 169,856 strikes were reported of which 166,276 (98 percent) occurred in the USA1 . In 2015, birds were involved in 95.8 percent of the reported strikes in the USA, terrestrial mammals in 1.6 percent, bats in 2.3 percent and reptiles in 0.3 percent

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2015.pdf

That is an amazing number, (169,856 ), far more than I would have guessed.
And true a Phantom battery is heavy and dense at 365 grams, or 14 ounces, a full grown goose weighs 14 lbs. Which would I rather hit? Neither.