NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[PhamTon]

That's one of my favorite "scenarios" to perform. I always get a rush thinking, "What if the carbs loads up... What if I am off by a few feet..."

Yes we do operate at less than 500' and for good reason.

Yikes, man.

Why not get a rush for carb icing at 2000' or something?

You say you operate at less than 500' and for good reason. What good reason? You mean you just cruise along at 300', ready for the engine to stop?
You'd have very little time to secure the aircraft if it stops at 300'. What about a flight plan? Probably not. What if no one can hear your mayday?

I'd rather climb a little higher and request Flight Information Service from ATC, have more time for failures, better view for Navigating, fuel efficiency, less chance of hitting objects.

Personally, I don't subscribe to this thing of flying low so as to hone my skills for when the failure happens.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

So as a pilot, you will appreciate this also... My Cessna 152 is a manned aircraft when I'm piloting it, and as you well know we have to practice many safety maneuvers frequently - stalls, soft/short field landings etc.. but also simulated emergency landings, where I for one have my engine on idle - pick a field - drop down to an altitude sometimes 20' from the ground, before I power back up again. This is always done well over 5 miles from an airport in the country somewhere.
I would surely like to think that a 'legal' drone operator in the same area would take evasive action and avoid me! So not all manned flights are over 500' 100% of the time - it is common sense to operate a drone within VLOS at ALL times.

So is this not something you can practice at a small airport ?

 

[BigAl07]

So is this not something you can practice at a small airport ?

Airports are "Easy". You "play" like you practice. While I don't get quite so low it's something we practice (a LOT) especially when you're going to a check ride etc. Yes we do practice to the runway some (I mean emergencies can happen within reach of the runway) but your instructor will simply pick a random moment, pull the throttle back, and say "Pick a landing site and set it up".....

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Airports are "Easy". You "play" like you practice. While I don't get quite so low it's something we practice (a LOT) especially when you're going to a check ride etc. Yes we do practice to the runway some (I mean emergencies can happen within reach of the runway) but your instructor will simply pick a random moment, pull the throttle back, and say "Pick a landing site and set it up".....

You nor Pete said anything about doing this with an instructor on board.

 

[BigAl07]

You nor Pete said anything about doing this with an instructor on board.

No we both "practice" it in flying but it's part of many MANY check rides across the country which would include an examiner/instructor during those flights.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

No we both "practice" it in flying but it's part of many MANY check rides across the country which would include an examiner/instructor during those flights.

So what is the average height the instructor would start this procedure and how low does the student pilot have to go to prove competence ?

 

[BigAl07]

So what is the average height the instructor would start this procedure and how low does the student pilot have to go to prove competence ?

Depends on what's under the aircraft as to what height they "start" it and it goes down until they feel everything is stabilized and a safe (relatively speaking) landing could be made. I don't know they have specific #'s.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Depends on what's under the aircraft as to what height they "start" it and it goes down until they feel everything is stabilized and a safe (relatively speaking) landing could be made. I don't know they have specific #'s.

Is this common for an instructor to start this at 2000 ft, 1000 ft, 500 ft or lower ?

 

[BigAl07]

Is this common for an instructor to start this at 2000 ft, 1000 ft, 500 ft or lower ?

I wouldn't think they would start any lower than 2000' unless possibly over airport property or something.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

That's one of my favorite "scenarios" to perform. I always get a rush thinking, "What if the carbs loads up... What if I am off by a few feet..."

Yes we do operate at less than 500' and for good reason.

So this procedure can be done at a higher altitude away from any UAVS and or could be done at or over small airports where there shouldn't be any UAVS. And over or near an airport you have a pretty good chance of landing safely if something really happened to your aircraft during the practice exercise. So basically if your practicing emergency landings from 500 ft to the ground over fields- it could quickly go from a practice to a real crash landing in a heartbeat because you will have little time to do anything else. Why not do it higher ? So it's a pilots choice to do this below 500ft not a requirement ?

So once again, what's the good reason to be below 500ft for these exercises ?

 

[PhamTon]

So what is the average height the instructor would start this procedure and how low does the student pilot have to go to prove competence ?

Exactly. An FAA instructor, I would hope, wouldn't be initiating this at 300' or even 500' and telling the student to go to 20'.

The reason being, it's against the rules. The same rules this drone pilot broke. But who's the professional here?

You, as FAA pilot, or whenever you are based, wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you hit something. You may not even get your insurance company to pay out.

 

[PhamTon]

Depends on what's under the aircraft as to what height they "start" it and it goes down until they feel everything is stabilized and a safe (relatively speaking) landing could be made. I don't know they have specific #'s.

They want to see do you identify the failure correctly. Do you then fly the aircraft, trimming for best glide speed.

Pick a field, tell the instructor.

Set up a downwind, base, straight in, whatever.

Back in to the aircraft, try to fix the problem, verbalising with touch drills.

Put out a mayday.

Correct the flight path etc if needed.

If height available, keep trying to fix the problem.

Eventually, stop and focus solely on the approach and landing.

Once landing assured, go-around.

The last action above, is the important bit that keeps us safe and legal. You can descend to 700', 1000', whatever. But if you choose to continue below 500', you're on your own. That is all I'm saying.

The above actions cannot be done within 280', it has to be said.

You can't legislate for eejits like the Russian guy flying the drone 3 miles away or whatever. But we can do some things in our power to mitigate certain risks we may not agree with, like eejits flying drones in TFR's or not flying below 500' unless taking off or landing.

 

[andy_k]

The report says they found a motor intact which had a serial number.

This maybe what they said but it's probably not the truth

How many drones have DJI made using identical components such as motors that we are led to believe all have different/unique serial numbers to identify them.

That doesn't sound right to me

 

[Helihover]

This maybe what they said but it's probably not the truth

How many drones have DJI made using identical components such as motors that we are led to believe all have different/unique serial numbers to identify them.

That doesn't sound right to me

Ok Andy since you know something we don’t, tell us how they found the pilot?

Have you disassembled different DJI to confirm your statement?

Tell us what the truth is Andy.

 

[PhamTon]

Maybe with the help of DJI, they could work out which drones were active in the area? It was obviously the arm of a phantom.

Maybe the Russian guy had uploaded videos and identifiable info to his Skypixel account beforehand, like, Russian in New York, with video of his phantom.

Perhaps, DJI mark one arm with the serial number of the unit and by chance, it was that arm that was found.

But one thing's for sure, the fact that a US military helicopter was hit during the period of a TFR due to Presidential movements with an object the authorities are trying to get a grip on legislatively, all the stops would've been pulled out to find the owner to use as a timely example and reminder.

 

[Helihover]

Maybe with the help of DJI, they could work out which drones were active in the area? It was obviously the arm of a phantom.

Maybe the Russian guy had uploaded videos and identifiable info to his Skypixel account beforehand, like, Russian in New York, with video of his phantom.

Perhaps, DJI mark one arm with the serial number of the unit and by chance, it was that arm that was found.

But one thing's for sure, the fact that a US military helicopter was hit during the period of a TFR due to Presidential movements with an object the authorities are trying to get a grip on legislatively, all the stops would've been pulled out to find the owner to use as a timely example and reminder.

PhanTom go read the full report, and then you can stop using the word maybe.

 

[PhamTon]

PhanTom go read the full report, and then you can stop using the word maybe.

Sorry. What I mean is I did. I know DJI were part of the investigation.
I know there was a DJI rep present at the guys interview.

Even without finding the part, with the help of DJI, they could work out what DJI product was flying in the area, at what time, at what altitude.

What I'm saying is, they didn't find Mr. Russia by zooming in on a part number. Perhaps I gave that impression?

 

[Helihover]

Sorry. What I mean is I did. I know DJI were part of the investigation.
I know there was a DJI rep present at the guys interview.

Even without finding the part, with the help of DJI, they could work out what DJI product was flying in the area, at what time, at what altitude.

What I'm saying is, they didn't find Mr. Russia by zooming in on a part number. Perhaps I gave that impression?

According to the report, they found the pilot from a serial number on the motor. I'm simply stating what the the report said, thats it. If you guys have different facts, please share. Remember, facts do not include the word maybe, what if, perhaps, etc. Your also going to need more than just your word to make it a fact. So please tell us what really happened.

 

[Pete Leare]

I wouldn't be doing PFL's from 500' down to 20'. There's no need for that. I also draw attention to the minimum height of 500' unless taking off or landing.

If you're deliberately doing a PFL to 20' and you hit a drone, you would have some explaining to do.

If you're trying to see how quickly you can go through the motions of flying the aircraft, picking a field and setting up the base leg or whatever, touch drills and mayday, you can do that from 2000' and see have you everything done by 1500'.

It is common sense to operate a drone within VLOS. I agree. Really. I do. This Russian guy is no doubt kicking himself. To do otherwise, erodes the safety margin. Just like doing PFL's to 20'.

I have to respectively disagree.. you are simulating a real emergency where you have lost your engine, or there is a fire on board etc.. (most simulations are engine failures though), and it can obviously happen anywhere at anytime - cruise altitude, take off, landing..

I typically simulate a cruise altitude engine failure from between 3-5K feet, but as all CFI's will tell you - it's a simulation and you need to take it down all the way until I give you your engine back, which is usually when they feel you have done everything correctly including the correct choice of field/landing spot, obstacle avoidance such as power lines, large obstacles on the ground (which cannot usually be seen from cruise altitude) wind direction and glide path.

The only thing we don't actually do is land, but in a real emergency you have no choice and if there was a UAV buzzing around I would expect the operator to take collision avoidance action as I don't have power.

I seriously doubt the FAA would cite a pilot for practicing an emergency landing that went below 500' as it was taught this way by CFI’s and accepted by FAA examiners on the check ride.

 

[PhamTon]

According to the report, they found the pilot from a serial number on the motor. I'm simply stating what the the report said, thats it. If you guys have different facts, please share. Remember, facts do not include the word maybe, what if, perhaps, etc. Your also going to need more than just your word to make it a fact. So please tell us what really happened.

For a community forum, there's not much community spirit going on.
If I write in a similar vein, I apologise.

I don't want this hobby banned or made prohibitly expensive. I'm just wary of governments citing the catch-all 'safety' argument to force through what they want in the face of reasoned opposition. It does happen.

I can't answer your question as I wasn't there. You know that. I know that. Everybody here knows that. So it's kind of unnecessary to ask that question.

The report might state that they found a serial number on the arm and that may be true. It may also be a unique code. I'm not sure as I haven't crashed my drone nor disassembled it. But to say that was the only way they identified the owner would not be correct.