NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[Indiana_pyro]

So you are proposing changing the 91.119 minimum to 2000 ft or? And you think that's okay because your brother's recreational flying would not suffer and you would still be able to have a nice flight? Are you serious?

Nope, never said that. As far as recreational fling for him, that's only when some of us want to go up and fly around. He actually works with the FAA as an accident investigator.

As to reference what I was saying- why not fly higher if there is no reason to be low ? I didn't think it would have been that hard to understand what I was saying but thanks for asking me to clarify.

 

[sar104]

Nope, never said that. As far as recreational fling for him, that's only when some of us want to go up and fly around. He actually works with the FAA as an accident investigator.

As to reference what I was saying- why not fly higher if there is no reason to be low ? I didn't think it would have been that hard to understand what I was saying but thanks for asking me to clarify.

I don't disagree with the philosophy that higher is often, though not always, safer in aviation. But that's not the point. Your proposal, that I responded to, was "Moving manned aircraft up in altitude unless need to be lower, taking off or landing". How do you envisage that working and what altitude do you envisage changing it to? What constitutes "needing to be lower"? It isn't even always a matter of approach and departure - there are many aircraft uses that require lower, not to mention VFR constraints and deconflicting GA with military or commercial traffic.

I do not understand the resistance to the obvious concept that UAV pilots, even recreational ones, operating in the NAS, clearly need some training and regulation.

 

[PhamTon]

I don't disagree with the philosophy that higher is often, though not always, safer in aviation. But that's not the point. Your proposal, that I responded to, was "Moving manned aircraft up in altitude unless need to be lower, taking off or landing". How do you envisage that working and what altitude do you envisage changing it to? What constitutes "needing to be lower"? It isn't even always a matter of approach and departure - there are many aircraft uses that require lower, not to mention VFR constraints and deconflicting GA with military or commercial traffic.

I do not understand the resistance to the obvious concept that UAV pilots, even recreational ones, operating in the NAS, clearly need some training and regulation.

The argument about raising the minimum height of manned aircraft is another un-ending one.

In fairness to the FAA, I think the 400' UAS and 500' Manned limits work well, with a good reason supporting it. (Taking off and landing)

I think, with regard to your last paragraph sar104, the resistance is coming from the point of view of initially it's an internet exam, then a mugshot taken in B&H or Best Buy when you buy it, then only PPL's or higher ratings allowed then they're outlawed altogether. It's a well worn path and some are just suspicious of it.

Also, the resistance, by its very nature, is coming from the genuine drone pilots who have no problems researching things like airspace, part107, not annoying people on a beach etc etc. They're resisting as they're the ones not breaking Safety-based rules and laws.
It's the eejits who know nothing of the above that aren't resisting, in my opinion.

 

[sar104]

The argument about raising the minimum height of manned aircraft is another un-ending one.

In fairness to the FAA, I think the 400' UAS and 500' Manned limits work well, with a good reason supporting it. (Taking off and landing)

I think, with regard to your last paragraph sar104, the resistance is coming from the point of view of initially it's an internet exam, then a mugshot taken in B&H or Best Buy when you buy it, then only PPL's or higher ratings allowed then they're outlawed altogether. It's a well worn path and some are just suspicious of it.

Also, the resistance, by its very nature, is coming from the genuine drone pilots who have no problems researching things like airspace, part107, not annoying people on a beach etc etc. They're resisting as they're the ones not breaking Safety-based rules and laws.
It's the eejits who know nothing of the above that aren't resisting, in my opinion.

A well-worn path? Can you suggest even a single historical example of that path? And I disagree that the resistance is coming from qualified pilots. I've seen very few arguments from those of us with Part 107 licenses that training and regulation is bad. Quite the opposite, mostly. The resistance appears to be almost exclusively from hobbyists who are offended that they are being required to accept some accountability, training and regulation and instead resort to entitlement arguments or slippery slope fallacies, such as the one you just tried, to justify why they oppose any measures.

 

[Helihover]

A well-worn path? Can you suggest even a single historical example of that path? And I disagree that the resistance is coming from qualified pilots. I've seen very few arguments from those of us with Part 107 licenses that training and regulation is bad. Quite the opposite, mostly. The resistance appears to be almost exclusively from hobbyists who are offended that they are being required to accept some accountability, training and regulation and instead resort to entitlement arguments or slippery slope fallacies, such as the one you just tried, to justify why they oppose any measures.

This is so true on so many levels. Can I double like this post?

 

[Indiana_pyro]

A well-worn path? Can you suggest even a single historical example of that path? And I disagree that the resistance is coming from qualified pilots. I've seen very few arguments from those of us with Part 107 licenses that training and regulation is bad. Quite the opposite, mostly. The resistance appears to be almost exclusively from hobbyists who are offended that they are being required to accept some accountability, training and regulation and instead resort to entitlement arguments or slippery slope fallacies, such as the one you just tried, to justify why they oppose any measures.

Not trying to make you upset, but why does it seem you have difficulties understanding what people write. Seems like you read something and then put your own spin on what was being said. The important word near the end of his post is "researching".

 

[sar104]

Not trying to make you upset, but why does it seem you have difficulties understanding what people write. Seems like you read something and then put your own spin on what was being said. The important word near the end of his post is "researching".

No - I understood it perfectly, which is why I used the term "qualified" rather than "certified". If you want to interpret the orginal assertion more narrowly as meaning pilots who have researched all that but not become certified you can do that too, but it doesn't change my conclusion. Most of the complaints clearly come from pilots who presumably haven't researched anything at all since they display no evidence of any understanding of safety methodology with their implicit assertion "training and regulation should not be required for me because I already know better".

 

[PhamTon]

A well-worn path? Can you suggest even a single historical example of that path? And I disagree that the resistance is coming from qualified pilots. I've seen very few arguments from those of us with Part 107 licenses that training and regulation is bad. Quite the opposite, mostly. The resistance appears to be almost exclusively from hobbyists who are offended that they are being required to accept some accountability, training and regulation and instead resort to entitlement arguments or slippery slope fallacies, such as the one you just tried, to justify why they oppose any measures.

What I meant was eventually, even part107 commercial pilots would be affected. Affected to the point of being grounded. That big business would want that airspace to themselves. Who would any government back then? A guy with a part107 licence or the big home-delivery company with a fleet of UAV's?

We obviously see the future differently.

I, of course, wouldn't want to stop an educating program for new hobbyists. Any decent droner wouldn't.

You see it written here so often. Guys asking why my drone flew away etc. And then I see they had it programmed to fly a 10 mile pre-programmed course with a RTH figure of 100m in an area of foliage free trees at sunset etc etc you get the picture. Let them at it, I say. I doubt many would end up buying a second P4 after that. Darwin Award stuff.

 

[sar104]

What I meant was eventually, even part107 commercial pilots would be affected. Affected to the point of being grounded. That big business would want that airspace to themselves. Who would any government back then? A guy with a part107 licence or the big home-delivery company with a fleet of UAV's?

We obviously see the future differently.

I, of course, wouldn't want to stop an educating program for new hobbyists. Any decent droner wouldn't.

You see it written here so often. Guys asking why my drone flew away etc. And then I see they had it programmed to fly a 10 mile pre-programmed course with a RTH figure of 100m in an area of foliage free trees at sunset etc etc you get the picture. Let them at it, I say. I doubt many would end up buying a second P4 after that. Darwin Award stuff.

Again - you start with a premise that makes no sense to me. Why do you think that commercial Part 107 pilots will be negatively affected, let alone grounded? I haven't seen private vehicles banned from the roads because it would make life easier for road freight vehicles. I haven't seen GA banned because it might get in the way of commercial aviation. And you still haven't provided an example of this path that you think happens enough to be well worn. So yes - we see the future differently, but apparently also the past.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

This may be the one and only case of an actual collision between a manned aircraft and a hobby drone. The chances of such a collision are extremely small even if both pilots were trying to make it happen. The military chopper was equipped with all sorts of advanced radar and was flown by at least two professional pilots who are supposed to keep scanning for other aircraft in the vicinity. This collision happened to occur when there was a TFR and the drone was beyond line of sight. However there is no evidence that it would not have occurred had it been within sight and control of the drone pilot. As a licensed private pilot and a P4A drone operator my judgement is that the danger of drone vs. manned aircraft crashes is grossly exaggerated and certainly over-hyped by the media.

Meanwhile, since I live within a mile of a rural non-managed airport with fewer than 2-3 flights a day, DJI Go 4 won't let me take off in my living room. That's ridiculous!

 

[TeeJayN]

I learned to fly at my local flying club. I don't understand why people don't want to join these places (there seems to be a lot of opposition to it from 'drone' owners). There are people at these clubs that have been flying for 60 years and are a mine of useful tips and information.

Sadly there are many AMA sanctioned clubs that are very anti-drone. The club closest to me has many of those "60 years" pilots and they want nothing to do with drones, affectionately referring to them as "those dam* things." They see drones as an annoyance and non-compatible with seasoned fixed wing flying. It is the sole reason why I won't join that club and 2 other neighboring clubs with similar attitudes. I'm not new to RC flying - been an AMA member since the mid-70's and always flew fixed wing. But now my preferred RC hobby is quads. Rather than embracing this new technology, these clubs would rather stay with their 60 year experience - unchanged - keeping their membership stagnant. IMHO a loss for all.

 

[andy_k]

Sadly there are many AMA sanctioned clubs that are very anti-drone. The club closest to me has many of those "60 years" pilots and they want nothing to do with drones, affectionately referring to them as "those dam* things." They see drones as an annoyance and non-compatible with seasoned fixed wing flying. It is the sole reason why I won't join that club and 2 other neighboring clubs with similar attitudes. I'm not new to RC flying - been an AMA member since the mid-70's and always flew fixed wing. But now my preferred RC hobby is quads. Rather than embracing this new technology, these clubs would rather stay with their 60 year experience - unchanged - keeping their membership stagnant. IMHO a loss for all.

then why not set up your own club - when i first started flying helis that's exactly what we did - our old club decided thjey didn't want us so we found a field, set up our own club and applied for affiliation.

It's a lot harder to actually do something about a problem rather than just complaining about it on the internet but ultimately, it's far more rewarding

There's always a chance some of the 'old gits' will come along with you - well over half of our club's 60+ members now fly drones as well as fixed wing

 

[N017RW]

While one cannot ignore the phobia, there's more to it than age or legacy.

Most, if not many, drone owners have no r/c aviation experience including risks, hazards, etc. There's little commitment invested in 'learning' to flying a drone. You power it up and it basically does the rest.

Many also feel that because of the issues caused by so many ignorant 'dronies' they worry what ongoing effect this will have on their segment of the hobby.

Hard to say it's unfounded given the negative attention and new restrictions, rules, and registration thrust upon them as a result.

It can be unnerving flying planks in the same vicinity due to the drones' relatively slow speeds, low maneuverability, small cross-section and loitering.

Yea, the sky is big but midair collisions still happen and is one of the worst ways to crash since it involves two or more craft thus blame can be cast to others.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

Once again, these are military aircraft I am referring to. Once again, they can fly at any altitude. This one of the many reasons why you should never fly BVLOS.

Whenever a drone is more than about 100 feet away from the operator there is not enough depth perception for the pilot to tell if the drone is above, below, closer or further away from another aircraft. So much for the justification for the VLOS rule.

The three dimensional air space is so large that in reality the odds of a collision between a Phantom drone and a manned aircraft are exceedingly, vanishingly small, even if not zero. I'm tired of the hysterical hype about the "danger" of drones hitting other aircraft. The repeated negative media hype turns public opinion against drones far in excess of any realistic justification.

As far as I know there has been exactly one and only one documented case of a midair collision between a drone and a manned aircraft. This despite literally millions of drones and hundreds of thousands of manned aircraft being flown daily.

Now what about the heli pilots' duty to continuously scan for other aircraft in the vicinity? Did the heli pilots in this incident see the drone before the strike or not? We haven't been told. All of the negative attention is on the drone pilot. It's pretty clear that the heli flew into the drone rather than vice versa. Did the heli pilots even know they had struck a drone before they landed and post-incident investigation found the dent on the main rotor and the drone fragments in aircraft, probably in the turbine intake? It's perfectly clear which aircraft got the worse end of the deal.

I can see it from both sides since I am a licensed private pilot and fly P4 and P4A+ drones as well.

 

[sar104]

Whenever a drone is more than about 100 feet away from the operator there is not enough depth perception for the pilot to tell if the drone is above, below, closer or further away from another aircraft. So much for the justification for the VLOS rule.

The three dimensional air space is so large that in reality the odds of a collision between a Phantom drone and a manned aircraft are exceedingly, vanishingly small, even if not zero. I'm tired of the hysterical hype about the "danger" of drones hitting other aircraft. The repeated negative media hype turns public opinion against drones far in excess of any realistic justification.

As far as I know there has been exactly one and only one documented case of a midair collision between a drone and a manned aircraft. This despite literally millions of drones and hundreds of thousands of manned aircraft being flown daily.

Now what about the heli pilots' duty to continuously scan for other aircraft in the vicinity? Did the heli pilots in this incident see the drone before the strike or not? We haven't been told. All of the negative attention is on the drone pilot. It's pretty clear that the heli flew into the drone rather than vice versa. Did the heli pilots even know they had struck a drone before they landed and post-incident investigation found the dent on the main rotor and the drone fragments in aircraft, probably in the turbine intake? It's perfectly clear which aircraft got the worse end of the deal.

I can see it from both sides since I am a licensed private pilot and fly P4 and P4A+ drones as well.

How about actually reading the NTSB report? Then you won't need to resort to speculation.

 

[Helihover]

Whenever a drone is more than about 100 feet away from the operator there is not enough depth perception for the pilot to tell if the drone is above, below, closer or further away from another aircraft. So much for the justification for the VLOS rule.

The three dimensional air space is so large that in reality the odds of a collision between a Phantom drone and a manned aircraft are exceedingly, vanishingly small, even if not zero. I'm tired of the hysterical hype about the "danger" of drones hitting other aircraft. The repeated negative media hype turns public opinion against drones far in excess of any realistic justification.

As far as I know there has been exactly one and only one documented case of a midair collision between a drone and a manned aircraft. This despite literally millions of drones and hundreds of thousands of manned aircraft being flown daily.

Now what about the heli pilots' duty to continuously scan for other aircraft in the vicinity? Did the heli pilots in this incident see the drone before the strike or not? We haven't been told. All of the negative attention is on the drone pilot. It's pretty clear that the heli flew into the drone rather than vice versa. Did the heli pilots even know they had struck a drone before they landed and post-incident investigation found the dent on the main rotor and the drone fragments in aircraft, probably in the turbine intake? It's perfectly clear which aircraft got the worse end of the deal.

I can see it from both sides since I am a licensed private pilot and fly P4 and P4A+ drones as well.

You seriously just dismissed flying BVLOS because you think you can’t safely avoid another manned aircraft @ 100’ because of depth perception. Really? It’s called see and avoid. If you can’t see your UAS, you can’t avoid. Dropping in elevation as fast as you can to avoid manned aircraft has nothing to do with 3 dimensions or depth perception. It has to do with your surroundings and flying BVLOS gives very little information about your surroundings.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

How about actually reading the NTSB report? Then you won't need to resort to speculation.

Okay, I read the full report. The only question I asked that was answered there was that the pilot of the heli saw the drone and tried to go under it but struck it anyway. Is that the only nit you can pick? It's irrelevant to my main points.

 

[sar104]

Okay, I read the full report. The only question I asked that was answered there was that the pilot of the heli saw the drone and tried to go under it but struck it anyway. Is that the only nit you can pick? It's irrelevant to my main points.

Other than your opinion on the risk of collisions, it was all you talked about in that post - all the things you didn't know about the incident. You had no main points except to demonstrate that you hadn't bothered to read it.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

Dropping in elevation as fast as you can to avoid manned aircraft has nothing to do with 3 dimensions or depth perception. It has to do with your surroundings and flying BVLOS gives very little information about your surroundings.

In this incident the heli pilot dropped in elevation as fast as he could when he saw the drone, but the top (rotor) of the heli still struck the drone, which was flying straight and level. So you say that the drone pilot should have seen the heli and dropped elevation as fast as possible. Looks like bad advice in this instance because then the drone might have been struck by the heli's plastic canopy and possibly injured someone aboard.

The VLOS recommendation is an ancient one based on traditional model airplane flyers' need to see the aircraft in order to keep it from crashing into the ground or a tree. That makes sense with the RC fixed wing and helicopter models that predominated decades ago, but not with today's semi-automatic quads like the Phantoms with their sophisticated inertial, GPS, magnetic and optical guidance systems, automatic flight controllers and FPV realtime video to the pilot.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

You had no main points except to demonstrate that you hadn't bothered to read it.

Apparently you either didn't read my post or you have a big problem with reading comprehension.