NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[andy_k]

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.

If you can't make that judgement at 100ft then you really shouldn't be flying - seriously flawed argument

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.

Another flawed argument - Yes, it is very large when you consider the whole 3D airspace but we aren't considering the 'whole' 3D airspace when we talk of remote controlled aircraft of any type are we? In fact we are talking about a very small percentage of the available airspace. Let's assume that the upper limit of '3D Airspace' is 35,000 ft - 99.9% Phantoms are incapable of flying above 1650ft so any possible collision only occurs in a maximum of less than 5% of available space. Most Phantoms are flown below 500' or 1.4% of the massive 3D space you speak of. Let's also make the assumption that as 71% of the earth's surface is water most of that (coastal regions aside) isn't going to have Phantoms flying over it due to range limitations so we can reduce that 1.4% down to about 0.3% - so, if all the small drones are flying in 0.3% of the worlds airspace (generous over exaggeration when you consider the earth's geography and climate) that significantly increases the chance of collisions. Now factor in that the most likely time for a collision is during take off and landing you can further reduce that airspace figure by another 99% (this generously assumes that 1% of the world's surface is covered in airstrips - we are now down to below 0.04% of all available airspace where 100% of the air traffic has to share the space and where collisions are most likely to take place OK, the maths may well be flawed and but less so than your sweeping statement

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.

If you'd bothered to read the report before sharing your 'wisdom' with us you could have skipped this paragraph

I can see it from both sides

You clearly have trouble seeing it from any side other than your own blinkered view

I am a licensed private pilot and fly P4 and P4A+ drones as well.

Why is it, whenever I see those words they are almost always at the end of a poorly thought out rant? Maybe if licenced pilots were made to start their posts wih that line it could save the rest of us having to read a lot of rubbish [/QUOTE]

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Thought not apparently intentional, destruction of gov't property???
Curious about the penalties for sure.

Seems most fines come from the FAA East Coast offices.
The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined

 

[N017RW]

Seems most fines come from the FAA East Coast offices.
The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined

Thanks.
To be clear I was also interested if there will be any pursuit of equipment repair costs. I wouldn't expect this to be an FAA action but some other authority.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Thanks.
To be clear I was also interested if there will be any pursuit of equipment repair costs. I wouldn't expect this to be an FAA action but some other authority.

I'm interested to know also. From experience (military aviation, not fines!), it won't be cheap.

I don't want to be an @$$ to the guy, but he should be fined and made to pay the repair costs. Let me rephrase that last part, reimburse taxpayers the cost of the repairs to get the aircraft back to mission capable status.

 

[sar104]

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

No - I read it. It contained nothing but your own speculation.

 

[Helihover]

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.

You should go read up a bit before you jump on a forum acting like a know it all because you have a pilots license. Just because you fly manned aircraft, and own a phantom, doesn’t make you and expert on rules and regs pertaining to UAS flight, or an expert on collision advoidance. I don’t claim to be one either, but I’m not dismissing the rules designed to prevent this. The facts are, I’ve executed this practice (see and avoid) on several occasions. And yes dropping in elevation is extremely practical. I’ve seen one real incident where it would have not. But that’s the point, having the UAS in your eyesight is going to help you make the right choice to avoid, be it dropping elevation or maybe climbing in elevation, etc.

Let me make this clear, again, older type rc aircraft, which you refer to as ancient, have nothing to do with flying BVLOS. Once again, if you fly one of these ancient rc aircraft BVLOS, your going to crash, almost instantly.

Once again, had the UAS operator been flying the phantom within VLOS, he would have seen and heard the helicopter. This is the seeing part of see and avoid. At that point he could of made the decision to avoid by taking immediate action, like were required to do as drone operators. This would be the avoid part of seeing and avoid. The lack of being able to see and avoid was the cause of this accident according the NTBS. He was NOT able to see and avoid, because he was flying BVLOS.

 

[Yenrab]

no offense to you but that's exactly the problem."

I agree completely! We must take personal responsibility for what we choose to do. That includes look for information beyond the road signs that we can't avoid. Regulations are for a reason. Sometimes we laugh at things like ladder that say " Don't stand on the top rung" but the statement is there for a reason and, to be nice, there are people who are altitude limited in the thinking department. It is not are to find information on the rules, laws and just plain common sense about our hobby/business of drone operations. Also, as a community, it is up to each and everyone of us to help inform new operators of requirements. I recently saw a teenager flying in the 'green belt" I test in. I went to him and asked if he knew the easy to find rules/suggestions in the DJI material. He did not. So I told him since we were within 5 miles of Luke (he didn't know that) we had to inform the control tower. I gave him a sheet I have with me and hopefully he is now compliant and understands. We are all responsible if we want to have and maintain the environments we now have the freedom to fly in. IMHO

 

[Nick Mendocino]

Okay you alarmists, please tell us how many verified drone vs. manned aircraft collisions there have been in U.S. (or any nation's) airspace since the advent of the Phantom series. I believe the correct answer is one. If you disagree please cite reliable source links.

My argument, for you guys who never saw a regulation you didn't like, is that the safety rules and regulations on drone flying are ridiculously overdone and based on hyped up, unrealistic fears rather than realistic risk assessments.

DJI Go4 won't even let me take off in my own living room because it's within a mile of a country airport with almost no traffic most of the time. That is excessive CYA by DJI. You wanna defend that? I'm sure some of you do, so be my guest.

 

[Buk]

Pardon my ignorance, but why did the helicopter go down exposing his hub and blades to damage versus going up? Is the idea to shred ongoing objects? Is this the practice with birds?

A 58 year old will be working the rest of their working life to pay fines and repair damages to a 22 million dollar military aircraft.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

Okay you alarmists, please tell us how many verified drone vs. manned aircraft collisions there have been in U.S. (or any nation's) airspace since the advent of the Phantom series. I believe the correct answer is one. If you disagree please cite reliable source links. ...

After a little googling I amend my answer. Two. There have been two verified cases of dronve vs. manned aircraft collisions in North America so far. One in Canada. One in the USA. The following news story published before the NTSB report on the incident in New York quoted an FAA official as saying there had been zero cases in the USA as of that time.

Drone hits passenger plane for first time in North America
October 16, 2017 | 1:23pm | Updated
https://nypost.com/2017/10/16/drone-hits-passenger-plane-for-first-time-in-north-america/

Partial quote from the above

The crash marked the first collision between a commercial aircraft and a drone in Canada, Garneau said. And while there have been reports of pilots claiming that drones crashed into their aircraft in the United States, FAA officials confirmed to The Post that such a crash has never been verified in the United States.

“There have been no incidents or accidents reported to the FAA that have involved a commercial aircraft and an unmanned aircraft (drone),” spokesman Jim Peters told The Post in an email.

The federal agency announced in February that it had never verified reports of collisions between drones and civil aircraft, saying that every subsequent investigation found that the crashes either involved birds, other items such as wires and posts, or structural failure not related to colliding with an unmanned aircraft.

End quote

How many millions of American airline passengers have had to take off their shoes for inspection before boarding? Many millions I'm sure. How many have been found to have hidden bombs in their shoes? Zero! That's a good example of ridiculously overdone regulations. It all started with one (1) crazy guy who tried unsuccessfully to use a primitive bomb in his shoe.

I'm all in favor of reasonable, fact-based rules and regulations. Just not the other kind.

 

[andy_k]

How many millions of American airline passengers have had to take off their shoes for inspection before boarding? Many millions I'm sure. How many have been found to have hidden bombs in their shoes? Zero! That's a good example of ridiculously overdone regulations. It all started with one (1) crazy guy who tried unsuccessfully to use a primitive bomb in his shoe.

I'm all in favor of reasonable, fact-based rules and regulations. Just not the other kind.

9/11 was a few guys with pocket knives that had played on flight sims - what's your point?

You forgot to mention you are a pilot btw

 

[Hammer]

Well, if they are going to make rec pilots of drones take courses, why not all RC aircraft? Why just drones? I know a few people that do LONG RANGE flights with flying wings and such. They have nothing to keep them below 400' either, their drones don't know they are too high. BUT they appear to be exempt to this necessity to inform us, why?
I am a Certified Pilot, so I know about the rules and regs, but what I am saying, is there is nothing to tell those who are not so informed, where to look.

Because 99% of rc pilots are flying third person within a few hundred feet of them. The problem is the ease of use and video transition range make drone much easier to fly higher, further, farther than you’d fly a rc plane. Just because they are flying a fixed wing with video transmission, it still falls under the same regs as any other quad/hex/tri copter. In Canada we have a maac license that is for rc/drone pilots giving them liability insurance when flying at actual flying fields but ultimately does their best to support safe flying practice to keep the hobby alive

 

[Hammer]

Al is specifically talking about non GPS controlled aircraft. Theres a HUGE difference. Some of the older RC pilots know that it actually requires skill to fly an RC heli or plane and thats what sets them apart. Anyone can fly a Phantom, like a 5 year old, and pretty good I might add. Some spend years just learning to properly hover a CP RC heli. No person flying a non GPS craft is going to fly beyond visual sight because if you do, your going to crash.

Exactly. I’d like to see most phantom pilots fly a rc plane without all the auto level gyros and so on. It is extremely difficult and taxing on the brain. A 5 minutes flight requires so much attention that 5 minutes flights are enough. Once your plane is few hundred feet away it’s hard to tell is it going away, coming back, right side up or upside down.

 

[andy_k]

Exactly. I’d like to see most phantom pilots fly a rc plane without all the auto level gyros and so on. It is extremely difficult and taxing on the brain. A 5 minutes flight requires so much attention that 5 minutes flights are enough. Once your plane is few hundred feet away it’s hard to tell is it going away, coming back, right side up or upside down.

Golden rules for R/C flight

getting smaller = going away
getting bigger = coming back

Upside down or not is best checked when you are closer

 

[The Springs]

I'm surprise that no one else seems interested to know how they traced the owner " after examining a piece of one of the Phantom 4’s motor arms "
I don't own a P4 so am I missing something obvious ?

This was a case in the UK from a while back .The authorities were obviously out to make an example of offender .The cost to him was coverts to roughly $6000 USD and he didn't hit anyone or damage anything. I think the US authorities will be doing their best to make an example of this guy as well regardless of how open and helpful he has been.
UK's first drone conviction will bankrupt me, says Cumbrian man

 

[Helihover]

I'm surprise that no one else seems interested to know how they traced the owner " after examining a piece of one of the Phantom 4’s motor arms "
I don't own a P4 so am I missing something obvious ?

This was a case in the UK from a while back .The authorities were obviously out to make an example of offender .The cost to him was coverts to roughly $6000 USD and he didn't hit anyone or damage anything. I think the US authorities will be doing their best to make an example of this guy as well regardless of how open and helpful he has been.
UK's first drone conviction will bankrupt me, says Cumbrian man

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

 

[The Springs]

Ah I missed that.

 

[Pete Leare]

That's why as a pilot, I wouldn't hang around at <500'.

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.

 

[BigAl07]

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.

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.

 

[PhamTon]

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.

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'.