C 172 vs Drone - 172 wins.
Moderator
Thread Starter
C 172 vs Drone - 172 wins.
The official report is here:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a21o0069.html
The Toronto Buttonville Airport (CYKZ) is a very busy GA airport, particularly for flight training. In years past it was known to be the third busiest airport in Canada, though that is less so now. The approach to runway 15 is the second most common approach flown there (33 being the most common), so nothing the least unusual about a 172 flying a circuit to runway 15, it's been being done there since the 1950's! The police force involved operate their helicopter from that airport, so the environment is (should be) very well known to that police department. In any case, the police were "told", and hopefully do better with their drone operations in the future!
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a21o0069.html
The Toronto Buttonville Airport (CYKZ) is a very busy GA airport, particularly for flight training. In years past it was known to be the third busiest airport in Canada, though that is less so now. The approach to runway 15 is the second most common approach flown there (33 being the most common), so nothing the least unusual about a 172 flying a circuit to runway 15, it's been being done there since the 1950's! The police force involved operate their helicopter from that airport, so the environment is (should be) very well known to that police department. In any case, the police were "told", and hopefully do better with their drone operations in the future!
The pilots of the Cessna heard and felt a solid impact and suspected that they had hit a bird.
I once hit a Brewers Blackbird on short final in a C182. The bang was a real attention getter and I expected significant damage. However the poor bird had gone through the prop and there was no damage - just some blood on the cowling.
The bird I hit weighed less than 0.1 Kg. These guys hit a "bird" weighing 6.14 Kg! I think "solid impact" must be a significant understatement.
PS They hit the drone at 400', 1.3 nm from the threshold. That's a 3.1º glide path. Is that how visual circuits in light aircraft are taught these days? It seems very low to me.
Last edited by India Four Two; 27th Jan 2023 at 05:08.
Pegase Driver
Police policy does not require that visual observers be trained crew members, and the remotely piloted aircraft pilot did not brief the visual observer on his role and responsibilities before the operation. As a result, the visual observer was not aware of the requirement to maintain visual line-of-sight with the remotely piloted aircraft, nor was he trained in visual scanning techniques or aircraft identification.
The remotely piloted aircraft pilot was tasked with operating the camera system, monitoring the status of the remotely piloted aircraft, and communicating on multiple channels. As a result, he likely became task saturated, restricting his ability to visually monitor the remotely piloted aircraft and hear radio calls on the control zone’s mandatory frequency and the sound of incoming aircraft, both of which preceded the collision.
The remotely piloted aircraft pilot was tasked with operating the camera system, monitoring the status of the remotely piloted aircraft, and communicating on multiple channels. As a result, he likely became task saturated, restricting his ability to visually monitor the remotely piloted aircraft and hear radio calls on the control zone’s mandatory frequency and the sound of incoming aircraft, both of which preceded the collision.
Basically the drone operator in this case was a cameraman solely occupied in photography.
There was effectively no pilot.
TC Enforcement could charge YRP and the operator with careless operation as well as failure to make radio calls in MF airspace.
There was effectively no pilot.
TC Enforcement could charge YRP and the operator with careless operation as well as failure to make radio calls in MF airspace.
