Drone Collision with helicopter = tail rotor failure

[CHARLIEOSCAR]

"During the Baja 500 while chasing from a helicopter a fellow race team was struck by drone. The helicopters tail rotor started to fail and with quick reactions the pilot was able to safely maneuver the helicopter to the ground without any injuries. Being that the helicopter couldn't fly now we had winch it on to a what normally is a car trailer"

I'm not allowed to embed link hopefully someone else will

Regards

CO

[CHARLIEOSCAR]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ul_hNKJVQ

[Lantern10]

What would that cost to fix?

[Thomas coupling]

$100k minimum.

[PDR1]

So the helicopter pilot failed to maintain an adequate lookout while chasing cars on the ground in VMC?

How high, how fast, what kind of airspace etc?

PDR

[Airbeater350]

So the helicopter pilot failed to maintain an adequate lookout while chasing cars on the ground in VMC?

How high, how fast, what kind of airspace etc?

PDR

Surely you’re taking the piss??

[chopjock]

Was the helicopter struck by the drone? So the helicopter was hovering and the drone flew in to it? Unlikely. More like the drone was struck by the helicopter!

[Animal Mother]

Was the helicopter struck by the drone? So the helicopter was hovering and the drone flew in to it? Unlikely. More like the drone was struck by the helicopter!

...... :ugh:

[PDR1]

Surely you’re taking the piss??

I'm just looking at the images and applying my analytical skills (having previously found that hurrumphing bluster is not of much value in accident investigation).

The damage is to the side of the tailboom fairing, the leading edge of the fin and the tail rotor, all indicating that the drone was in front of the helicopter and the direction of collision was from the front. For the damage to have carried on that far down the side of the helicopter the relative velocity must have been quite high - drone large enough to cause that sort of damage don't fly that fast, so it is more likely that the helicopter was flying fast when it hit the drone than it is for the drone to have been flying fast when it hit the helicopter.

The news item suggests that the helicopter was "chasing" a cross-country race car at the time, so presumably it was quite low and almost certainly VFR (ie where it is the pilot's obligation to see and avoid). Had the helicopter been given exclusive use of "sanitised" airspace above thr race or were there other aircraft operating in the area? Had the pilot been explicitly told that there wouled be no other air vehicles operating over the race? Even if he/she had would that absolve the pilot in command of his/her responsibility to see and avoid in VMC?

The drone could just have easly have been a large bird, an ultralight or another helicopter. I don't see any clear-cut case that the drone was in error here. We need to see the details before concluding that this was anything more than a pilot whose sight and brain were not in a piece of airspace before his helicopter got there IMHO.

€0.0005 supplied (YMMV),

PDR

[RVDT]

Hahahaha what a piece of drivel.

Tell us all how the drone can "see and avoid" once again or don't those rules apply to the drone?

Helicopters were there first and UAV's are the new kids on the block - as far as I am aware they are the ones that need the "restricted airspace" and normally do.
How come you never see NOTAMS for helicopters flying around yet the NOTAMS are thick with DROTAMS?

There are reasons for UAV rules that are far more restrictive than for normal aircraft - any driverless cars in Surrey yet or only the one belonging to the village idiot?

PS Baja is in the California Peninsula in Mexico.

Mexican drone laws -

General Mexico Drone LawsDrone use is allowed in Mexico, but there are several drone laws that need to be followed when flying in the country. Operators must ensure that they follow the following drone laws when flying in Mexico,

Do not fly your drone over people or large crowds
Respect others privacy when flying your drone
Do not fly your drone over airports or in areas where aircraft are operating
You must fly during daylight hours and only fly in good weather conditions
Do not fly your drone in sensitive areas including government or military facilities. Use of drones or camera drones in these areas are prohibited.
Watch for any signs posted around many popular tourist attractions that notify you of “no drone zones”
Check with the hotel you will be staying at to see if you can fly it there – many hotels ban drones to ensure their guests have privacy and are not disturbed by drones in the air
Flying drones over 2kg requires a permit
Try and carry receipts for your drone when carrying it into the country to avoid being charged VAT on the equipment

[gulliBell]

$100k minimum.

And I thought they were going to add to that repair bill by the way they were hauling on those forward cross-tubes.

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

RVDT posted the gold right there.
Drone operators have an obligation to be just as safe in the skies. Many places have laws for such conduct
Drones inherantly are hard to see, and can move faster than your eyes can pick up on them. All shapes and sizes. from palm sized to small car sized.

The Baja races have been using helicopters for a very long time so I doubt that a drone operator could plead that he did not know he was flying in a known aircraft space.
the reality is with millions of these toys gracing the skies, piloted by numbnuts, the problem will increasingly have serious and tragic results for someone

I thinks that PDR1 has a drone, he has that vibe to his posts.

[PDR1]

I see that anyone who has the temerity to seek facts rather than knee-jerk is immediately accused of being a drone-owner (I'm not) or a village idiot (not that either).

Mods - I take it that Mr RVDT will now get a ban for abusing another member? After all, those are supposed to be the rules aren't they?

PDR

[RVDT]

Those are the facts - which one did I get wrong?

[nigelh]

I’m with RVDT .

[SASless]

Helicopters were there first and UAV's are the new kids on the block

I seem to recall Airplane folks think that about Helicopters too.....with the same bias.

Drones are damn hard to see....but then so are Birds.....and for some helicopter pilots....Wires, Trees, Masts, Crane Booms, Helicopters, and Airplanes and good old Mother Earth at times.....just saying.

[malabo]

Who was there first is just being tearfully sentimental. Drones will outnumber helicopters 100:1 if they don’t already. They are cheaper, more efficient and have already started elbowing out helicopters. For helicopters to survive we will need to adapt, concede and coexist. Smell the coffee.

[RVDT]

Drones are damn hard to see....but then so are Birds

At least some of the birds have some semblance of self preservation built in. Birds have sensors - sight and sound. Birds are an increased risk to modern quiet machines. Ask an EC 135 pilot. Drones - not so much.

TCAS requirement for drones anyone? Cant be that hard - they got this far and apparently they are very smart depending on who you talk to.

They are cheaper, more efficient and have already started elbowing out helicopters.

And also dangerous and invasive. If they want to hang with the big dogs they need to be a lot smarter. Let them do the adapting.

Probably won't happen until there is a "major" which is only a matter of time.

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

I see someone touched a nerve with a snowflake then....

[John Eacott]

I see someone touched a nerve with a snowflake then....


:p:D


It's unfortunate that there seems a preponderance of UK based Rotorheads who seem unable to understand that there is a whole world outside the restrictions of the CAA where helicopter drivers can actually operate under their own control!


The Baja 500 is a well known annual event which always has helicopter coverage at low level; drone intrusions cannot always be planned for. Experienced low level film pilots will attest that.

[DroneDog]

My understanding is that the heli and drone were working together on a planned shoot. great that the pilot was able to land safely.

This combined operation is becoming more and more common.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXZGVm2hppI

[whoknows idont]

Was the helicopter struck by the drone? So the helicopter was hovering and the drone flew in to it? Unlikely. More like the drone was struck by the helicopter!

I love it! :D Let's just stop calling it bird-strike and say it's a plane-strike from now on! What about lightning, though...? :confused:


The news item suggests that the helicopter was "chasing" a cross-country race car at the time, so presumably it was quite low and almost certainly VFR (ie where it is the pilot's obligation to see and avoid). Had the helicopter been given exclusive use of "sanitised" airspace above thr race or were there other aircraft operating in the area? Had the pilot been explicitly told that there wouled be no other air vehicles operating over the race? Even if he/she had would that absolve the pilot in command of his/her responsibility to see and avoid in VMC?

Obviously you're not a golfer.

[Bell_ringer]

PDR1, what do regulations state about line of sight operation and, importantly, right of way?
In the great superiority contest of the skies, the plastic flying thingy features last on the right of way scale.
It is also up to the operator to remain clear of aircraft which, when it comes to spotability of a 500, shouldn't be too difficult.

[Airbeater350]

I see that anyone who has the temerity to seek facts rather than knee-jerk is immediately accused of being a drone-owner (I'm not) or a village idiot (not that either).

Mods - I take it that Mr RVDT will now get a ban for abusing another member? After all, those are supposed to be the rules aren't they?

PDR

PDR,
RVDT actually posted some facts, and also doesn’t agree with you, so you want him banned?

Take it from someone that spends their whole career in the DMC, at 100kts, low level, focussing on a race car, a drone would be hard to avoid. That’s why they’re grounded when other A/C are operating. I’ve also been grounded on fires when some fool thought they could help by filming the fire ground with their toy!

Property was lost because some twit had all helitac grounded.

I think this is a great result, no one was hurt. But it highlights that drones have a place, but not while A/C ARE OPERATING! A drone can’t (queue dronies) get the quality shots that a Heli can! Stick to realestate shots!
AB

[Lonewolf_50]

Best not to feed the troll, Bell_Ringer.
@DronDog: thanks for that insight.
Good job getting that bird down so that it was "walked away from that one" deal.

[PDR1]

PDR1, what do regulations state about line of sight operation and, importantly, right of way?
In the great superiority contest of the skies, the plastic flying thingy features last on the right of way scale.
It is also up to the operator to remain clear of aircraft which, when it comes to spotability of a 500, shouldn't be too difficult.

As we have now learned that the helicopter and the drone were working together, probably for the same organisation, that puts the incident in a different light. The helicopter pilot was aware of the drone operating in the area and was supposedly working with it. So given that the helicopter pilot was aware of, and presumably consenting to, the drone proximity that surely gives him/her equal responsibility for maintaining separation. The two operators had presumably established procedures and operating plans for the joint operation - if they hadn't then both operators fell short of any reasonable definition of safe practice.

But even if we ignore that, as SASless says the drone could just have easily been a bird, a pylon, a power cable or other obstacle. If the helicopter pilot was flying in such a manner that such obstacles couldn't be seen in time to avoid them then I suggest he/she was flying too low, too fast or both for the tasking and the ambient conditions. That's a pilot responsibility to determine, of course.

We don't know the full circumstances of the actual collision, but minds should at least be open to the possibility that this was a CFID (controlled flight into drone) incident.

PDR

[PDR1]

PDR,
RVDT actually posted some facts, and also doesn’t agree with you, so you want him banned?

I don't care whether he agrees with me or not - he's entitled to an opinion. The operators of this forum hand out "Time away" penalties to people who post abusively - calling people "village idiots" would get others given penalties so I simply ask that the abusive post should get a similar response (as should calling people "snowflakes" and "trolls"). That's all.

PDR

[PDR1]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

WTF has golf got to do with anything?

PDR

[Senior Pilot]

[/left]
I don't care whether he agrees with me or not - he's entitled to an opinion. The operators of this forum hand out "Time away" penalties to people who post abusively - calling people "village idiots" would get others given penalties so I simply ask that the abusive post should get a similar response (as should calling people "snowflakes" and "trolls"). That's all.

PDR

When someone is abusive they will, if necessary, be moderated.

Most Rotorheads know the difference between what was said and what is abusive; snowflakes, trolls, etc in context are hardly abusive terms even in these times of the overly sensitive.

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

Im glad you stepped up to the podium to accept your award as the snowflake in question.

[whoknows idont]

WTF has golf got to do with anything?

PDR

It's a movie reference, never mind.

[PDR1]

When someone is abusive they will, if necessary, be moderated.

Most Rotorheads know the difference between what was said and what is abusive; snowflakes, trolls, etc in context are hardly abusive terms even in these times of the overly sensitive.

So I can suggest someone is a village idiot without risk of sanction?

I just want to be clear on this, because in the past I have been sanctioned for much less. Perhaps you could discuss it with Rob and give an answer that can be taken to be the formal Pprune position on such things?

PDR

[PDR1]

Im glad you stepped up to the podium to accept your award as the snowflake in question.

I'm glad you feel that helicopter pilots don't need to look where they are going. It just leaves the mystery as to why they bother fitting all those front windows at all...

PDR

[Senior Pilot]

So I can suggest someone is a village idiot without risk of sanction?

I just want to be clear on this, because in the past I have been sanctioned for much less. Perhaps you could discuss it with Rob and give an answer that can be taken to be the formal Pprune position on such things?

PDR

No, to the discussion, as there are too many variables involved. If you want to take it up with Rob via PM or email please do so. Your infringement was two years ago on Jet Blast, where you seem to spend most of your time. Maybe that’s more suited for your style of posting than Rotorheads.

No more discussion here, thanks.

[whoknows idont]

This helicopter was operating at very low level. We don't know whether the multicopter in question was being flown LoS or FPV - if it was indeed being flown LoS then the helicopter had started low-level flight without an adequate check that the area was clear of veessels, vehicles, structures or people. That's an PIC's obligation and serious offence in most jurisdictions.

There was no collision, so the erroneous* claim that a collision would automatically be the drone operators fault doesn't apply. The actual collision was with a tree which failed to "give way to any manned aircraft". Presumably you'd now expect the tree to have been arrested and placed in front of a grand jury?

The instructor was reportedly conducting low-level hover taxiing training. But he had chosen an area which, when he had needed to perform an evasive manoeuvre, put him in conflict with a tree. That suggests that either his choice of suitable training area was seriously flawed, or his situational awareness was lacking. After all, SC has many large native birds, and he could just as easily have needed to manoeuvre to avoid a bird as a multicopter.

So I wouldn't be as quick to apportion blame here...


* There would be a presumption, but there are plenty of circumstances in which blame for a collision would lie with the helicopter pilot
Drones threatening commercial a/c? (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c-43.html#post10056296)

I don't want to start anything here, but the reports aren't clear about the airspace rules at the location. Was this a case of a drone intruding into helicopter airspace or a helicopter flying in drone airspace (ie flying somewhere where he could not be certain that there were no other uncontrolled airspace users, and where it would be difficult to observe Vessel, Vehicle, Structure & Person rules?

PDR
R22 vs Drone (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/605513-r22-vs-drone.html#post10055346)

II've been using lithium polymer batteries for nearly a decade (I would guess I have about 70 lipo packs in my garage workshop right now, from the tiny 130mAh single cells up to some 5,000mAh 6-cell monsters
Drone strike (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/577691-drone-strike-7.html#post9349196)



No further questions.

[PDR1]

I fly RC models, not drones. There is a difference both in the things themselves and the way in which they are operated.

PDR

[Airbeater350]

I fly RC models, not drones. There is a difference both in the things themselves and the way in which they are operated.

PDR


FFS, you fly toys?
Seems you are the troll pal... Maybe keep your aircraft crash investigation skills for the next time you stove hobby into terra-firma.

And yes, Drones are actually useful, we operate several in the >20kg cat under a UOC. Models not so much

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

I'm glad you feel that helicopter pilots don't need to look where they are going. It just leaves the mystery as to why they bother fitting all those front windows at all...

PDR
how do you know he wasn't looking?
the angles, the speeds, thay all have factors that even the best reaction times wont solve.

you're grasping at straws to convince yourself there is only one person at fault here and you know absolutely nothing more than there was clearly a collision

[SASless]

No, to the discussion, as there are too many variables involved. If you want to take it up with Rob via PM or email please do so. Your infringement was two years ago on Jet Blast, where you seem to spend most of your time. Maybe that’s more suited for your style of posting than Rotorheads.

No more discussion here, thanks.


Rotorheads has always enjoyed a very fair, objective, even handed standard of moderator oversight....and continues to do so.

Other Forums mentioned and other persons mentioned....can not make that claim with any credibility.

Be glad we enjoy the exceptional service we do by the Mod's here at Rotorheads.

[Bell_ringer]

It is unfortunate that drone hobbyists feel the need to lecture pilots about how they are at fault and how they should be more accommodating.
Many of these guys have never been in a helicopter nor understand the environment and risks, yet they feel qualified to opine.
Resorting to the typical cliche's of drones are no different to birds. They are quite different, though can have a similar end result.
Your appreciation of risk changes when you realise that the worst that happens with a broken drone is buying a new one, where the consequences are slightly more serious for those operating further and faster above terra firma.
It's a pity more don't take the opportunity to learn about the environment rather than constantly defending poor discipline and flouting of regulations.

[TylerMonkey]

A drone can’t (queue dronies) get the quality shots that a Heli can! Stick to real estate shots!
AB

Unfortunately that has not been the case from my experience. . . speaking as an ex aerial cameraman.

[helimutt]

Unfortunately that has not been the case from my experience. . . speaking as an ex aerial cameraman.


I agree. Go ask an ex aerial filming team what they think of the quality of UAV footage nowadays compared to helicopter (for the cost etc) and they'll probably say they're glad they were in the business years ago and not trying to compete now. Even higher speed shots can be done by UAV's now using 4k+ cameras and +60mph.

Technology has to work together and unfortunately sometimes accidents happen.

[Rotor Kop]

Cannot believe we have to share the world with some really ignorant and stupid people. seriously since when does any insect (drone) have right of way in manned aircraft space?? Need to bring back the death penalty for idiots..

[JerryG]

Try sitting opposite a person at a table, write the number "6". Your oppo will see it as a "9". You are both right. That's called perspective.

Now let's shake off the Luddite and King Canute tendencies and bring some collective wisdom to the problems that are here to stay.

Fact - Drones have taken large chunks of helicopter work away, and will continue to do so.
Fact - There is work for both categories of flying machine, and they will consequently come into the same airspace more and more frequently.
Fact - Each category has strengths and weaknesses in the avoidance game. e.g. a helicopter has human eyes on board, a drone has sensors that helicopters can only dream of.
Fact - There are some great helicopter pilots and some that shouldn't ever have been allowed a licence. The same is true of drones.
Fact - Helicopters are very expensive and drones are very cheap. Therefore there will always be more drones than helicopters and the proportion of idiot-drone-pilots will always exceed idiot-helicopter-pilots.

Question - So how do we frame our discussion in a way that protects the arses of heli pilots while at the same time recognizes the facts above?

Opinion - I've often framed aviation questions to myself in terms of a bicycle and a truck. They are sharing the same piece of road but you don't expect a cyclist to have the same qualifications or other regulatory requirements as the truck driver. You DO expect the cyclist to be AWARE of the truck's presence and aware of the truck rules as they apply to the shared space (and vice versa). IMHO basic training, and probably some form of licencing, should be mandatory for drone owners of all kinds.

Opinion - A drone should be categorized like a shot-gun (In the UK and Australia at least!) … regulated, safe in the right hands after training, and controlled.

Opinion - CAA, CASA, EASA, FAA etc were not set up to be the arbiters of drones, because we never envisaged the advent. New bodies, working in parallel, are needed.

Opinion - Historical precedent of helicopters over drones is not a sensible start to the discussion.

Declaration - I'm a rotary pilot of 45 years, and a drone pilot of three years.

Less war war and more jaw jaw - drones are not going to magically disappear just because you like helicopters. If it looks like a "9" it could equally be a "6"

[Thomas coupling]

In OUTCAS it's see and avoid.
The helo pilot has only this option, ie: to use his visual senses. In addition looking for another aircaft in your proximity is hard enough when you are conducting close in collaborative filming with ground units...never mind trying to watch for a speck on the windscreen called a drone.
The drone operator however (who must retain line of site And remain outwith 150m of vehicles, vessels, persons, structures unless exempted also - has two senses working for him: visual and sound. He may not be able to see the chopper but he can hear the damn thing!
QED the onus is almost entirely that of the drone operator to avoid the other aerial platform.

[JerryG]

OK TC, so what technology is out there that can improve this situation? From all I read we are very close to being able to interrogate a drone from the ground in order to know everything about it (after all, it's already transmitting that to its operator) so it's surely not that hard, or expensive, to include such interrogation into the helicopter cockpit?



Tell me about it! I've spent half my flying life below 500'. See and avoid is always going to be the prime sensor but in any specific set of circumstances I'm certain we can devise a culture of mutual information.

[QUOTE= The drone operator however (who must retain line of site And remain outwith 150m of vehicles, vessels, persons, structures unless exempted also - has two senses working for him: visual and sound. He may not be able to see the chopper but he can hear the damn thing!

That's a good point about the sound TC and entirely valid since they should also have a "spotter", but don't expect VLOS to be a restriction for ever - it's already beginning to be permitted in limited circumstances.

[QUOTE= QED the onus is almost entirely that of the drone operator to avoid the other aerial platform.[/QUOTE]

I think that comes under the heading of "grandfather rights" - which isn't going to lead to a robust solution for the future.[/color][/color][/color]

[Helisweet]

A commercial drone pilot license is urgently needed.

[John R81]

A commercial drone pilot license is urgently needed.

And is already here in the EU.

On 26 June the EC adopted uniform measures for legislation concerning the safe operation of drones and their integration into the airspace. As a result, for example, "operators must be registered if their drones are capable of transferring more than 80 Joules of kinetic energy upon impact with a person"

The 'EASA regulation is based on a proposal of the European Commission December 2015 as part of its Aviation Strategy for Europe. Details, with multiple links to various regulations affecting both drones and traditional aircraft, can be accessed on the Council of Europe site. (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/drones/)

[John Eacott]

A commercial drone pilot license is urgently needed.

CASA Commercial Drone licence (https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/landing-page/flying-drones-australia)

No doubt Jerry can give far more information :ok:

[Bell_ringer]

The issue with remote piloted craft is that those that are serious about it will do the work to train and certify accordingly. The rest just don't understand why they need to be regulated and expect everyone else to accommodate them on the basis that they have decided they are "the future".
Without proper enforcement, the rabble will continue to disregard regulations and put others at risk as they simply do not understand the environment they are entering.
The best avoidance system will be for the operator's controls to discharge an exceedingly large voltage into the operator should their craft enter restricted airspace or get within close proximity to an actual aircraft.
That may work :E

[Fareastdriver]

Many years ago there was a model aeroplane flying club at the old Nutts Corner airfield near Belfast International. It was also on the visual approach route for our Puma and Wessex helicopters. There used to be a joker who would fly his model towards when we where approaching; not to hit us but just for fun; we think. Flicking the HF set to 27 megs and giving a 100mw blast would lock his controls up and you would watch it furiously gyrating towards the ground.

When you thought it had about 50 ft. to go you would give it back to him.

You can't do it now because they use different frequencies.

[Earpiece]

Thomas - I have heard that "who must retain line of site And remain outwith 150m of vehicles, vessels, persons, structures unless exempted also" is actually incorrect (and by you of all people). It is 50 metres, reducing to 30 metres during take-off and landing and if all are under the control of the operator, it would seem as close as he/she likes!. 150 metres applies to congested areas and crowds.
Earpiece

[PDR1]

Many years ago there was a model aeroplane flying club at the old Nutts Corner airfield near Belfast International. It was also on the visual approach route for our Puma and Wessex helicopters. There used to be a joker who would fly his model towards when we where approaching; not to hit us but just for fun; we think. Flicking the HF set to 27 megs and giving a 100mw blast would lock his controls up and you would watch it furiously gyrating towards the ground.

When you thought it had about 50 ft. to go you would give it back to him.

You can't do it now because they use different frequencies.

Well those old 27MHz sets were rated at half a watt (ERP), which means that you would have to have been much closer to model than its operator's transmitter to be able to swamp it in that way with a mere 100mW. And that then begs the question as to why, when you knew it was an established model-flying site, you apparently repeatedly flew close to it rather than choosing another route. How high were you at the time? You apparently remained close to it for quite a while since you maintained visual contact while watching it "gyrating towards the ground" (at normal approach speeds you'd have just a few seconds before it was well behind you).

But on the face of it you have just confessed to a prima facie case of criminal damage and violating the ANO. If I actually believed the story had any basis in reality I would report it, but I think we both know why I won't be doing that.

PDR

[Airbeater350]

I agree. Go ask an ex aerial filming team what they think of the quality of UAV footage nowadays compared to helicopter (for the cost etc) and they'll probably say they're glad they were in the business years ago and not trying to compete now. Even higher speed shots can be done by UAV's now using 4k+ cameras and +60mph.

Technology has to work together and unfortunately sometimes accidents happen.


To a certain extent yes, at speeds of less than 60mph and you mention cost... However, 60mph doesn’t cut in a car chase. Drone line of sight ops are quite restrictive too. Like I said they have their place, but can’t compare to what’s achievable in a helo.

[John Eacott]

Well those old 27MHz sets were rated at half a watt (ERP), which means that you would have to have been much closer to model than its operator's transmitter to be able to swamp it in that way with a mere 100mW. And that then begs the question as to why, when you knew it was an established model-flying site, you apparently repeatedly flew close to it rather than choosing another route. How high were you at the time? You apparently remained close to it for quite a while since you maintained visual contact while watching it "gyrating towards the ground" (at normal approach speeds you'd have just a few seconds before it was well behind you).

But on the face of it you have just confessed to a prima facie case of criminal damage and violating the ANO. If I actually believed the story had any basis in reality I would report it, but I think we both know why I won't be doing that.

PDR

First, the military HF in our helicopters had significantly more than half a watt in the 1960s and 1970s. It was an essential part of our comms package for world wide contact.

Second, what ANO in the 1960-70s do you imagine related to operations of remote controlled models, and how do you suggest anything was in violation by a military helicopter?

For a model plane driver you do seem to come here with some ill informed and unwarranted nonsense.

[PDR1]

First, the military HF in our helicopters had significantly more than half a watt in the 1960s and 1970s. It was an essential part of our comms package for world wide contact.

I know, but the post I was responding to explicitly stated that the HF was used to give a burst at 100mW. I'm afraid that 100mW is less than 500mW, even for some very large values of 100mW.


Second, what ANO in the 1960-70s do you imagine related to operations of remote controlled models, and how do you suggest anything was in violation by a military helicopter?


The ANO has always applied to model aeroplanes - back in the 60s and 70s there were exemptions from the certification parts for models of less than 11lbs (later expressed as "5kg", then increased to 7kg) AUW, but the operation parts still applied. People who interfered with model aeroplanes in flight were still prosecuted under the parts of the ANO which are now in articles 240/241 of CAP658 - this was the part used in prosecuting illegal CB users because for the purpose of "...recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft" a radio controlled counts as an aeroplane.

And of course deliberately making an illegal radio transmission to interfere with the operation of a model aeroplane is (a) criminal damage, and (b) a violation of what is now article 240 in "...recklessly or negligently causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger any person or property".

But the most important part is that if you look at the map and see the respective locations of the two airfields, and then consider that in the 60s and 70s the typical RC aeroplane was between 4 and 6 feet in wingspan, needing to be flown within about 300 yards of the operator and under 600 feet in order to maintain visual control, you will clearly see than anyone flying that low, that close to the Nutts Corner airfield was clearly recklessly endangering their own aeroplane. That's why I simply don't believe the story. If there was a standard visual approach route that went anywhere near the Nutts Corner runways the operation of RC models there would never have been allowed.

For a model plane driver you do seem to come here with some ill informed and unwarranted nonsense.

Other opinions are available. But any basic consideration of the facts as claimed show the story lacks credibility and should be in the running for the booker prize.

PDR

[John Eacott]

The ANO has always applied to model aeroplanes - back in the 60s and 70s there were exemptions from the certification parts for models of less than 11lbs (later expressed as "5kg", then increased to 7kg) AUW, but the operation parts still applied. People who interfered with model aeroplanes in flight were still prosecuted under the parts of the ANO which are now in articles 240/241 of CAP658 - this was the part used in prosecuting illegal CB users because for the purpose of "...recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft" a radio controlled counts as an aeroplane.

And of course deliberately making an illegal radio transmission to interfere with the operation of a model aeroplane is (a) criminal damage, and (b) a violation of what is now article 240 in "...recklessly or negligently causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger any person or property".

But the most important part is that if you look at the map and see the respective locations of the two airfields, and then consider that in the 60s and 70s the typical RC aeroplane was between 4 and 6 feet in wingspan, needing to be flown within about 300 yards of the operator and under 600 feet in order to maintain visual control, you will clearly see than anyone flying that low, that close to the Nutts Corner airfield was clearly recklessly endangering their own aeroplane. That's why I simply don't believe the story. If there was a standard visual approach route that went anywhere near the Nutts Corner runways the operation of RC models there would never have been allowed.



Other opinions are available. But any basic consideration of the facts as claimed show the story lacks credibility and should be in the running for the booker prize.

PDR

Oh dear oh dear: you are again coming onto a pilot's forum without a clue. The flight path into Aldergrove for military helicopters would have been as required operationally and probably well below 500ft AGL. I don't know for sure but FED (https://www.pprune.org/members/155730-fareastdriver) can give us the actuals since he was there, you and I were not. But I was flying operationally (seldom above 200ft) and have an inkling of what went on during the Troubles: dealing with a model plane operator with a penchant for flying toward military helicopters in those days would be much as FED describes. Any HF transmission by a military helicopter is hardly likely to be 'illegal' as mooted by you :hmm:

You are (again) springing to the defence of toy plane operators with little understanding of the other point of view: my comment about the ANO at the time and the violation by a military helicopter further shows that you haven't taken on board that ANOs didn't apply to the military :rolleyes:

[PDR1]

You are (again) springing to the defence of toy plane operators with little understanding of the other point of view: my comment about the ANO at the time and the violation by a military helicopter further shows that you haven't taken on board that ANOs didn't apply to the military :rolleyes:

Oh dear, oh dear. Around the time in question I was doing my PPL (by way of a flying scholarship) at an airfield where there were nearby model flying sites, and we were extensively briefed about the need for us to avoid and be aware of this known hazard. OK, so that was civil rather than military flying, but for that aspect there is not (and wasn't then) any significant difference.n MAA01 chap1, para1 clearly states:

1. The authority to operate and regulate UK military registered aircraft is vested in the Secretary of State for Defence (SofS). Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of provisions of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) do not apply to military aircraft, the Crown could be liable in common law if it were to operate its aircraft negligently and cause injury or damage to property. Furthermore, individuals could be criminally liable if there are significant breaches of the obligations placed upon them.

The MAA wasn't the regulator in the 70s, but this paragraph is not new regulation - it is merely summarising the legal situation which has existed for decades (probably back to the late 40s). Similarly the military do not, and have never had, carte-blanche authority to transmit on any frequency and power on a whim. If you think that to be the case then it's probably just lucky that you've never been caught doing it. Specifically, the military have no general authority to transmit intentionally damaging signals against civilian (non-combatant) targets with malicious intent in the absence of proper orders to do so - if any serviceman/woman does this they would be civilly and criminally liable for their actions.

Finally, I am not posting this to "spring to the defence of toy plane operators" - I am posting this to remind all pilots (civil or military) of their obligations and liabilities.This is a two-way thing, you know. I speak from both sides of this fence - I have been a model flyer, and have also had a PPL (only stopped when marriage and kids re-allocated the spending priorities). I have also been involved in military aviation in various professional capacities for most of my adult life.

I am also posting this to point out that the details of the story as told just don't stand scrutiny, of course.

PDR

[TylerMonkey]

Maybe car chases are good in helos , but close to actors at slow speed , and reveal shots through confined areas will always be superior with drones. No downdraft problems and we will now hopefully lose fewer crew to avoidable accidents.

[r22butters]

One night I was flying across the bay when suddenly the windshield went dark for a split second,...startled the **** out of me! Damn cloud he should have known that's MY airspace! Almost been whacked by birds a few times too!

,...its like they're all out to get me! :ooh:

[jimf671]

.... For helicopters to survive we will need to adapt, concede, ... coexist, ...
and increase insurance cover.

[Fareastdriver]

Just to clear things up. Nutt's Corner was NOT a licenced model flying area. One of the military VFR routings from the ATZ boundary was via Nutt's Corner below 500ft with no lower limit. In certain areas of Northern Island we had an operational ceiling of 200 ft. AGL. When Aldergrove ATC was aware that there was model flying going on they would warn us but could not prevent OR allow it.

We tolerated it but when they got aggressive then we used this trick. The only mistake I made was that the set was a standard HF set used by long range Transport Command and had an output of 100watts, not 100 mw.

[ShyTorque]

I have also been involved in military aviation in various professional capacities for most of my adult life.

But you obviously haven't flown a military helicopter in an operational environment where the aircraft were ordered to fly as low as possible either below 400 ft agl, or above 2,000 ft to have a good chance of staying alive (where the latter wasn't often an option). Some of us here have quite a lot of experience of doing so. The IRA had declared quite openly that they desperately wanted to shoot down a military helicopter and capture the crew, if they survived. They had the means to do so, and had shot down British military helicopters on more than one occasion, even though it wasn't generally reported in the media at the time, for political reasons.

We were required to carry out regular "Ops Normal" call on HF, btw. I've also seen the "HF" countermeasure applied to 27 Mhz R/C aircraft, although not carried out by myself. It definitely worked. Anyone aiming to cause a hazard to a military aircraft deserves everything they get, AK-47, SAM missile, or a R/C aircraft all count the same. Better a quick blast of HF to discourage them than a squirt from a 7.62 mm machine gun, which we were all equipped with.

My closest call with a R/C aeroplane as a civilian helicopter pilot was actually just north of Brent Reservoir in the Heathrow control zone, directly on the eastern flight path to RAF Northolt. A red and white aerobatic model with a wingspan of about five feet and carrying a tuned pipe along its spine went vertically upwards, just outside of my rotor disc. I was at 1200 feet LHR QNH, in accordance with my clearance from the Heathrow controller.

I have no axe to grind against R/C modellers (I have two R/C models of my own, one a powered aeroplane and a slope soarer glider). Only the ones who are either irresponsible or worse, deliberately endanger an aircraft.