407 and drone close call

[Cyclic Hotline]

Check out this video! https://unofficialnetworks.com/2023/09/12/drone-helicopter-near-miss/

[MechEngr]

Video is 5 years old; no follow-up report even though the helicopter is distinctive and easily traced. It appears to be faked from some flight simulator software.

[helithree]

That is definetly not a simulator

[BigMike]

Direction of blade rotation...

[MechEngr]

No shadow of helicopter on ocean/shallows; lack of exhaust heat distortion/shimmer that would be nearly head on; given the use of a wide-angle lens for the copter to appear that large it would be within a few feet, but the "drone" is unperturbed by what should be a violent downwash flow.

-and -

The helicopter company would have taken 30 minutes or less for a news agency and the FAA to identify, followed by at least trying to interview the pilot or go to the owner.

It is possible the helicopter is extracted from a flight simulator and is composited with real footage from an over-height flight, but I remain confident this encounter didn't happen.

[helithree]

In 30 fps videos the 4-bladed rotors usually appear turning the opposite direction...

[212man]

In 30 fps videos the 4-bladed rotors usually appear turning the opposite direction...
Exactly - discussing blade turning direction is a complete red herring! Even going back years we see movies with stage coach, trains and vehicle wheels going backwards. Videos of the EC155 online, with the Nr selected to Hi (vertical take off and landings) show the blades completely stationary! In this example we see them going backwards and forwards and stationary, at different rpms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx4GTS5ipUI)

[helispotter]

While the scenario is totally credible, I am inclined to agree with MechEngr that this video is a fake. My reasoning is different: I looked at a few frames where the '407' was close to the drone and some of the elements of the helicopter drop out such as the right skid and parts of the cross tubes. In the comments on the YouTube video one person puts this down to what happens when a video is re-rendered (presumably when posted to YouTube) but I am doubtful. Others had commented on YouTube about lack of any sign of pilots on board, and I also don't see any clear signs of anyone on board as it passes.

Initially I thought the helicopter had too much sideslip as it was approaching but I realised this could be due to the relative view from a drone moving out to sea (as it apparently was) on a near collision course. I initially also thought the helicopter couldn't be seen when the drone camera panned around but in fact it can be seen and is roughly the size it would be expected to be once it comes back into view, so I can't fault that. Like MechEngr, others on YouTube have also commented about the lack of reaction of the drone to the downwash from the passing rotor, but I wonder how strong the downwash would be from a fast moving helicopter for a drone that was already to one side of the helicopter path?

There is some sort of 'registration' on the cowling but I couldn't read it. I tried to Google search on the internet for a Bell 407 with such a paint scheme but without luck. But as MechEngr says, if this was real, wouldn't the identity of the helicopter and its pilot(s) have been resolved way back in August 2018. And how did the drone footage make its way from the drone operator to CBS Miami? In a plain brown envelope perhaps? All seems a bit suspect.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/789x377/bell_407_from_drone_fake_no_pilots_1713a74b66e1c3c63b9754038 287982faa994f20.jpg
No obvious sign of any pilots as it passes.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/719x399/bell_407_from_drone_fake_screenshot_20230913_171128_b7a10cea e640d696622ef75ef2bec7a5970654b3.jpg
A screenshot where right skid is 'missing'

[212man]

Well, in other frames the right skid is visible! Also, the title of the news article says that the FAA is investigating the incident!

I don’t know why everyone jumps on the ‘fake’ bandwagon as a default position. It’s not even a particularly unusual video and is totally plausible.

[DIBO]

Also, the title of the news article says that the FAA is investigating the incident!
You are referring to a 5 year old news article https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/helicopter-nearly-collides-with-drone-off-hollywood/
Did you see any FAA reports published on this matter in the meantime??

[212man]

You are referring to a 5 year old news article https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/helicopter-nearly-collides-with-drone-off-hollywood/
Did you see any FAA reports published on this matter in the meantime??
I know it’s not current - I can read! No idea about any reports as I did not look for them. I don’t even know if they’d be public in this kind of investigation.

[[email protected]]

Well, in other frames the right skid is visible! I think that was the point, if it were real then the skid would be there in every frame but if it is software generated it could just be a coding error or glitch which only shows up occasionally.

Equally it could be real and the skid is in an area where the camera's software fills in the gaps to save computing power and memory.

[MechEngr]

Until there are Artificial Intelligence cameras, deciding the skid was an extraneous detail isn't something a camera can do, even to save memory. Doing so would take a large amount of computing effort.

Extracting a blurred helicopter from a video game or flight simulator backdrop and, from that, losing small details is expected for current low-cost editing software.

If this had happened it would be the banner for the useless garbage RFID the FAA has failed so miserably with.

[helispotter]

...I don’t know why everyone jumps on the ‘fake’ bandwagon as a default position. It’s not even a particularly unusual video and is totally plausible.

I did also start my comment that the scenario was credible. I have shared links to several video clips on this forum where I didn't for a second imagine they were fake, so it is hardly my default position. Just in this case I felt it may be mocked-up. Personally, I would be interested to know if it was real or simulated and if the latter, I would give the person who did it a pat on the back for a job well done!

[[email protected]]

Until there are Artificial Intelligence cameras, deciding the skid was an extraneous detail isn't something a camera can do, even to save memory. Doing so would take a large amount of computing effort. As I understand it, that is what cameras like the go pro 360 do already.

[Salusa]

I believe we we are all in a simulation.

My back and neck argues against it though....

3rd G&T on the table.

[Ohrly]

No shadow of helicopter on ocean/shallows; lack of exhaust heat distortion/shimmer that would be nearly head on; given the use of a wide-angle lens for the copter to appear that large it would be within a few feet, but the "drone" is unperturbed by what should be a violent downwash flow.

-and -

The helicopter company would have taken 30 minutes or less for a news agency and the FAA to identify, followed by at least trying to interview the pilot or go to the owner.

It is possible the helicopter is extracted from a flight simulator and is composited with real footage from an over-height flight, but I remain confident this encounter didn't happen.

There is a shadow in the shallows in front and to the right of the approaching helicopter. However it just highlights that the moving parts of the video appear "jerky" at this point and not smooth, while the camera seems to be able to pan smoothly at the same time.

[212man]

Talking of 'shadows' I suspect that considering the colour scheme, lack of registration markings, and the sensor mounted on the nose, that maybe the 407 belongs to an organisation that does not like publicity!

[netstruggler]

As I understand it, that is what cameras like the go pro 360 do already.

Not really. They delete static elements (eg the camera support) from the image and fill in the picture behind using footage from a separate lens, much like how we avoid seeing our own nose most of the time.

[albatross]

Could we all just agree that flying a drone where you should not is a bad thing?

[[email protected]]

Not really. They delete static elements (eg the camera support) from the image and fill in the picture behind using footage from a separate lens, much like how we avoid seeing our own nose most of the time.
So if the skid enters an area of lens coverage like that it could disappear for a few frames until it moves out again as it would if something entered the frame in the area of the camera support then?

[212man]

So if the skid enters an area of lens coverage like that it could disappear for a few frames until it moves out again as it would if something entered the frame in the area of the camera support then?
it’s certainly in most of the frames!

[MechEngr]

Could we all just agree that flying a drone where you should not is a bad thing?

We could if it was always a bad thing. With mid-air after mid-air from "See and Avoid" and fatality after fatality one might conclude that multi-rotor drones aren't ever a bad thing in the grand scheme, having been involved in zero fatalities in 50+ years of hobby use. So far there has been one incident, between a military helicopter and a drone that resulted in minor (recognizably costly) damage to the helicopter, six years ago. This with literally tens of millions of multi-rotor drones being sold in the US.

The hobby side has begged the FAA to require ADS-B Out on all manned aircraft, including powered parafoils, but the FAA has refused, in spite of paying aircraft owners a rebate on such systems. The system the FAA has pushed onto drone operators is insufficient to alert manned aircraft operators. Such is regulation.

[Copterdoc]

Wow, that’s crazy