Police drone crashes into....police
Thread Starter
Police drone crashes into....police
Police Drone Crashes into Police
Luckily it hit their Bearcat 4x4 armored car.
Usual story of loss of radio data link due to unknown reasons.
The most common theme in drone and RC crashes.
Mickjoebill
"[The] prototype drone was flying about 18-feet off the ground when it lost contact with the controller's console on the ground. It's designed to go into an auto shutdown mode...but when it was coming down the drone crashed into the SWAT team's armored vehicle."
Usual story of loss of radio data link due to unknown reasons.
The most common theme in drone and RC crashes.
Mickjoebill
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Doesn't this ring a bell or two?
This would be a fine one-off blooper story if it weren't for some upsetting implications. This is exactly why we have reason to raise multiple eyebrows at Congress, which wants to allow hundreds of similar drones to fly over US airspace. These drones are still a relatively young technology, relatively unproven, and relatively crash-prone. The odds of being hit by one are low, of course, but should a Texas-style UAV plummet ever happen in, say, a dense urban area, nobody would be laughing. Not all of us are driving around in Bearcats.
Thread Starter
The making of an American Hero...shooting down a government drone
While discussing new FAA regulations regarding unmanned aircraft in the NAS in an appearance on Fox News on Monday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer advocated for banning all unmanned aircraft from the NAS. "I don't want regulations, I don't want restrictions, I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war," said Krauthammer. "I would say that you ban it under all circumstances and I would predict, I'm not encouraging, but I an predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country."
Andrew Napolitano, a judicial analyst for Fox News, echoed Krauthammer's sentiments the next day in an appearance on Fox News. "The first American patriot that shoots down one of these drones that comes too close to his children in his backyard will be an American hero," said Napolitano.
Andrew Napolitano, a judicial analyst for Fox News, echoed Krauthammer's sentiments the next day in an appearance on Fox News. "The first American patriot that shoots down one of these drones that comes too close to his children in his backyard will be an American hero," said Napolitano.
Aviation Today :: AUVSI Responds to Unmanned Aircraft Controversy
mickjoebill
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rant and rave here
Many people who for lack of proper knowledge call all unmanned aircraft drones or remote control aircraft. A remote control aircraft, R/C is one remains within visual sight of the operator. If I stick a camera on a R/C aircraft and fly it around the local R/C club strip...IT NOT A DRONE. A true drone is one that flies out of visual range of its operator and typically above 400ft AGL. It is capable of autonomous operations. Meaning when positive control is lost, there is a flight plan, return home operation or flight termination action initiated.
The single most important safety factor for a drone is the see and avoid problem. Those of us who operate drones, I am retired now, see the solution in technology, such as sense and avoid. But there is still the humane factor. Case in point, a US Army RQ-7B Shadow Tactical UUmanned Aerial Vehicle (which I have operated personally) was involved in a mid-air collision with a C-130. The C-130 won and landed safely without any injury to its crew. Funny thing is that the RQ-7B was in it assigned airspace/altitude and the manned aircraft was negligent. This happened in the theater of operations where everything is tightly regulated.
Drones have their problems as with almost everything new to aviation. I am a rated manned pilot, but I realize that drones can do things that NO manned aircraft can do due to the limitations of a manned aircraft crew and the airframes lack of endurance. Last but not least, they are cheaper to operate, and the technogly is there for one operator to effectively control multiple aircraft at the same time. People thats like 1 operator doing the job of say 4 pilots. Dont think management has not got its wheels turning about the cost saving involved in that. I will be the first to be a bit hesitent about boarding an aircraft in which the operator does not have his personal life vested on the safe outcome of said flight.
As for not allowing them into the NAS, they are already there!!! Check with the FAA and just see how many certificate of authorizations (COA) that have been issued for that purpose. Granted they are restrictive and great pains are undertaken to exercise this option, but they are exercised. Mainly they allow for the transition of drones from one restricted airspace to another. But some allow for the patoling of the United States northern and southern borders. All in the name of homeland defense. Many measures are in place to facilitate these safe operations but it is happening! Get over it, they are here to stay! The president has mandated the FAA to implement procedures to allow greater access for drones in the NAS.
The single most important safety factor for a drone is the see and avoid problem. Those of us who operate drones, I am retired now, see the solution in technology, such as sense and avoid. But there is still the humane factor. Case in point, a US Army RQ-7B Shadow Tactical UUmanned Aerial Vehicle (which I have operated personally) was involved in a mid-air collision with a C-130. The C-130 won and landed safely without any injury to its crew. Funny thing is that the RQ-7B was in it assigned airspace/altitude and the manned aircraft was negligent. This happened in the theater of operations where everything is tightly regulated.
Drones have their problems as with almost everything new to aviation. I am a rated manned pilot, but I realize that drones can do things that NO manned aircraft can do due to the limitations of a manned aircraft crew and the airframes lack of endurance. Last but not least, they are cheaper to operate, and the technogly is there for one operator to effectively control multiple aircraft at the same time. People thats like 1 operator doing the job of say 4 pilots. Dont think management has not got its wheels turning about the cost saving involved in that. I will be the first to be a bit hesitent about boarding an aircraft in which the operator does not have his personal life vested on the safe outcome of said flight.
As for not allowing them into the NAS, they are already there!!! Check with the FAA and just see how many certificate of authorizations (COA) that have been issued for that purpose. Granted they are restrictive and great pains are undertaken to exercise this option, but they are exercised. Mainly they allow for the transition of drones from one restricted airspace to another. But some allow for the patoling of the United States northern and southern borders. All in the name of homeland defense. Many measures are in place to facilitate these safe operations but it is happening! Get over it, they are here to stay! The president has mandated the FAA to implement procedures to allow greater access for drones in the NAS.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree - UAV's are here to stay and the use /demand is increasing exponentially. It is the fastest developing area in aviation today..
UAV's are not RC aircraft, they are often sophisticated pieces of technology with complex integrated systems for operation. The technology is tightly controlled by multi nation agreements such as the Wassanaar Agreement
The Wassenaar Arrangement | Homepage
UAV's are not RC aircraft, they are often sophisticated pieces of technology with complex integrated systems for operation. The technology is tightly controlled by multi nation agreements such as the Wassanaar Agreement
The Wassenaar Arrangement | Homepage
Last edited by goldeneaglepilot; 19th May 2012 at 06:12.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wherever the wind takes me...
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Reaper or Predator will automatically return to the base if coms are lost, so how can these UAVs be much more dangerous than say a private pilot in a Cessna?
That being said, how useful are they in the civilian world?
That being said, how useful are they in the civilian world?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am so pleased that this very clever and expensive piece of autonomous equipment performed to an exemplary standard and safely went back to base and landed with no fear of damage or risk to life. Oh it didn't, back to the drawing board for them then. 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know they're already in the NAS. I've had to dodge a couple on EMS flights. Scared the med crew, but fortunately I saw them in time to avoid them without needing radical maneuvering. They're hard to see, though, and I would never count on seeing them at much distance.
So a Reaper or Predator will RTB if Comms are lost. How do they manage without their engines?
Many more RPVs have been 'lost' than have been brought down by an enemy and, luckily, they have "landed" in desert areas.
Don't kid yourself that they are safer than R/C models; They're just bigger, more complicated and have lots of money thrown at them to try and keep them in the air.
Their usefulness in civil life is growing almost daily and this (and their cost) is the driver for making them as safe and reliable as possible. However, that does not make them safe now - just compliant with early stages of new legisation.
Many more RPVs have been 'lost' than have been brought down by an enemy and, luckily, they have "landed" in desert areas.
Don't kid yourself that they are safer than R/C models; They're just bigger, more complicated and have lots of money thrown at them to try and keep them in the air.
Their usefulness in civil life is growing almost daily and this (and their cost) is the driver for making them as safe and reliable as possible. However, that does not make them safe now - just compliant with early stages of new legisation.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More ranting and raving
So a Reaper or Predator will RTB if Comms are lost. How do they manage without their engines? -
Rigger - these two drones you refer to are highly sophisticated. There is on board software that handles altitude, direction, and airspeed. Ever in the much smaller Shadow RQ-7B these are totally managed on board, when in otonimous flight mode such as when the operators loose link. It's all up to the operator and how he loads the instructions to the on board auto pilot prior to launch. These peramiters can be updated and changed while the aerial vehicle is in flight.
DauphanDude lost comms to me means I can no longer get the aerial vehicle to respond to real time control inputs from the ground station. There are slight variations to what each vehicle will do. That's up to what you programmed into the vehicle prior to loosing the link. Some of the options are to place the aerial vehicle into a glide which means intentionally grounding it, no matter what obstacles are in it's path. Another is to program a return home feature. This allows for the aerial vehicle to fly a bee line straight back to a predetermined geographic point, remain at a specific altitude and circle until fuel is exhausted or a ground control station regains comms and issues further instructions. The danger in the return home is that there is NO SEE AND AVOID. If dear old mom and pop in a Cessna happen to cross paths while this drone is bee lining it home, the drone won't turn, it won't climb nor descend. This is why development of sense and avoid is paramount to these systems.
Gomerpylot - I do not know where you operate meaning what country or airspace. But if you are squawking and talking I know for a fact that any military operated drone operator WILL know you are near. As I said there are safety measures that the military goes above and beyond what is required. Namely tactical early warning radar. The radar is ground based and designed to pick up cruise missiles, Tactcal Helicopters, and fast movers flying NAP of the earth. Your Low flying helicopter, guessing that its much higher the tactical helicopters fly are easy peasy. Look it up its called the sentinal radar. This is all conducted in restricted airspace. Not saying that you were inside airspace that you were not support to be, but maybe just maybe what you seen was a wayward R/C aircraft. Also predictors and reapers operate above 18000ft. The shadow is typically at 3 to 6 thousand feet. Down in the weeds, below 1000ft you most likely find ravens, another UAV just the bird! Its mostly styrofoam, even held together with tape and designed to break apart upon landing. It's also required to be flown in restricted airspace.
I have said before that some drones fly in the NAS through a certificate of authorization (COA). Can't speak about the US Customs birds but the US Army is required to have either a chase aircraft (most of the time a OH-58) or ground observers with radio comms direct to the drone operator. Giving the distances involved, chase aircraft are mostly utilized. So even if you didn't see the drone, I would hope you at least seen the Kiowa, hot on the drones a$$.
Just my 2 cents here.
Rigger - these two drones you refer to are highly sophisticated. There is on board software that handles altitude, direction, and airspeed. Ever in the much smaller Shadow RQ-7B these are totally managed on board, when in otonimous flight mode such as when the operators loose link. It's all up to the operator and how he loads the instructions to the on board auto pilot prior to launch. These peramiters can be updated and changed while the aerial vehicle is in flight.
DauphanDude lost comms to me means I can no longer get the aerial vehicle to respond to real time control inputs from the ground station. There are slight variations to what each vehicle will do. That's up to what you programmed into the vehicle prior to loosing the link. Some of the options are to place the aerial vehicle into a glide which means intentionally grounding it, no matter what obstacles are in it's path. Another is to program a return home feature. This allows for the aerial vehicle to fly a bee line straight back to a predetermined geographic point, remain at a specific altitude and circle until fuel is exhausted or a ground control station regains comms and issues further instructions. The danger in the return home is that there is NO SEE AND AVOID. If dear old mom and pop in a Cessna happen to cross paths while this drone is bee lining it home, the drone won't turn, it won't climb nor descend. This is why development of sense and avoid is paramount to these systems.
Gomerpylot - I do not know where you operate meaning what country or airspace. But if you are squawking and talking I know for a fact that any military operated drone operator WILL know you are near. As I said there are safety measures that the military goes above and beyond what is required. Namely tactical early warning radar. The radar is ground based and designed to pick up cruise missiles, Tactcal Helicopters, and fast movers flying NAP of the earth. Your Low flying helicopter, guessing that its much higher the tactical helicopters fly are easy peasy. Look it up its called the sentinal radar. This is all conducted in restricted airspace. Not saying that you were inside airspace that you were not support to be, but maybe just maybe what you seen was a wayward R/C aircraft. Also predictors and reapers operate above 18000ft. The shadow is typically at 3 to 6 thousand feet. Down in the weeds, below 1000ft you most likely find ravens, another UAV just the bird! Its mostly styrofoam, even held together with tape and designed to break apart upon landing. It's also required to be flown in restricted airspace.
I have said before that some drones fly in the NAS through a certificate of authorization (COA). Can't speak about the US Customs birds but the US Army is required to have either a chase aircraft (most of the time a OH-58) or ground observers with radio comms direct to the drone operator. Giving the distances involved, chase aircraft are mostly utilized. So even if you didn't see the drone, I would hope you at least seen the Kiowa, hot on the drones a$$.
Just my 2 cents here.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was well outside any restricted airspace. An Army base with restricted areas was 30 or so miles away, but I was no closer than that. They passed at my altitude, about 1000'AGL, within a quarter of a mile or less. No other aircraft were within sight. Maybe they were aware of me, but I couldn't, and can't, know that. Having camouflaged drones fly around in public airspace without any notice is not something that inspires confidence in me.
Last edited by Gomer Pylot; 20th May 2012 at 21:16.
Nothing more predictable to create an accident - or uncontrolled flight into things that get in the way [uCFIT]- than any categorical assertion that it is safe and never will go out of control ......
For years THEY have been SAFE ...... for years they have been bumping into things like SWAT trucks and people. The deaths are mounting.
Sheibel are in bits at the moment because this month one of their craft in South Korea went and rammed their support truck killing one of their men. They will get over it - but....
Everything man does has its risks and that is acceptable but lets not kid ourselves.
For years THEY have been SAFE ...... for years they have been bumping into things like SWAT trucks and people. The deaths are mounting.
Sheibel are in bits at the moment because this month one of their craft in South Korea went and rammed their support truck killing one of their men. They will get over it - but....
Everything man does has its risks and that is acceptable but lets not kid ourselves.
Last edited by PANews; 20th May 2012 at 22:42.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further ranting and raving...again!
Gomer Pylot - Fellow pilot, I am not refuting what you may or may not have encountered. I as well as you DO NOT have all the facts. BUT, you stated that the "drone was camouflaged". Been around countless US tactical "drone" operations, from all the branches and FACT: ALL of the aerial vehicles that are a programs of record are one of two colors. White or Grey with some day glow orange thrown in if it is in testing or research. Never camouflaged! Personally, Me thinks R/C once again! At a 1000ft your encounter (if it were a military operated system) would most likely been of the hand launched). Resolution from the cameras are not optimized at that altitude for those smaller systems. Plus you said you were 30 miles from restricted airspace. That's way outside our operating areas. And since those small drones are hand launched there is no reason to fly them in he NAS, being hand launched, they are backpacked into and under restricted airspace and then launched. But then again there are a lot of facts not here and this is a discussion in a forum. Just trying to open up your eyes to the possibility that your encounter could be the result of a less then safety concerned R/C enthusiast. Get on the Internet, go to YouTube, there are countless clowns out there mounting camares on R/C aircraft and flying everywhere. Case in point check out this link
How an RC airplane buzzed the Statue of Liberty, with no arrests | Ars Technica
I would like to know what idiot sanctioned this flight! If at all it was. As for the police officer, I fault him not, he doesn't enforce aviation regulations on a regular basis. This is an extreme situation for which it was mostly a first for him.
And that is two more of my cents
How an RC airplane buzzed the Statue of Liberty, with no arrests | Ars Technica
I would like to know what idiot sanctioned this flight! If at all it was. As for the police officer, I fault him not, he doesn't enforce aviation regulations on a regular basis. This is an extreme situation for which it was mostly a first for him.
And that is two more of my cents
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These were gray, and at least as large as my 206. Scared the crap out of the med crew, and didn't make me very happy. No way in Hell they were civilian R/C. I know what I saw. Deny all you want, but there are drones flying around in the central US, outside any restricted airspace, in the NAS along with all the civilian aircraft tooling around. I never thought I would see the day when I agreed with anything Krauthammer would ever say, but I'm with him on this.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful what you wish for
Careful what you wish for... Gomer-pylot you stated..."never thought I would see the day when I agreed with anything Krauthammer would ever say, but I'm with him on this"....say this happens, Drones have unresticted access to the NAS, Krauthammer hires you my friend, to cover a wedding in say Hollywood hills, Now here you are in your Bell 206 hovering at 500ft, my unmanned Bell 407 arrives and hovers at 1000ft. At that distance it is virtually impossible for most non-aviation people to distinguish 206 from a 407, let alone which is manned and which unmanned. Joe citizen takes aim toward the heavens and now there is incoming rounds. Who my friend has a more vested interest in ones personal kester at this monment in time...you or I? Unfortunetly this very scenario could very easily happen! Maybe not you but another brother of the wind.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend for someone such as your self, who is obvious has some intelligence and skill to achieve the level of professional status the you have obtained, you are so very closed minded.... That was a very easy and plauseable thinking exercise for you to ponder.....but at the 1000ft you hang out at, next time pull some pitch before answering.