Drone Collision with helicopter = tail rotor failure
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Gauteng and in the bush catching problem animals or mining diamonds
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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"
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I think that comes under the heading of "grandfather rights" - which isn't going to lead to a robust solution for the future.
Originally Posted by [/color
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.
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.
Originally Posted by [/color
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.
Originally Posted by [/color
QED the onus is almost entirely that of the drone operator to avoid the other aerial platform.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Earpiece
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
PDR
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
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
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
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
Originally Posted by MAA01
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: earth
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
,...its like they're all out to get me!
