Drone pilot sees helicopter and flies straight to its flight path.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 341
Likes: 3
From: New York City
Not at all. Giving the operator the benefit of the doubt, it appears that the UAV was below 400ft AGL, just barely outside the Class C, and in LOS to the operator, i.e. operating in accordance with US rules and reg's. This event could just as easily happened if the other aircraft was a Cessna 150. (It may also be worth noting that the recent UAV collision with the Israeli ag. helicopter also involved two aircraft both being operated completely within the letter of the law.)
- 107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
- (a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
- (b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Doesn't matter if he flew under 107 or 336 (PL 112.95 / Part 101). The operator failed in this case, and was clearly NOT operating within the letter of the law.
1. In the US it is trivial for UAV operators to file a NOTAM. This might still seem onerous to some UAV operators, but given the near impossibility of seeing a UAV nevertheless seems like a reasonable compromise. skyvector.com already does a fabulous job of displaying what skyvector calls "DROTAMS", i.e. UAV related NOTAMS. If these started showing up as nicely in Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, etc., or were carried on the FIS-B data stream, that would help a lot.
2. Create a radio frequency or two specifically dedicated to UAV operations, and require UAV operators to have and monitor an aviation radio. Then comm's could be established by aircraft entering UAV NOTAM'd areas (US rules do not prohibit entry). Aircraft and UAV operators could self-announce in a manner similar to that used at uncontrolled airfields. Again, a cost and regulatory burden to the UAV operator, particularly hobby types, but the price for being effectively invisible. Perhaps provide also for NORDO op's below 100ft AGL only, as a SOP to the low end of the hobby.
There are plenty of NORDO aircraft ops. Aircraft are only expected to monitor 121.5 when able, and otherwise can have radios effectively shut off when outside B/C/D airspace, if the pilot desires.
3. It is always said that "helicopters should avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic". Perhaps the same should be said for "avoiding the flow of UAV traffic", i.e. stay above 400ft. Just a reminder: US helicopter operations are not under the same 500 and 1000 foot AGL restrictions as fixed wing aircraft are in the US, although it would seem to be common sense.
This alone would have prevented the event in the video above.
I specifically left out ADS-B for UAVs. It would be cost and weight prohibitive for most UAV op's.
Also possibly worth noting: I have an FAA registered heliport on my property. Twice now I have received calls from UAV operators advising me that they would be operating within a 5NM radius and looking to coordinate for safety. So Part 107 is having an effect, people are starting to get the hang of things.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
MikeNYC
Not sure how this is relevant if the drone is in a 400ft hover, all on it's own to start with...
107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
- (a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
- (b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
From: USA
@MikeNYC:
I'm not going to dispute 107.37(a). It is, however, as a practical matter, difficult to be fully in compliance with this regulation when aircraft approach a UAV at speeds of 100KN or more, particularly if line of sight from the ground control station to the approaching aircraft is obstructed due to terrain, buildings, etc. There is simply not sufficient time to land the UAV, and landing the UAV is probably the only safe course of action. Typical vertical descent speeds are in the 2 to 4 meter/sec range. This puts the time to reach ground proximity in the 30 to 60 second range. You have to be able to detect an approaching aircraft from the GCS at at least 2NM or more. Experienced pilots many times have trouble detecting traffic in the pattern at this distance even when it is pointed out to them by ATC. It can't be any easier for UAV controllers and they are not in contact with ATC for traffic call-outs. This is one area where 107 is going to have to evolve and/or a technical solution brought to bear. If this guy gets hauled up on charges if he feels like fighting them he probably has a good shot at it. In the meantime I hope he files an ASRS report (FWIW).
And yet "full scale pilots" may indeed get so burdened with looking at tons of circles, whether you think it's a good idea or not. There is a huge economic force behind UAVs, they are not going to go away. However, UAV operators may get burdened with additional flight restrictions, mandatory NOTAMS, ADS-B, ATC comm's, and ground-to-air comm's requirements. Maybe even additional training requirements. BTW, I thought the Part 107 test was a joke. For a non-pilot it makes you feel like you learned something, and you did, just not nearly enough.
The FCC license issue is merely a paperwork exercise: https://www.fcc.gov/research-reports...k-menu-block-4 I'm sure that everyone you know that uses an aviation handheld radio on the ground has applied for and received an appropriate Multicom (probably the most applicable to this problem) or whatever is appropriate under FCC Part 87 license, right? I don't know a single person who has done this. It is probably one of the most ignored, if not most unknown, regulations. Not saying you are incorrect, BTW. You've clearly got the reg's wired tight. If you want to meet the letter of the law today there is a regulatory mechanism to do it. But if UAV ground control stations are going to get comm's, maybe some changes are in order here as well. Just like they changed the rules so that you no longer need a station license for your aircraft unless flying/communicating internationally.
Was the event in question a Part 101 flight, or a Part 107 flight? I assumed 107, but that might have been a bad assumption.
Thanks for the link to the Ping transponder. It is a nice technical solution. A bit pricey, though. You can buy one for $2K. Add the cost of a handheld radio and station license onto that and I'm sure the number of "Johnny Hobbyists" will be cut down quite a bit.
Another interesting technical solution will be possible when nearly everyone is equipped with ADS-B Out in 2020: a real time TIS-B feed via internet (cellular data). This would be invaluable at the GCS. Non-real time feeds with no integrity checks are available now, of course (Flightaware, et al). Even that could be helpful today.
At any rate, my intent here was to say that we all better learn to get along. A large regional helicopter operation near me started a UAV operation about 4 years ago. They know they are going to lose business, so they are planning to lose it to themselves! The collision avoidance problem is going to get worse before it gets better, the current Part 107 is not cutting the mustard.
I'm not going to dispute 107.37(a). It is, however, as a practical matter, difficult to be fully in compliance with this regulation when aircraft approach a UAV at speeds of 100KN or more, particularly if line of sight from the ground control station to the approaching aircraft is obstructed due to terrain, buildings, etc. There is simply not sufficient time to land the UAV, and landing the UAV is probably the only safe course of action. Typical vertical descent speeds are in the 2 to 4 meter/sec range. This puts the time to reach ground proximity in the 30 to 60 second range. You have to be able to detect an approaching aircraft from the GCS at at least 2NM or more. Experienced pilots many times have trouble detecting traffic in the pattern at this distance even when it is pointed out to them by ATC. It can't be any easier for UAV controllers and they are not in contact with ATC for traffic call-outs. This is one area where 107 is going to have to evolve and/or a technical solution brought to bear. If this guy gets hauled up on charges if he feels like fighting them he probably has a good shot at it. In the meantime I hope he files an ASRS report (FWIW).
And yet "full scale pilots" may indeed get so burdened with looking at tons of circles, whether you think it's a good idea or not. There is a huge economic force behind UAVs, they are not going to go away. However, UAV operators may get burdened with additional flight restrictions, mandatory NOTAMS, ADS-B, ATC comm's, and ground-to-air comm's requirements. Maybe even additional training requirements. BTW, I thought the Part 107 test was a joke. For a non-pilot it makes you feel like you learned something, and you did, just not nearly enough.
The FCC license issue is merely a paperwork exercise: https://www.fcc.gov/research-reports...k-menu-block-4 I'm sure that everyone you know that uses an aviation handheld radio on the ground has applied for and received an appropriate Multicom (probably the most applicable to this problem) or whatever is appropriate under FCC Part 87 license, right? I don't know a single person who has done this. It is probably one of the most ignored, if not most unknown, regulations. Not saying you are incorrect, BTW. You've clearly got the reg's wired tight. If you want to meet the letter of the law today there is a regulatory mechanism to do it. But if UAV ground control stations are going to get comm's, maybe some changes are in order here as well. Just like they changed the rules so that you no longer need a station license for your aircraft unless flying/communicating internationally.
Was the event in question a Part 101 flight, or a Part 107 flight? I assumed 107, but that might have been a bad assumption.
Thanks for the link to the Ping transponder. It is a nice technical solution. A bit pricey, though. You can buy one for $2K. Add the cost of a handheld radio and station license onto that and I'm sure the number of "Johnny Hobbyists" will be cut down quite a bit.
Another interesting technical solution will be possible when nearly everyone is equipped with ADS-B Out in 2020: a real time TIS-B feed via internet (cellular data). This would be invaluable at the GCS. Non-real time feeds with no integrity checks are available now, of course (Flightaware, et al). Even that could be helpful today.
At any rate, my intent here was to say that we all better learn to get along. A large regional helicopter operation near me started a UAV operation about 4 years ago. They know they are going to lose business, so they are planning to lose it to themselves! The collision avoidance problem is going to get worse before it gets better, the current Part 107 is not cutting the mustard.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 341
Likes: 3
From: New York City
Hover or in forward flight is irrelevant. Right of way applies just the same. Should a helicopter in a hover, hold position if a hot air balloon at 400' is drifting in its direction?
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 341
Likes: 3
From: New York City
@MikeNYC:
I'm not going to dispute 107.37(a). It is, however, as a practical matter, difficult to be fully in compliance with this regulation when aircraft approach a UAV at speeds of 100KN or more, particularly if line of sight from the ground control station to the approaching aircraft is obstructed due to terrain, buildings, etc. There is simply not sufficient time to land the UAV, and landing the UAV is probably the only safe course of action. Typical vertical descent speeds are in the 2 to 4 meter/sec range. This puts the time to reach ground proximity in the 30 to 60 second range. You have to be able to detect an approaching aircraft from the GCS at at least 2NM or more. Experienced pilots many times have trouble detecting traffic in the pattern at this distance even when it is pointed out to them by ATC. It can't be any easier for UAV controllers and they are not in contact with ATC for traffic call-outs. This is one area where 107 is going to have to evolve and/or a technical solution brought to bear. If this guy gets hauled up on charges if he feels like fighting them he probably has a good shot at it. In the meantime I hope he files an ASRS report (FWIW).
And yet "full scale pilots" may indeed get so burdened with looking at tons of circles, whether you think it's a good idea or not. There is a huge economic force behind UAVs, they are not going to go away. However, UAV operators may get burdened with additional flight restrictions, mandatory NOTAMS, ADS-B, ATC comm's, and ground-to-air comm's requirements. Maybe even additional training requirements. BTW, I thought the Part 107 test was a joke. For a non-pilot it makes you feel like you learned something, and you did, just not nearly enough.
The FCC license issue is merely a paperwork exercise: https://www.fcc.gov/research-reports...k-menu-block-4 I'm sure that everyone you know that uses an aviation handheld radio on the ground has applied for and received an appropriate Multicom (probably the most applicable to this problem) or whatever is appropriate under FCC Part 87 license, right? I don't know a single person who has done this. It is probably one of the most ignored, if not most unknown, regulations. Not saying you are incorrect, BTW. You've clearly got the reg's wired tight. If you want to meet the letter of the law today there is a regulatory mechanism to do it. But if UAV ground control stations are going to get comm's, maybe some changes are in order here as well. Just like they changed the rules so that you no longer need a station license for your aircraft unless flying/communicating internationally.
Was the event in question a Part 101 flight, or a Part 107 flight? I assumed 107, but that might have been a bad assumption.
Thanks for the link to the Ping transponder. It is a nice technical solution. A bit pricey, though. You can buy one for $2K. Add the cost of a handheld radio and station license onto that and I'm sure the number of "Johnny Hobbyists" will be cut down quite a bit.
Another interesting technical solution will be possible when nearly everyone is equipped with ADS-B Out in 2020: a real time TIS-B feed via internet (cellular data). This would be invaluable at the GCS. Non-real time feeds with no integrity checks are available now, of course (Flightaware, et al). Even that could be helpful today.
At any rate, my intent here was to say that we all better learn to get along. A large regional helicopter operation near me started a UAV operation about 4 years ago. They know they are going to lose business, so they are planning to lose it to themselves! The collision avoidance problem is going to get worse before it gets better, the current Part 107 is not cutting the mustard.
I'm not going to dispute 107.37(a). It is, however, as a practical matter, difficult to be fully in compliance with this regulation when aircraft approach a UAV at speeds of 100KN or more, particularly if line of sight from the ground control station to the approaching aircraft is obstructed due to terrain, buildings, etc. There is simply not sufficient time to land the UAV, and landing the UAV is probably the only safe course of action. Typical vertical descent speeds are in the 2 to 4 meter/sec range. This puts the time to reach ground proximity in the 30 to 60 second range. You have to be able to detect an approaching aircraft from the GCS at at least 2NM or more. Experienced pilots many times have trouble detecting traffic in the pattern at this distance even when it is pointed out to them by ATC. It can't be any easier for UAV controllers and they are not in contact with ATC for traffic call-outs. This is one area where 107 is going to have to evolve and/or a technical solution brought to bear. If this guy gets hauled up on charges if he feels like fighting them he probably has a good shot at it. In the meantime I hope he files an ASRS report (FWIW).
And yet "full scale pilots" may indeed get so burdened with looking at tons of circles, whether you think it's a good idea or not. There is a huge economic force behind UAVs, they are not going to go away. However, UAV operators may get burdened with additional flight restrictions, mandatory NOTAMS, ADS-B, ATC comm's, and ground-to-air comm's requirements. Maybe even additional training requirements. BTW, I thought the Part 107 test was a joke. For a non-pilot it makes you feel like you learned something, and you did, just not nearly enough.
The FCC license issue is merely a paperwork exercise: https://www.fcc.gov/research-reports...k-menu-block-4 I'm sure that everyone you know that uses an aviation handheld radio on the ground has applied for and received an appropriate Multicom (probably the most applicable to this problem) or whatever is appropriate under FCC Part 87 license, right? I don't know a single person who has done this. It is probably one of the most ignored, if not most unknown, regulations. Not saying you are incorrect, BTW. You've clearly got the reg's wired tight. If you want to meet the letter of the law today there is a regulatory mechanism to do it. But if UAV ground control stations are going to get comm's, maybe some changes are in order here as well. Just like they changed the rules so that you no longer need a station license for your aircraft unless flying/communicating internationally.
Was the event in question a Part 101 flight, or a Part 107 flight? I assumed 107, but that might have been a bad assumption.
Thanks for the link to the Ping transponder. It is a nice technical solution. A bit pricey, though. You can buy one for $2K. Add the cost of a handheld radio and station license onto that and I'm sure the number of "Johnny Hobbyists" will be cut down quite a bit.
Another interesting technical solution will be possible when nearly everyone is equipped with ADS-B Out in 2020: a real time TIS-B feed via internet (cellular data). This would be invaluable at the GCS. Non-real time feeds with no integrity checks are available now, of course (Flightaware, et al). Even that could be helpful today.
At any rate, my intent here was to say that we all better learn to get along. A large regional helicopter operation near me started a UAV operation about 4 years ago. They know they are going to lose business, so they are planning to lose it to themselves! The collision avoidance problem is going to get worse before it gets better, the current Part 107 is not cutting the mustard.
We don't know if it was a 101 or a 107 flight, but the deal with 101 is that unless the flight is clearly conducted under the provisions of Part 101, by default it is a 107 flight. But you're right, we don't know.
It's nearly impossible to get an FCC Multicom license for this application, as I understand it, to be a mobile operator not in support of manned aviation. But I stand to be corrected. As you mention, though, it is an oft ignored regulation. I think the idea of ADS-B instead of voice communication will be the better long term solution, especially with the 2020 mandate. In bulk pricing and with tech improvements, the $2k transponder will drastically drop in price.
Totally agreed on the ASRS report, if he knows what that is. These airprox incidents should be tracked so as to come up with safety solutions. Appreciate the math and logic of closure rates. Perhaps the "bubble" that UAVs are given is too large?
The 107 test is indeed absurd, and it's even sillier that the US has no practical exam requirements. Many countries (even the Bahamas) require a flight exam for a commercial UAS license, and hold pilots to a higher standard. Another issue is that the FAA hasn't shown it has any teeth in enforcement.
With regard to your comment of a TIS-B feed, that certainly could be incorporated now. There are plenty of public ADS-B feeds out there (FR24/PlaneFinder/FlightAware/ADSBExchange), and it would be low bandwidth if it's only covering a 5nm ring. Some UAS (DJI M200/M210) come equipped with onboard ADS-B receivers that will display traffic on the GCS, which is great. Certainly a good start. The 2020 mandate, however, won't require ADS-B Out everywhere so many small aircraft simply will choose not to equip.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
From: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Which part of Germany looks like that?
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
From: USA
It is good discussion, which is what we need as opposed to "Ground all drones, hang all drone operators!"
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 133
Likes: 60
From: Europe
The individual who flew and posted this footage was expecting a "wow great footage" response, instead he was torn apart on various drone forums.
Zero excuses for not taking evasive action, the approaching heli can be seen initially as a small speck but it grows plus he is bound to have heard it coming.
Zero excuses for not taking evasive action, the approaching heli can be seen initially as a small speck but it grows plus he is bound to have heard it coming.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
DroneDog
So about ten seconds to decide which way to go? So let's say he decided wrong and went closer to the beach? ...
Zero excuses for not taking evasive action, the approaching heli can be seen initially as a small speck but it grows plus he is bound to have heard it coming.
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 339
Likes: 1
From: Canada
im sure the impending sound of the 407 was longer than 10 seconds. but then again who knows what sounds were ground level and blocked it out.
I'm patenting a laser beam drone destructor. Called LBDD, which will automatically detect, track and destroy any object in the flightpath.
unfortunately in test trials, it has trouble distinguishing between birds and mechanical devices, so I'm sorry to the Audubon Society for the loss of those rare migratory birds. I hope the numbers can rebound with one good breeding season
I'm patenting a laser beam drone destructor. Called LBDD, which will automatically detect, track and destroy any object in the flightpath.
unfortunately in test trials, it has trouble distinguishing between birds and mechanical devices, so I'm sorry to the Audubon Society for the loss of those rare migratory birds. I hope the numbers can rebound with one good breeding season
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 133
Likes: 60
From: Europe
He cold have performed an emergency descent, throttling back the engines, the thing will fall like a stone before throttling up at a safe altitude.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: PNW
The operator not only saw the helicopter, he was panning left and right framing his shot to catch it, drones can drop in altitude very quickly and recover just as quickly.
He cold have performed an emergency descent, throttling back the engines, the thing will fall like a stone before throttling up at a safe altitude.
He cold have performed an emergency descent, throttling back the engines, the thing will fall like a stone before throttling up at a safe altitude.
Better yet, make that Abort function mandatory by law for all drones, built into the drone's own radio receiver. Program it to kick in automatically if it receives a certain encrypted radio signal. All manned aircraft then required to have a cheap radio transmitter generating this signal at a certain radius around the aircraft, say 1/2 mile. Aircraft gets anywhere close, drone drops close to the ground. Problem solved.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
From: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Maybe these things need an "Abort" red button on the controller that does this. A quick drop to 20 feet.
Better yet, make that Abort function mandatory by law for all drones, built into the drone's own radio receiver. Program it to kick in automatically if it receives a certain encrypted radio signal. All manned aircraft then required to have a cheap radio transmitter generating this signal at a certain radius around the aircraft, say 1/2 mile. Aircraft gets anywhere close, drone drops close to the ground. Problem solved.
Better yet, make that Abort function mandatory by law for all drones, built into the drone's own radio receiver. Program it to kick in automatically if it receives a certain encrypted radio signal. All manned aircraft then required to have a cheap radio transmitter generating this signal at a certain radius around the aircraft, say 1/2 mile. Aircraft gets anywhere close, drone drops close to the ground. Problem solved.
A team of cops out searching for a missing child have a helicopter or drone providing overview, and the rapid descent of a drone into their midst is a good thing because...?
Now we will have drones crashing into other drones or manned aircraft to avoid doing just that.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: PNW
It takes a special kind of clue-lessness to recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment too.
Even if we take that idea seriously, any government agency operating under this regime would have their own methods to prevent airspace conflicts. We're going to see some kind of restrictions that may include this kind of automatic avoidance in the future, so it's worth discussing the options. Especially those that prioritize manned aircraft safety over drones in the same airspace.
Even if we take that idea seriously, any government agency operating under this regime would have their own methods to prevent airspace conflicts. We're going to see some kind of restrictions that may include this kind of automatic avoidance in the future, so it's worth discussing the options. Especially those that prioritize manned aircraft safety over drones in the same airspace.
