|
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. |
Originally Posted by chopjock
(Post 10166300)
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!
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10166403)
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?
|
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. |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10166447)
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 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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 10167572)
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. 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 |
Originally Posted by Airbeater350
(Post 10167696)
PDR, RVDT actually posted some facts, and also doesn’t agree with you, so you want him banned? PDR |
Originally Posted by whoknows idont
(Post 10167565)
Obviously you're not a golfer.
PDR |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10167771)
[/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 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. |
Im glad you stepped up to the podium to accept your award as the snowflake in question.
|
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10167772)
WTF has golf got to do with anything?
PDR |
Originally Posted by Senior Pilot
(Post 10167809)
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. 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 |
Originally Posted by GrayHorizonsHeli
(Post 10167823)
Im glad you stepped up to the podium to accept your award as the snowflake in question.
PDR |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10167935)
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 more discussion here, thanks. |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10056296)
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
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10055346)
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
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10167937)
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
No further questions. |
I fly RC models, not drones. There is a difference both in the things themselves and the way in which they are operated.
PDR |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10168035)
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 |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10167937)
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 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 |
Originally Posted by Senior Pilot
(Post 10167961)
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.