Drones threatening commercial a/c?

[PDR1]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Quite so. It's all just a little TOO convenient to be real.

Never mind the convenience - that airliner is flying way too slowly to be real. You can see how close it is, and yet the angle-rate implies it's doing about 30mph...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Fortissimo

The general concept under pinning all regulatory regimes is that drones have no rights in visual flight conditions. That is they are always required to give way to any manned aircraft under all circumstances. If there is a mid air collision then it is automatically the fault of the drone operator.

Furthermore except for some specific circumstances with specially approved operators, and this will never apply to recreational operators, the drone operator must always maintain maintain sight of the drone. This must be sight with unaided eyesight, not binoculars, first person viewers etc etc.

[sxjack]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

That is they are always required to give way to any manned aircraft under all circumstances.

This comment by the UK CAA on EASA's NPA 2017-05 may be of interest -

"We agree that the remote pilot must be made clearly responsible for the safe separation from any other airspace user(s), however we do not think that an explicit statement regarding ‘giving way’ is appropriate or required. While an ‘always give way’ requirement sounds fine as a basic statement, it is not necessarily practicable, or even desirable when considered more closely. We should not give other aviators the impression that they always have right of way - this will only confuse pilots of manned aircraft at best, or promote inaction at worst, especially for encounters with the larger drones - while this limitation is aimed at the ’open’ category, it will undoubtedly become a de-facto impression that all drones, irrespective of their size, will always give way. In the UK, we have already had instances where pilots have flown towards drones they've seen and had Airprox with because they think they have right of way over the drone - manned aircraft must be ready to give way and, of course, avoid, too. We fully agree that the default option for drone operators in the ’open’ category should be avoidance, and it is likely that, in almost all cases, it will be the drone operator who sees the confliction before the pilot of the manned aircraft, but this is the reason for maintaining and closely defining the VLOS requirement."

[PDR1]

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

[Jetex_Jim]

It's worth keeping in mind that drones such as the DJI Phantom can also be flown on Waypoint mode. This means that the drone can be both out of LOS (line of sight) and beyond FPV (First Person View) video range. The operator can set up a chain of waypoints, upload them to the aircraft and send it flying. The ground based equipment can be turned off while the drone does its thing autonomously.

Such a drone could enter the airspace that the helicopter was practicing in after the helicopter pilot had done his checks and started his manouvering.

[Capn Bloggs]

We should not give other aviators the impression that they always have right of way - this will only confuse pilots of manned aircraft at best, or promote inaction at worst, especially for encounters with the larger drones - while this limitation is aimed at the ’open’ category, it will undoubtedly become a de-facto impression that all drones, irrespective of their size, will always give way. In the UK, we have already had instances where pilots have flown towards drones they've seen and had Airprox with because they think they have right of way over the drone - manned aircraft must be ready to give way and, of course, avoid, too.

Ridiculous.

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.

Ridiculous. Spotting another aeroplane to see and avoid is one thing. This is another.

Tantamount to saying yachts have to now give way to jet skis.

The regulators should grow some balls and make drone operators keep out of the way regardless, unless they are under ATC control or the operator has radio contact with the aircraft. See and Avoid relies, to a large extent, on the fact that pilots of both aircraft will do so. Drones can't do that, so keep them away!

[airpolice]

Originally Posted by PDR1

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?

* There would be a presumption, but there are plenty of circumstances in which blame for a collision would lie with the helicopter pilot

I know it's not going to help the debate a great deal, but in order to stick to the facts, there can't be a collision with a tree, unless the tree is moving.

The co in collide refers to two moving objects coming together. Your car can collide with a car coming towards your car, or your car can hit a tree.

A collision can't involve one moving and one static object. That's just not what the word means.

[airpolice]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

The regulators should grow some balls and make drone operators keep out of the way regardless, unless they are under ATC control or the operator has radio contact with the aircraft. See and Avoid relies, to a large extent, on the fact that pilots of both aircraft will do so. Drones can't do that, so keep them away!

At what size/mass limit do you suggest that "drones"become subject to regulation?

A cigarette packet sized $25 device, could destroy a turbine engine if it was ingested.

Are you suggesting that the government should now regulate all model aircraft?

[Capn Bloggs]

At what size/mass limit do you suggest that "drones"become subject to regulation?

Answered your own question...

A cigarette packet sized $25 device, could destroy a turbine engine if it was ingested.

Are you suggesting that the government should now regulate all model aircraft?

They ARE regulated: "keep away from airports". And they do. And of course the pilot of a model aeroplane is probably far more alert to the threat (and the rules for operation) to real aircraft than 90% of the riff-raff steering their drones through the sky.

In any case, my gripe wasn't so much with the regulation but the preposterous suggestions that aeroplanes should keep out of the way of drones that the (aeroplane) pilots see.

Another example of a disruptive technology where the rule-makers are too weak to come down hard immediately and nip the threats in the bud.

[sxjack]

There is now a preliminary report on the R22 incident on the NTSB website -

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...14X61821&key=1

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by airpolice

I know it's not going to help the debate a great deal, but in order to stick to the facts, there can't be a collision with a tree, unless the tree is moving.

The co in collide refers to two moving objects coming together. Your car can collide with a car coming towards your car, or your car can hit a tree.

A collision can't involve one moving and one static object. That's just not what the word means.

Not so.

While that may be the usual everyday meaning of collision, aviation Occurrence Categories (as defined in ICAO ADREP, ECCAIRS, etc) include several example instances of a collision between an aircraft and a static object.

For example CTOL (Collision with obstacle during takeoff/landing), GCOL (ground collision with an aircraft, person, ground vehicle, obstacle, building, structure, etc).

[462]

I have not posted before, but considered the following is very important and relevant:


Flights have been delayed and one was forced to divert away from Auckland Airport because a drone was spotted on the approach today 6 March 2018.

Following quote from the New Zealand Herald:

Air New Zealand flight NZ92 from Haneda, Tokyo to Auckland was diverted 500km away to Ohakea Air Force base near Palmerston North.
"Because drone sightings result in aircraft operations being suspended for a minimum of 30 minutes, the pilots of NZ92 needed to divert and refuel before returning to Auckland," an Air NZ spokesperson said.

Following the report of a drone sighting, about 20 planes circled Auckland Airport until they were given the all-clear to land.

A Police spokesman said police received a report of a drone in the Whitford area that was in airspace near the approach of an incoming aircraft that was making its way to Auckland Airport, around midday today.
"The Eagle helicopter was called to the area however the drone in question wasn't located and currently there are no lines of inquiry at this time," he said.
An Airways New Zealand statement said the pilot of a Q300 aircraft alerted air traffic control to the presence of a drone in controlled airspace.
"In accordance with standard procedures air traffic controllers reported the event to police and halted aircraft operations for 30 minutes," the statement said.
"During this time around 20 aircraft chose to hold in the air until they received clearance to land and one aircraft chose to divert."

Sorry, I tried to post the link, but I am only permitted to do this after ten posts.

[Karearea]

Here's the link:

Drone at Auckland Airport diverts flight, causes delays - NZ Herald

[DroneDog]

Drone vs airliner

The Chinese have conducted some tests regarding a collision, interesting video.


https://vids.onsizzle.com/caactv-sin...a-29858413.mp4

[funfly]

Makes a change from frozen chickens I suppose! However the biggest problem must be from engine ingress.

[Flapping_Madly]

Two moving objects hitting each other is a collision.
If one moving object is stationary it is an allision.
However for this to work you need to consider that the moving aircraft are ships: in this case airships.
I'll get my coat.

[Mark in CA]

FAA taps 10 pilot projects to help make FAA rules for drone integration

The projects are among 10 announced by the U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday that will help it assess how to regulate drones and integrate them safely into U.S. air space. The United States has lagged other countries in experimentation with drones, something the program hopes to correct.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1IA2WC

[golfbananajam]

this from the BBC today (UK drone users face safety tests and flight restrictions - BBC News)

UK drone users face safety tests and flight restrictions

UK drone users may have to pass online safety tests under legislation being introduced to the Commons on Wednesday
Restrictions around airport boundaries have also been clarified stopping any drone flying within 1km of them.
The changes, which are set to come into effect between 30 July and 30 November, follow a rise in the number of drone near-misses with aircrafts.
Aviation Minister Baroness Sugg said the measures were needed to "protect" aircraft and their passengers.
In addition to the safety tests, people who own drones weighing 250g or more will have to register with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Some drones, usually cheaper models, weigh less than 250g. But most - especially those with built-in cameras - weigh more.
Before, the regulations had applied to aircraft that weigh 20kg or less.
All drones will also be banned from flying above 400ft (121.9m), a rule which had been mentioned previously in the CAA's Drone Code but will now be enshrined in law
Users who fail to adhere to the flight restrictions could face unlimited fines, up to five years in prison, or both.
Owners of drones over 250g, who do not register with the CAA or complete the safety test, could be fined up to £1,000

[Geriaviator]

Over 50 years ago our CFI called the police when someone flew a big kite from a public park 200 yards from the threshold of 22 (long since displaced of course). They weren't interested until he told them it was a criminal offence under the Air Navigation Order, after which they were very helpful. As in so many fields today, governments can devise all the legislation they like but it's only as effective as its enforcement.

[mosteo]

Just saw another video on testing drone-wing collisions:

You Tube