Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a few, most recently a couple of impacts with model gliders. See the table on page 7 of the final report of EASA's Drone Collision Task Force
That's NOT as I read it. The EASA report you quote on pages 6 and 7 of your link gives details of 5 drone collisions with light aircraft, not model gliders. One was FATAL.
The circumstances of the FATAL COLLISION with a drone are on page 6 of your link. Here for ease of reference ...
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...on%20(005).pdf
That's NOT as I read it. The EASA report you quote on pages 6 and 7 of your link gives details of 5 drone collisions with light aircraft, not model gliders. One was FATAL.
The circumstances of the FATAL COLLISION with a drone are on page 6 of your link. Here for ease of reference ...
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...on%20(005).pdf
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...on%20(005).pdf
Though hardly the archetypal "drone collision".
A motorglider strayed into a R/C model aircraft flying area and encountered a model glider towing combo. In the resulting collision the wing of the Grob was severed leading to a loss of control.
https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikatio...ublicationFile
A motorglider strayed into a R/C model aircraft flying area and encountered a model glider towing combo. In the resulting collision the wing of the Grob was severed leading to a loss of control.
https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikatio...ublicationFile
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, you are quite right I have re-read the EASA report on page 6 of the link (I can't read the German report) and is does indeed say the Grob hit a model.
Quite why they say on the table on page 7 it collided with a dingo drone, I have no idea. I now also have no idea why they mentioned it at all.
Sorry for the misleading post...
Quite why they say on the table on page 7 it collided with a dingo drone, I have no idea. I now also have no idea why they mentioned it at all.
Sorry for the misleading post...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another incident to blame on drones
From another thread....
Found one already.
"Occurrence No.: A17F0018 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: COLLISION (x)
Date: 2017-01-20 Time: 23:00:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
HEAD OFFICE
Location: 22.00 Nautical miles SE From SCEL - Arturo Merino Benítez
International Airport - Santiago de Chile
Country: CHILE Province:
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FIGR Operator: VIH HELICOPTERS LTD
Manufacturer: KAMOV Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model: KA-32A11BC CARS Sub Part: 702 - AERIAL WORK
Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 2
Unknown: 0
Occurrence Summary:
C-FIGR, a Kamov KA-32A11BC aircraft operated by VIH Helicopters, was conducting forest fire suppression operations in Chile with 2 pilots on board.
As the aircraft was returning after a water drop, the crew heard a loud bang. There were no warning lights and no mechanical abnormalities were noted. The flight crew initially determined that they experienced a bird strike and returned to base where the helicopter landed with no further events.
Maintenance personnel performed an inspection and found minor damage to the front avionics door. No evidence of a bird strike could be found, however a tear in the skin of the helicopter, as opposed to a dent, was identified. Additionally, evidence consistent with a plastic smear on the paint as well as damage to the door’s lower hinge was found. The operator suspects a collision with a hard object similar to a drone."
"Occurrence No.: A17F0018 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: COLLISION (x)
Date: 2017-01-20 Time: 23:00:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
HEAD OFFICE
Location: 22.00 Nautical miles SE From SCEL - Arturo Merino Benítez
International Airport - Santiago de Chile
Country: CHILE Province:
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FIGR Operator: VIH HELICOPTERS LTD
Manufacturer: KAMOV Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model: KA-32A11BC CARS Sub Part: 702 - AERIAL WORK
Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 2
Unknown: 0
Occurrence Summary:
C-FIGR, a Kamov KA-32A11BC aircraft operated by VIH Helicopters, was conducting forest fire suppression operations in Chile with 2 pilots on board.
As the aircraft was returning after a water drop, the crew heard a loud bang. There were no warning lights and no mechanical abnormalities were noted. The flight crew initially determined that they experienced a bird strike and returned to base where the helicopter landed with no further events.
Maintenance personnel performed an inspection and found minor damage to the front avionics door. No evidence of a bird strike could be found, however a tear in the skin of the helicopter, as opposed to a dent, was identified. Additionally, evidence consistent with a plastic smear on the paint as well as damage to the door’s lower hinge was found. The operator suspects a collision with a hard object similar to a drone."
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, indeed.
I used to fly a small drone. I was never closer than several miles from the nearest airport and I kept well within CAA rules (below 400', never more than 400 yards away).
Yet on a couple of occasions a helicopter came by at about 200'. In each case I descended rapidly but I can't be sure that if the helicopter had been going straight at my drone I would have been out of the way in time.
Eventually I sold the drone. I got some great aerial footage but it wasn't worth the risk of a collision.
I used to fly a small drone. I was never closer than several miles from the nearest airport and I kept well within CAA rules (below 400', never more than 400 yards away).
Yet on a couple of occasions a helicopter came by at about 200'. In each case I descended rapidly but I can't be sure that if the helicopter had been going straight at my drone I would have been out of the way in time.
Eventually I sold the drone. I got some great aerial footage but it wasn't worth the risk of a collision.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What altitude was the helicopter my ****! It was fire-fighting!
This is precisely the reason that those who operate legally at low level are so worried about the damn things. They can pop up anywhere and as msjh said when a bona-fide low level aircraft appears there is little time to react. Helicopters and light aircraft operate into and out of remote sites, fly legally below 200ft on some exemptions (power lines for instance, the regular 200ft (!!??? Hmm...) Chinook low-level route by my house) and way below 500 on many others - and don't need an exemption to ground level on open countryside anyway - so drones are a potential threat.
Drone operators and legislators blindly imagining that a height separation solves the problem are severely deluding themselves, as shown by the extraordinarily smug question asked by ATC watcher. Helicopters and light aircraft operate perfectly legally in the airspace below 500ft and it is neither their responsibility nor within their capability to avoid drones. The only one who can do that is the drone operator - and there seems precious little evidence that even the drone guidelines, lax as they are, are even known by many operators (many/most of whom are amateurs of course) let alone adhered to. Go look on youtube to see some of the idiotic things people are proudly boasting of doing with them!
If drones were hard-wired to no more than 100 or 150 ft I'd have thought they'd achieve most of what they need to do and remain pretty safe. 400ft seems vastly excessive to me in view of legitimate pre-existig aviation requirements.
I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.
This is precisely the reason that those who operate legally at low level are so worried about the damn things. They can pop up anywhere and as msjh said when a bona-fide low level aircraft appears there is little time to react. Helicopters and light aircraft operate into and out of remote sites, fly legally below 200ft on some exemptions (power lines for instance, the regular 200ft (!!??? Hmm...) Chinook low-level route by my house) and way below 500 on many others - and don't need an exemption to ground level on open countryside anyway - so drones are a potential threat.
Drone operators and legislators blindly imagining that a height separation solves the problem are severely deluding themselves, as shown by the extraordinarily smug question asked by ATC watcher. Helicopters and light aircraft operate perfectly legally in the airspace below 500ft and it is neither their responsibility nor within their capability to avoid drones. The only one who can do that is the drone operator - and there seems precious little evidence that even the drone guidelines, lax as they are, are even known by many operators (many/most of whom are amateurs of course) let alone adhered to. Go look on youtube to see some of the idiotic things people are proudly boasting of doing with them!
If drones were hard-wired to no more than 100 or 150 ft I'd have thought they'd achieve most of what they need to do and remain pretty safe. 400ft seems vastly excessive to me in view of legitimate pre-existig aviation requirements.
I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
noflynomore : reading the small report helps, they were not fire fighting but returning to the airport :
I do not know the rules in Chile , but in Europe , it would 500 ft minimum. hence the Drone regulation. We have had recently in the UK an airprox filed by a drone owner , when an helicopter came at 100-200ft right above where he was working ( legally) .
Remember a drone owner do not want his expensive toy to be destroyed either...
Location: 22.00 Nautical miles SE From SCEL - Arturo Merino BenítezInternational Airport - Santiago de Chile. [...] As the aircraft was returning after a water drop,
Remember a drone owner do not want his expensive toy to be destroyed either...
The regs might say 500 ft but who in the military in france obeys that!
Many moons ago I did a microlight license at an airfield notified to the dgac...had an airmiss with a pair of mirages ...one of which we heard...the other who knows.
My brother was instructing a customer with a small basic model aircraft trainer...two pairs of super etandards flew over the field ..one pair below the model. Again the airfield registered with the dgac.
They have taken out a few microlights over the years.
I should add that they use the area for basic cross country training...rather foolish to plan over airfields imho.
On a similar subject of low flying military watched a Tornado cross the Thames from the london eye south to north ...way below the 500ft rule.
Many moons ago I did a microlight license at an airfield notified to the dgac...had an airmiss with a pair of mirages ...one of which we heard...the other who knows.
My brother was instructing a customer with a small basic model aircraft trainer...two pairs of super etandards flew over the field ..one pair below the model. Again the airfield registered with the dgac.
They have taken out a few microlights over the years.
I should add that they use the area for basic cross country training...rather foolish to plan over airfields imho.
On a similar subject of low flying military watched a Tornado cross the Thames from the london eye south to north ...way below the 500ft rule.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blind pew : but who in the military in France obeys that!
. ULM ( ultra lights) "airfields" are just like private landing strips. They are registered but are not protected against low levels military in the corridors. Golden rule we all do : Check the Notams before using the airspace.
If drones were hard-wired to no more than 100 or 150 ft I'd have thought they'd achieve most of what they need to do and remain pretty safe. 400ft seems vastly excessive to me in view of legitimate pre-existig aviation requirements.
I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.
I fear it is only a matter of time before this is backed up by a body count.
If that's the way you want it I'm sure it could be arranged...
ATC watcher...the regulation in height here is 500ft...and certainly five years ago there were none in our region marked on charts as I used to fly transponder equipped gliders and work military ATC.
By the way I got the military limit from a mate who was ex naval fighter pilot whilst we were sipping golden nectar on my terrace watching a couple of guys fly past around 300ft at 300 knots...
By the way I got the military limit from a mate who was ex naval fighter pilot whilst we were sipping golden nectar on my terrace watching a couple of guys fly past around 300ft at 300 knots...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drones/Kites/RC/Birds of Prey...
Doesn't matter what the device/species involved in the impact - it can be deadly serious.
If "operated" by a person on the ground it must be line of sight well away from aerodromes & known low level corridors. A white drone against a light grey/white sky makes conspicuity difficult for the operator let alone a pilot travellling over 100kts.
All single engine flying requires engine-out training towards a successful forced landing (PFL). Whilst pilots must obey the 500' rule for civilian flying that can be 500' horizontally to ensure the pilot can demonstrate correct PFL technique.
As for demanding the defenders of democracy not to fly below 1500'.................. WTF!
It is the personal level of risk that matters. A drone operator is very unlikely to die in a drone collision (unless it falls on his head from 500'), a pilot and passengers hit by a drone risk death.
If "operated" by a person on the ground it must be line of sight well away from aerodromes & known low level corridors. A white drone against a light grey/white sky makes conspicuity difficult for the operator let alone a pilot travellling over 100kts.
All single engine flying requires engine-out training towards a successful forced landing (PFL). Whilst pilots must obey the 500' rule for civilian flying that can be 500' horizontally to ensure the pilot can demonstrate correct PFL technique.
As for demanding the defenders of democracy not to fly below 1500'.................. WTF!
It is the personal level of risk that matters. A drone operator is very unlikely to die in a drone collision (unless it falls on his head from 500'), a pilot and passengers hit by a drone risk death.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The things in the table in the EASA report that stand out for me are the absence of multirotors and the fact that all the manned aircraft are small private planes.
Perhaps this one (March 2016):
www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox Report 2016038.pdf
or maybe another ...
Interesting that in the March incident, the helicopter involved couldn't be traced or identified despite being on radar for at least part of its flight.
www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox Report 2016038.pdf
or maybe another ...
Interesting that in the March incident, the helicopter involved couldn't be traced or identified despite being on radar for at least part of its flight.
@DaveReidUK:
I, and I think electrotor, meant to refer to ATC Watcher's post #687, above:
I, and I think electrotor, meant to refer to ATC Watcher's post #687, above:
We have had recently in the UK an airprox filed by a drone owner, when an helicopter came at 100-200ft right above where he was working (legally).
