이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 44

Officials probe first possible drone-related aircraft crash in the US

제출됨
 
US authorities have started investigating what could be the first drone-related aircraft crash in the US, according to Bloomberg. Pilots have been reporting more and more drone sightings these past few years based on data from the FAA, but most of those incidents have been harmless. That might not be the case this time around. The pilot and student flying the helicopter that crashed in South Carolina on Wednesday told investigators they saw a small drone appear in front of them while practicing… (www.engadget.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


rapidwolve
While I agree too many drone operators are becoming a-hats, and making a mess of the industry, HTH did the pilot know it was a DJI Phantom? (there are many many out there that look familiar) If busy trying to fly the helicopter, they should not keep their eye on a drone, should they?"
serdyfsx12
Yes Officer, I ran the red light because I saw a kid with a ball . . . Geez . . .
tongo
"Yes, officer, I posted on this forum before thinking."
upchucked
Sure sounds like a clear case of pilot error to me. "Well, officer, I was with my wife and we were on our way to church and driving down Main St. I noticed a big brown dog running in and out of the street by some parked cars. I was afraid the dog would cause an accident, so I made a quick 180 to get to another street, but in making the turn, I hit the blue pickup truck in that guys driveway. The dog made me do it, and he also ate the photos I took of him...." I'll bet they find zero evidence of a drone being in the area, even though they could legally fly there.
tongo
Wrong. And your analogy is inaccurate. Did you read the article? The pilot stated that he was maneuvering to avoid a collision. Bad analogies will lead to bad conclusions, which is what happened in your case.
Citst46
Actually, I would say the analogy of one possible version is spot-on. The pilot may have hit the trees in a low altitude operation and fabricated the "big brown drone" story to shift blame. Or there could have been a drone in the area. Both vehicles in that case would have been legally operating. If there was a drone, the pilot should show the video to give his side of the story.
tongo
That would be what I would call irresponsible conjecture. Claiming someone a liar with no evidence whatsoever is dishonorable. Don't make stuff up.
rapidwolve
Where did he directly call anyone a liar? Even those who investigate hold all theories accountable until the correct 1 is brought to light via evidence! Are they too thinking the pilot may have lied..absolutely
tongo
Here, the post I replied to.
“The pilot may have hit the trees in a low altitude operation and fabricated the "big brown drone" story to shift blame.”

And there were two pilots, so for this to be true, we would then have a conspiracy.
rapidwolve
1 student 1 pilot and anything is possible..as I said..where did he directly call anyone a liar? He stated "may have" which to me, is not making stuff up.
To me, IMO, it seems as thou you have a dislike for drone operators and that aircraft pilots, both fixed wing and rotor, don't conjure things up if they made a mistake (yes I am guilty of that)..was there a drone involved?..perhaps..did it cause the accident..perhaps..could the pilot have made a mistake, jumping in and over correcting the student's mistake and caused the accident without a drone involved?..perhaps..he mentioned, to others, it was a DJI Phantom..is it possible that he said that particular drone because he and the student were discussing drones during the course?..perhaps..anything is possible.
tongo
Suggesting someone lied without any evidence whatsoever is irresponsible. I don't know you. If I suggested that you were evil, would it be OK only because I said you 'may' be evil. (Not that you are, I don't know you, but do you get my point? You would be justified in taking offense.)
rapidwolve
No it is not irresponsible..if what you suggest holds true, NTSB, Transport Canada, any and all police forces, fire investigators etc are all irresponsible because they too think the same thing day in and day out in investigations..I did not ever say outright they lied as THAT would be irresponsible!!
tongo
Thinking it is much different than saying it. I don’t care much for what others think and keep inside their head. When they irresponsibly open their mouth, I take offense. And no, the fine professions that you reference don’t do that. And all persons should take that as a good example.

I never said YOU lied, please don’t suggest that. I responded to Denis’s post, and you jumped into the conversation.
rapidwolve
Yes they do do that except you are not there to hear it. In your theory, then, you think, in the offices or ward rooms or hangers etc if need be, the investigators use telekinesis to communicate with 1 another. That is not irresponsible.
If you "suggested I WAS evil, that would be irresponsible and could be offensive however if you said I THINK YOU MAY be evil, Id shrug it off because I know Im not.
Anyhow opinions are being bounced around and could continue on wards forever..you have yours and I have mine.
tongo
Big difference between keeping the conversation private versus posting it on a widely read public forum. If any of the people in the occupations you mention did that, they’d be reprimanded. And why? Because it is despicable behavior.
RDLoven
I like Dogs, Drones, Model Airplanes. However if they are playing in the street/sky I will run over them instead of losing control and drive into the ditch/fly into the trees. Always fly the Airplane. The guy hired the wrong instructor.
Dogs have been here forever. Drones will be here from now on.
toolguy105
Problem here is if it was a drone was it in a legally allowed area. Practice areas are usually a controlled airspace the only students and their instructors are allowed into. This allows them to maneuver in relative safety on a see and be seen basis. Problem is a drone operator would not be looking at an aeronautical map and know that it is a control spaced and not to fly there
tongo
I know of no practice areas below 400 feet more than 5 miles from an airport, that are in controlled airspace. In fact, almost all, if not all, practice areas below 400 feet are in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. Moving on to what IS true. ALL drone pilots are responsible for NOT being a hazard to manned aircraft, not the other way around. The fault of this incident rests primarily on the drone pilot for failing to operate his vehicle in a way as to NOT be a threat to a manned aircraft.
srobak
srobak 4
if the drone was already in the airspace and a real aircraft suddenly entered the space - regardless what is was doing or if it was operating below minimums - it will take a moment for the drone operator to realize their space was being encroached upon and find an appropriate exit.

The mentality CANNOT be "I'm here now everyone else GTFO of my way!" on part of manned... that's the kinda stupid arrogance college students pull at class change time & crossing all over busy streets that cut through or around campus. And they wonder why they get run over...

Drones have to observe maximums - and manned has to observe minimums. Both have to be aware of each other, respect each other's airspace - and both have to have REASONABLE expectations when there is encroachment.
tongo
You don't understand the law. A drone pilot CANNOT operate his drone in an area where he COULD be surprised by a manned aircraft.

The "mentality" in reality is exactly like you say that it "CANNOT" be. Manned aircraft have all the rights over unmanned aircraft. That is the law. You are living in a fantasy.
cannonfodder
"The "mentality" in reality is exactly like you say that it "CANNOT" be."

And the sad part is that some folks will believe that position is justified, become entrenched in that mindset, let it affect their behavior, demeanor, and ultimately their reactions -- just making things more dangerous.

No one is debating that drones should yield to manned aircraft. Most of your comments are twisting and torturing both the other person's opinion and the law (for example, nothing says drones cannot operate within 5 miles of any airport, but some are controlled).

And specifically, the exclamations over the "audacity" of a drone being anywhere near a manned aircraft - deliberately and actively denying any consideration that those conditions may occur even if both were conscientious operators operating within parameters. The legal separation is only 100 ft.

So ignoring the reality and asserting that "A drone pilot CANNOT operate his drone in an area where he COULD be surprised by a manned aircraft" is at best a misplaced black/white oversimplification but could lead to the rationalization and abdication of any responsibility on behalf of the manned aircraft.

That attitude, mindset, and approach is how a minor -within lane- swerve on the highway can lead to a road rage accident.

Not that I expect you to understand the parallels, but: While turning in to a parking lot, my wife scraped the side of her truck on the corner of a front-end loader bucket. The front-end loader was parked illegally half on the sidewalk half on the road. Is he responsible? Or did she just misjudge clearance? Would it change anything if they had a permit to close the road and were just briefly parked there to get out and set up the traffic cones?
tongo
All wrong. Let's start citing the actual regulations, instead of making things up, shall we? From Public Law 112-95, Section 336, titled “The Special Rule for Model Aircraft”:

Model aircraft may operate free of other FAA regulations (which means the pilot does not have to licensed by the FAA) if:

"the (model) aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft" In the reported instance we are all talking about, the model aircraft was NOT operated in a way that it did NOT interfere with a manned aircraft. Period. Suggesting anything else is living in one's own fantasy world.

"Legal separation is only 100 ft." What? I challenge you to reference the reg that states this! And I will be so "audacious" as to say that that is B.S.

And your front end loader bucket analogy is not appropriate. The vehicle was not being operated illegally. It was not even being operated at all. The law sees the difference, you should, too.
cannonfodder
First, I was neither discussing nor defending the actions of any actor in the particular incident. Unless you were part of the incident or the investigation, you likely have no more information or insight than what is in the articles which state that the helicopter was operating at low altitude, turned around, saw a drone, and decided to maneuver to avoid a collision, then experienced a tail rotor strike.

I was discussing the reactionary, unreasonable, and frankly dangerous attitude and approach that ignores any reasonable path forward or discussion. That attitude is going to get someone hurt because it leads to folks still driving at 50 mph down the street blithely ignoring the reality that no, we aren't going to ban driveway basketball, but yes, sometimes the ball will bounce out into the street.

To the first point: Repeated quotation of "does not interfere with or gives way to any manned aircraft" does not change the law, nor force it to conform to your personal strict interpretation on what you think it means. What does "give way" mean in terms of vertical and horizontal separation? 100 ft? 1,000 ft? 10,000 ft.? What does interfere with mean? Stay far enough away that makes the pilot feel safe? How is that measured?

I am sure that you would like to see that interpreted as "ground all drones whenever a manned aircraft is in sight", but that doesn't make it so. There are plenty of people who can comfortably and safely drive on unmarked two-way roads. There are also folks who get nervous when there is no median between opposing traffic lanes much less a line.

To your second point: Drone flight (model aircraft or small uav) is permitted up to 400 ft. Manned aircraft in most instances is permitted above 500 ft. Therefore there can be legal operation of both aircraft complying with non-interference and giving way provisions at 100 feet of separation.

And to the last point: Fine, put the worker in the loader if you like, heck, put them both on a restricted access highway so that it's clear that he is operating in an area he isn't supposed to be. The point remains that just because someone else is misbehaving does not absolve you of responsibility for your own actions.

Anyway, hope you have a better day, and I hope this is just internet tough-guy talk and you aren't an actual hot-head as a pilot.
tongo
I guess you could not find the reg. I figured. It seems that today, anyone with an internet connection and a keyboard can proclaim himself the authority with no knowledge of the refs. If you want to establish your credibility, cite the reg. If you can’t, be man enough to admit you made it up.
cannonfodder
I never had any intent or desire in establishing credibility with you personally, still don't really - but this will make for interesting conversations at work and they *will* get into the legal definitions, so Allons-y.

You were the one who asserted there is some law exactly stating the legal minimum distance between aircraft is 100 ft.

I said the legal separation is only 100 ft. And I explained the construction of this statement in my reply - which you ignored.

The references that comprise my statement were clear and well established by your discussion of the laws governing where and how aircraft and drones may operate. However, if you wish to refresh yourself on "the refs":

------

14 CFR 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

14 CFR 107.51 - Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level [with sub-paragraphs listing caveats for special circumstances].

------

14 CFR 91.111 - Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

14 CFR 91.113 - Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(b)General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

14 CFR 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.

------

The first two set the minimum vertical distance between the two air vessels will never be less than 100 feet in legal operation (barring some extraordinary configuration).

The last three establish that while there are requirements to see and avoid, rules for right of way ("well clear" or behind), and a prohibition on creating a collision hazard, they do not define a minimum legal distance between two aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.

Therefore the minimum legal distance is the 100 feet established by the altitude restrictions. Everything else is dependent on the situation.

------

Note that there is no distinction between the rules for the unmanned aircraft and a manned aircraft without right of way. The exact same language. The only distinction is the unmanned aircraft will never have right of way.



There will likely never be the bright line you are trying to point at, because the definition of "collision hazard" and "well clear" varies so much with the nature of the specific air vehicles (quad copter, Cessna, twin, airliner, space shuttle) and conditions of the encounter - establishing something beyond that in law would be almost completely impractical. Therefore they are left to interpretation, presumably using the "reasonable man" standard.

These rules are not just for whatever category of aircraft that you personally fly. What is unreasonable to you in your aircraft and skill level may not necessarily unreasonable between a small UAV and a manned ultralight aircraft with a highly skilled pilot. -- So that's the regulatory challenge here, how to keep everyone safe without over-constraining any one them.

It is ironic that you are essentially on the complete opposite reactionary side with respect to similar regulatory and legal considerations of personal rights and public safety in the gun-control debate. I have operated or owned all three. Would I be right in guessing that you fly, own a gun, but not a model aircraft or drone?

If you want to have a discussion, I am game. If you are going to persist in being deliberately obtuse and confrontational, I have no further interest in feeding your ego, ad hominem attacks, or other poor behavior -- it doesn't helping solve the problem or to further the discussion.
tongo
"You were the one who asserted there is some law exactly stating the legal minimum distance between aircraft is 100 ft."

Are you insane? Look at the posts just above. Five posts before this, you said: "The legal separation is only 100 ft." That was the first time it was mentioned in this thread, and you're the one who said it, like it was fact!

So I QUOTED you and challenged your statement. NOW you say that I asserted it? And now you aren't defending your statement? Are you paying any attention to this conversation? Are you just playing games or do you really not remember what you just said 10 hours ago?

If your statement is correct, that I asserted that there was "some law exactly stating the legal minimum distance between aircraft is 100 ft.", then point it out. And when you do, I will apologize. However, I think you are the confused one who needs to start backpedalling, or continue to be considered not credible.
cannonfodder
You are correct in that you can claim that you never said law, you actually said "reg". But the spirit and intent are the same.

While I understand the effectiveness of the "admit nothing, deny everything, and counter accuse" strategy, simply repeating the same strawman does not make it valid and does not change what I said.

Even if there was confusion between a direct statement in law/reg verses the combined effect of law/reg, I have explained the nature and basis for my statement twice. I have provided citations of the relevant laws. You have had the chance to review, challenge, or refute the citations and the construction of the argument. You have had the chance to provide citations of your own, or construct a counter-argument. You have not provided any argument beyond personal disbelief and this strawman.

The statement stands. Without an actual counter-argument, there is nothing more to discuss on that front.

Good luck and god speed your journey.
tongo
Where did I say that that "there is some reg exactly stating the legal minimum distance between aircraft is 100 ft.

I keep repeating myself because you keep ignoring the obvious.
rapidwolve
This is your quote " In the reported instance we are all talking about, the model aircraft was NOT operated in a way that it did NOT interfere with a manned aircraft. Period. Suggesting anything else is living in one's own fantasy world." and this is what the NTSB said "the National Transportation Safety Board is aware that a drone MAY HAVE BEEN involved and is investigating the case with that in mind." No where does it say there was DEFIBITLEY a drone so we are not living in some fantasy world!
tongo
What does “in the reported instance” mean to you? Given my very important qualification, that was provided in advance, what issue can you have with what I said? What evidence suggests the report that a drone was involved is false? Besides just plain unsubstantiated conjecture?
rapidwolve
What important qualification? The reported instance is just as everyone else in this forum read it. It does not say a drone WAS definitely involved, it states MAY!
tongo
The report is that the pilots stated a drone WAS involved. That was what was reported. Those hearing the story second hand (or thid hand), added the 'may'.
Josephgirone
Something needs to be done about these drones now before they cause a major accident with major loss of life.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 11
It isn't the drones, it's their owner/operators..and not all of us are this stupid.
davidlapworth
In this case you could easily lay the blame on the helicopter instructor, was he flying in a designated Low Flying Zone, why the hell was he practicing manoeuvres at only 50 feet above the trees and if he was truly 50 feet above the trees how did the tail rotor hit the tree? Surely he shouldn't have been below 500 feet unless he was taking off or landing then there wouldn't have been a potential clash with the alleged UAV flying below 400 feet nor a clash with the actual tree living below 400 feet. Smells a lot like someone making up a story to blame someone else for their stupidity/lack of talent. If it really was a DJI Phantom as claimed then DJI themselves will be able to tell the FAA who owned it and exactly where it was flying, since they track and record all the relevant info through the app.
Citst46
Helicopters are not subject to the 500' rule you referred to. A quick stop maneuver could possibly leave the tail rotor in the trees, but chances would be minimal if they were at 50' initially.
Highflyer1950
Same thing could said about gun owners, but really, you mean a drone operator couldn’t hear a helicopter at 400 ‘ in a hover? seems like an opportunity to get a close up encounter with a GoPro and upload it to utube! I wonder if in fact there was a drone, when will the accident video pop up?
rapidwolve
Same thing can be said about guns and yes any operator in his right mind could hear a helo.
Scjemail44
I'm sure you are right that not all of you, who fly drones,are stupid. The problem is that those who are stupid do fly where they are not to supposed to. If there is a collision he/she looses a drone and we loose our lives. That is not a fair trade. I, having flown airplanes for 56 years, have had to follow the the rules, and they know who we are and can track us down if they want to. If we were to do what some of the drone people are doing we would not be flying again. Our license would be revoked. My suggestion is if some drone flyers cannot fly to the rules the make all drones have the ADS on board. It will only cost you $2,000 to $3,000.
rapidwolve
Not all drones can fly at the minimum height a helo or aircraft is allowed to fly..yes I agree the "heavy" drones, those that can fly above the minimum threshold should have a Ping200S (drone etc ADS-B unit) on board (over the $3k mark btw)..I know a person, up here, who actually lost their small drone, got a $2800 fine and can no longer own a drone because they were spotted flying it in a park with people around..that and he didn't have his owner ID on it.
flypilot12
Where was this? What was the statute on the books saying all this? Not having his Cert# on it is stupid though and in violation of the Fed Rules but, unless there is a law on the books that says he can no longer operate an unmanned drone in his municipality, there is no fed law that says he can't. This would be an easy win in court. I have been on this since the beginning and I even my super small drones marked with my ID why? The stupidity of others crying, "He's flying it over my house!" No...I am flying it over MY house and yours is just next to it. We live in such an entitled society now that it makes me sick. I went to school, learned FAR/AIM/AMT inside and out and know what I am doing when I operate my drones and the legalities of them, too, yet I get people walking up to me all the time that tell me I can't do what I am legally allowed to do because it hurts their feelings and they feel entitled to tell me about it. Now, I know that not all drone operators are as diligent in their operations as I am but, that does not change the fact that the opinion of another can not, and will not trump my facts. Just because they don't like does not automatically mean that I can not do it legally. I am a certified A&P.
rapidwolve
If you noticed I said up here..as in Canada..and yes they can legally be banned from owning/flying a drone again should the court see fit..here are just some of our laws: no higher than 296', only in daylight, no closer than 3.5 miles from an airport and 1.2 miles from a helipad/aeodrome, anywhere from 99 to 247 feet away from buildings, vehicles or the public etc etc
Yes they are suppose to be re-written this year but I will believe it when I see it..and since I use 1 for work/research occasionally, I need a Special Flight Operations Certificate everytime I do.
flypilot12
Well I live in Florida so everything for me is "up there". haha But yeah I have no idea as to Canada's laws and that sounds a bit harsh to be sure.
rapidwolve
Harsh because there are/were idiots up here who flew them all willy nilly..now because of those idiots, we all have to toe the line. But it's good..I take my personal drone to a park just around the corner and have some fun with it, taking care of people's space allotment if needed.
rapidwolve
Yes I guess it would be "up there"..lol
linbb
linbb 0
And what would you suggest as the ball is now in your court? Too many we ought toos around.
avihais
I agree but what? There are so many already out there and just like guns kids have them and if you search YouTube idiots doing crazy shit abundant and some people just don't have anything upstairs.
jdriskell
We'll probably wind up doing as much about the over proliferation of drones as we have done about the over proliferation of firearms. Nothing!
saso792
saso792 0
There is no "over proliferation of firearms" and no, the sky is not falling.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve -2
After what just occurred, I would have to digress with your what you are saying. Having an almost 1:1 ratio of legally registered guns to total population, TOTAL, not just adult, to me is over proliferation.
saso792
saso792 5
Believe what you want but guns are not going away just like drones are not going away. It is not an equipment issue with either one, it is a mental issue with people.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve -1
Cannot compare an apple to an orange..the whole issue I do have is, it seems almost as easy to buy a friggen gun as it does buy a drone and there are a hell of a lot more guns in the hands they should not be in, than there are drones.
As l said after had just happened and has happened, maybe its about time your first part of the sentence had second thots.
srobak
srobak 0
This is clearly spoken by someone who has never gone through the process of buying a gun before. Just like most of the sabre rattlers in the media and political offices who are making their equally uninformed claims.
rapidwolve
Actually I have up here..took me 11 weeks to obtain a licence to buy and own..longer if I wanted restricted such as an AR-15..just had a stateside friend mention he too obtained a licene and bought his first gun..took him 2 weeks and not a lot of red tape at all.
So NO I am NOT rattling sabres, just STATING FACTS!
rapidwolve
And there in lies the whole issue "guns are not going away just like drones are not going away"..maybe if both went away or both were a hell of a lot harder to obtain, then the issue would diminish..or better still, when a drone is sold anywhere, the serial number, make, model and full customers name/address sent to FAA and stricter rules placed.
tongo
Yes. The solution to our gun problem is to force law abiding citizens to turn them all in. Of course, the criminals, being criminals and having no respect for the law at all, will keep theirs. But at least we will look like we are doing something to help the law abiding citizens, while now making them defenseless.
rapidwolve
NO..the solution to the friggen gun problem, and the drones for that matter, is making most harder to obtain and damn well making others, that are now legal to own, illegal or having to take a very strict course on useage and registration...and YES those will have to be turned in if the course isn't taken and passed.
I'm sorry for getting all pissy about guns but I have a damn good reason when you hear of a friends kid shot because of the lame ass laws!!!!
So go ahead and keep down voting me.
tongo
I know more people injured and killed in automobile accidents (10+) than killed by guns (1, and it was a suicide). I would think your priorities would be with the drivers of cars long before you go after gun owners.
rapidwolve
Then you are blind to the latest mass shootings killed by a legally owned gun!!!!
tongo
And by your logic, you are blind to the 100+ people today killed by cars.
SmittySmithsonite
There is no "GUN problem". Today, we have "a PEOPLE problem". Guns don't just jump up off the table and start shooting randomly, just like drones don't just decide to fly within feet of moving aircraft - both require human input. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to people today ...

Besides, gun ownership is a RIGHT, protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. People forget this fact. We've already trampled on this right enough - it's high time we start prosecuting CRIMINALS, not the law abiding citizens of our Nation. Using the idiotic logic of the left, we'd ban automobiles for drunk drivers, steak knives for stabbings, and Smartphones for auto accidents and deaths. Why isn't there an outcry about this? I have my suspicions ...
rapidwolve
OH BS..I've sat here and contemplated lashing back because to me I thought it a waste of time and I apoligize to all my other fellow aviation enthusists. IT ISN'T, and it's high time you, and others like you opened your damn eyes and thought!. Yes it is a right, in your constitution, to bear arms and I am damn well not arguing that point..you do have a GUN problem, NOT JUST a people problem..the GUN problem is its too DAMN EASY to get a rifle, which btw, WERE LEGALLY OWNED BY NON CRIMINALS when used at those shootings!! It's easier to get an assault rifle than it is to get a drivers license!!
And yes, if you opened your eyes and ears for a second, THERE ARE OUTCRIES ABOUT DRUNK DRIVERS AND TALKING/TEXTING ON PHONES WHILE DRIVING.
Again, since this is an aviationist forum, I apoligize to the others, for running off topic.
SmittySmithsonite
How can it be a gun's fault when it takes human input to operate?

So, it's an airplane's fault a pilot decided to fly drunk? WTF ???

I'll never understand leftist logic ... you're SO FAR off base, I don't even know where to begin.
SmittySmithsonite
I live in MA - they UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BANNED AR style firearms. It's difficult to get ANY firearms here. VT to my north here has ZERO restrictions on firearms - they follow our Constitution to the letter. Guess who has the highest crime rate?

MASSACHUSETTS.
rapidwolve
I got down voted for this comment?? Ok then
onceastudentpilot
If there wasn't any threat of the drone being ingested I think it's the helicopter pilots fault sense he contacted the trees. They are just trying to shift the blame.
tongo
Your post is totally ridiculous. If you were driving on the interstate and a drone flew in front of your car and you swerved to avoid it and landed in the ditch, would you say it was all your fault for driving into the ditch?

Please, don't take your stupid pills anymore. They seem to be working too well.
crchall
No drone I know of could ever stand a chance of entering the rotor wash of a helicopter. The best "evasive maneuver" I can think of is to hold your hover and let the thing get blown into the ground.
WhiteKnight77
Please explain why the NTSB found fault with the drone operator that hit the UH-60 over Staten Island in NY. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2017/12/14/ntsb-finds-drone-pilot-at-fault-for-midair-collision-with-army-helicopter/#1e0372527b3f.

The drone operator was flying in an area where a special NOTAMS was issued that excluded any flight by unmanned aircraft 11 NM from Jersey City due to VIP and recon flights for the UN, as well as other aircraft.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/09/22/drone-hits-army-helicopter/.
tongo
Even from above? Seems to me that no drone I know of could ever stand of chance of NOT entering the rotor wash of a helicopter if it approaches it from just a few feet above the rotor. Think again.
rapidwolve
I am beginning to doubt a drone was involved in this instance but I could be wrong so hear me out please.
A flying fixed wing aircraft has small vortices close to front of the aircraft itself, very strong negative vortices closer to an engine or huge vortices behind it, such as the wake of an A380 taking off and yes a drone can will cause significant damage and possible loss of life if it hit the windscreen or got sucked into an engine..but the positive vortices of a flying helo extend around it from the rotor assembly out and down, not just close to it and if a drone was close enough that the pilot could identify the make of it, he would have to be facing it and it below the rotors. If there was a drone, and again I am not disputing either way, the rotor wash should have blown the thing away before the pilot could even see it.
WhiteKnight77
See my post about the drone operator who was found at fault for the collision with the Blackhawk and the news report showing the piece of drone that hit it and took out a decent size chunk of the rotorblade. As a former crew chief on helicopters, I would not want to have a collision with one and we know that the rotor wash will not knock it out of the sky.

Due to how rotors work, a drone can most certainly get under the blades. Now if the helo was flying backwards, there might not be a chance of it, but it is highly doubtful that there is a need to fly backwards outside of combat or in lift operations such as placing electrical pylons and then it would not be very far.
tongo
I question your suggestion that there are any downforces that extend OUT from the prop. Underneath, yes, but not out. In fact, from what I remember of my Fluid Mechanics class in school, there should be updrafts outside the downdrafts under the rotors, as the air that displaced downward makes it way around and back up to replace the air that is being pulled down from above the rotors.
mkruger21
That's what I thought from the beginning.
bbabis
The “Phantom Drone “ will start to show up more and more as the cause for screw ups.
rapidwolve
It is actually a name of a drone made by DJI Industries.
linbb
linbb 0
The instructor by over correcting caused the crash not the drone and as to how close it was to them is another thing. Another factor was why if it was a training flight were they so low to the trees that a maneuver caused the tail rotor to hit? The drone if it was just above the trees, not within 5nm of an airport and less than 300ft was within its operating area.
TorstenHoff
Under the FAA rules for Unmanned Aircraft System, the drone has to give way to manned aircraft. If it was close enough to surprise and spook the instructor, it did not do that.

The instructor may have failed to maintain awareness of his surroundings and allowed the tail rotor to come into contact with a tree or other vegetation, but the cause of the accident was his need to take action to avoid a possible collision with the drone in the helicopter’s immediate vicinity where it shouldn’t have been.
flypilot12
The max altitude that a drone may fly is 400ft. I have my UAS Cert in my wallet. While it does say "Never Fly Near Other Aircraft" if the helicopter was low level at the trees, and the guy was flying it over his house with in the allowed airspace, and surprised him as much as the helicopter pilot, I am going to withhold my judgement till more facts come out on this but, to date, aircraft destroyed by birds number in the hundreds with loss of life. A drone has not done any such thing as of yet. So this is much ado about nothing as usual. Oh, and I am also an A&P and a Part 147 Instructor.
bbabis
The "Cause" of the accident is unknown outside of letting the tail rotor strike trees. One "Story" with some implausible information, such as knowing the drone type, has been put forward.
TorstenHoff
Direct link to the Bloomberg story:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/what-may-be-first-drone-linked-copter-crash-being-investigated
Rexihaw
Rex Haw -2
Exchange every 'drone' word with the word 'Guns'...then drones will never be a real problem, even when they cause an airliner to crash
SmittySmithsonite
NEITHER are the real problem, Rex.

Does your hammer jump off your workbench and smash people's skulls in randomly? That's just like saying MY gun is responsible for the death of ANYONE - it's completely ludicrous.
tongo
The fact that gun control advocates have no problem polluting a thread that has nothing to do with gun ownership goes a long way towards showing the rest of us how reasonable they really are.
SmittySmithsonite
Right on the money, Dan.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!