Takes down is an overstatement. So far, general aviation kills people in large enough numbers; hobby drones have not. I agree who ever was flying the drone was above where they should be, but night lighting isn't going to make one stand out on the backdrop of LA.

Missing from the report was any mention of ADS-B OUT in use by the operators of the accident aircraft. The major drone makers are adding ADS-B IN to provide automated avoidance, but since the FAA is happy to allow mid-air collisions between full size passenger carrying aircraft by failing to mandate even a rudimentary anti-collision technology, it isn't clear they are will to do anything except legislate against other operators.

It would not surprise me if the drone in this collision was operated by LAPD in an effort to see how much they could use it in nighttime surveillance, hence the inability to find evidence. I also note that small drones are a vicious competitor to news helicopter operations. For a few thousand dollars a news organization can put a reporter on scene with better images than a million dollar helicopter can get and they can put multiple drones in multiple simultaneous locations simultaneously.

As I said before, manned helos kill people all the time: https://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/atsb-re... and helo pilots are not always acting responsibly https://www.verticalmag.com/news/low-flying-nation... Sometimes they are also starting wildfires https://www.postindependent.com/news/helicopter-cr...

The FAA does not require ALL man carrying aircraft to have anti-collision systems, either with terrain or each other. That they refuse to mandate it for the aubset that continues to suffer midair collisions is evidence enough.

The DRONE cannot autonomously avoid the helicopter if the helicopter is not broadcasting and the FAA does not mandate they do so under ALL conditions. Likewise, while working to require hobbyists to go through the same level of flight school as a private pilot requires in order to operate a toy in a park, they do not require drones to use ADS-B to avoid manned aircraft - and they cannot because they refuse to MANDATE ADB-B OUT on all manned aircraft all the time.

It's not the job of the NTSB to de-conflict the airspace and not all NTSB investigations into non-fatal accidents will spend the time looking at all the recommendations that they have made over and over and over again only to be ignored by the FAA. I note the report does not mention if the helicopter was equipped with TCAS, making that a red-herring.

What blame did I place on the pilot for the collision? OUT vs IN was clear.

Correct me if I have the wrong impression, but are the technical limitations of drones being used as excuses when they cause these accidents?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote:

I also note that small drones are a vicious competitor to news helicopter operations.

Not really. Unless permitted to fly above 500' (rare), operators would have to get one helluva lot of permissions to fly over a major city.

"I agree who ever was flying the drone was above where they should be" doesn't sound like an excuse.

The most detailed coverage of a news scene can be accomplished from a few hundred feet. Instead of making a mile long orbit around a fire, for example, a drone could cover it with a 600 foot ground track. Unlike a helicopter, there's no ring-state to settle into, allowing persistence from a single location. There can be one drone per news truck and per journalists car and be paid for with less than the operating cost of a single news helicopter for a single year. I would not hesitate to send a drone to capture footage from inside the operating volume of a fireworks display, a location already safe against misfired heavy explosives; any idea about the competition a news copter can offer in a similar way? How about under a bridge with a structural problem? Or to examine a building suffering a partial collapse? News-wise, drones should eat the manned helicopter capacity as a photography platform for lunch.

Hence the push-back from the incumbents working to keep their airspace clear of low-cost, high-effectiveness competitors.

The missing ingredient in UASs is SA (Situational Awareness); people think that flight simulators' soda straw views of the world is all that's necessarily to fly, but for a slow-flying aircraft, 3D SA is needed to avoid such incidences.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Hi 3DDave,
It's pretty clear by now that you are on the side of the drones, at all costs, even at the cost of your integrity.

Somehow, a drone hits a helicopter, but it's the helicopter's fault?

Quite a few things you say do not compute, from a logical or human safety point of view.
I have attempted to analyze your opinions in the past - which didn't go so well, did it? Congratulations on the red-flag move, by the way. I haven't had a post deleted in a really long time.

So here's a different approach: a quiz, if you will.
Each question requires two answers; one for the helicopter, one for the drone.
My answers are based on a generic representative of each type of machine (eg. a common 5-seat light helicopter and a common 4- or 8-rotor drone). If you can't tolerate common examples, you can choose your answer based on any extreme example of each machine you choose, but what you choose has to actually exist.

1. For each machine, what is the consequence of a high-speed impact to the operator?
2. For each machine, what is the consequence of a high-speed impact to a passenger on board?
3. For each machine, what is the consequence of a high-speed impact to a person struck on the ground?
4. For each machine, what is the consequence of a design flaw to the operator?
5. For each machine, what is the consequence of a design flaw to a passenger on board?
6. For each machine, what is the consequence of a design flaw to a person struck on the ground?
7. For each machine, what is the legal consequence of violent use as a weapon by the operator?
8. For each machine, what is the legal consequence of violent use as a weapon to a passenger on board?
9. For each machine, what is the legal consequence of violent use as a weapon to a person struck on the ground?
10. For each machine, how will compliance with design safety code be assured?
11. For each machine, how will compliance with operational safety code be assured?
12. For each machine, how will law enforcement identify the operator in negligent operation?
13. For each machine, how will law enforcement identify the operator in malicious operation?

I'll make it easy for you and provide some answers in the following post.

www.sparweb.ca

OK 3DDave,
I hope you took a minute to think of your own answers before skipping to the answers!
What do we have?

Helicopters / Drones:

1. Heli Pilot killed / Drone pilot unharmed
2. Passenger killed / Drone passenger killed
3. Bystander killed / Bystander killed
4. Heli Pilot in danger / Drone pilot unharmed
5. Passenger in danger / Drone passenger killed
6. Bystander in danger / Bystander in danger
7. Heli Pilot in danger / Drone pilot unharmed
8. Passenger in danger / Drone passenger killed
9. Bystander in danger / Bystander in danger

So I'm not done the list yet, and here we see that the consequences of accidents, negligence, flaws, and malicious use is just bad all round, for helicopters and for drones to any bystanders and to any possible passengers on board. To the bystanders, it's a question of mass. Drones capable of displacing the functions of helicopters are much more massive than the toy drones, so the consequences of accidents can be drastic as the complexity of drones increases. They just haven't built up to that level yet.

Oh wait, did I not point out that there are NO SAFETY consequences to any drone accidents to the drone operators, standing on the ground far away? Well that's a pretty significant differential in the consequences of an accident. And all the advantages fall toward the operator of the drone. Sounds great.

But what about the rest of my questions:

For helicopters:

• 10. Compliance with helicopter and aircraft design safety code is assured by a rigorous inspection and certification laws, already in place. Failure to comply causes seizure of the aircraft.
• 11. Compliance with helicopter and aircraft operational safety code is assured by rigorous training and flight inspection.
• 12. Law enforcement can identify the operator in negligent operation through the redundant registration, communication, navigation, and location records of each aircraft in the sky.
• 13. Malicious operation of helicopter and aircraft is extremely difficult (but of course it has been successfully done) mostly because of the large number of people and computers involved in most aircraft and helicopter operations.

For drones:

• 10. A design safety code is absent.
• 11. An operational safety code is almost absent. Concealing your identity as the operator is especially easy for BLOS drones (beyond line of sight).
• 12. Law enforcement can rarely identify the negligent operators of drones, despite the claims of the drone protection companies. Many examples can be cited.
• 13. Malicious operation of drones is quite easy, provided the malicious goal is suitable to the limited mass and payload capability of the drone. Obviously larger drones can do more damage or carry more harmful payloads. Tracking drones engaged in such activities is difficult over cities and almost impossible in remote areas. Finding the drone, or its debris, does not often lead law enforcement to the suspect operator.

So here we are.
A drone can be operated maliciously, or negligently, with a good chance of no adverse consequences to the operator. Rules that we may put in place to improve the safety of these machines may work on owners who choose to be responsible, but the adverse cost and effort will discourage most.
Meanwhile, there are not many pilots of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft that don't take seriously their own safety, when it's their own life on the line!

www.sparweb.ca

Quote:

people think that flight simulators' soda straw views of the world is all that's necessarily to fly

Agreed 110%. There are a ton of studies showing the effective limits of man's ability to operate equipment with most cameras' limited field-of-view and depth perception. These limits combined with some professions' need to operate remotely was an early driver of automation.

A really fun exercise for anyone who doubts this or believes they're heaven's gift to humanity is to borrow a set of night-vision goggles and attempt to perform routine tasks in the dark with some semblance of speed. It will give new respect for the military who are kicking in doors, flying helicopters, and otherwise operating in life/death situations while reliant on them.

"I agree who ever was flying the drone was above where they should be" doesn't sound like an excuse.

If I repeat that a few more times will you listen?

I'll give you a quiz:

What, aside from trying to eliminate all drones from the air, has the FAA done to deconflict the situation?
1) Registration of drones. How does that deconflict the situation?
2) Pilot level ground school to operate any remote control models. Besides increasing the cost out of reasonable reach, how does that deconflict the situation?

Keep in mind this is the same FAA that let a guy who crashed a twin piston job by stalling during a landing then buy and operate a twin jet that he stalled during landing. Only this time, not only was that pilot and his passengers killed, so were a woman incinerated in her home while trapped protecting her also incinerated child - both with time to seek shelter and know what was coming.

This is the same FAA that let a helo tour company operate over water with inflatable chambers, only one of which worked, which flipped the copter upside down in a forced water landing. Why? Because the pilot let a passenger put a bag near the engine cut-out; the bag strap caught that lever and shut the engine down mid-flight. And what was the consequence? Killing all the passengers who were secured to the helicopter in a way that only ground crews could release them. Imagine their terror as they were pulled under and held there to drown, fully conscious to the end. The pilot survived. No drones involved.

I hope your list includes actual outcomes. So far it doesn't.

Your basis is one of revenge. For bad things to happen to bad people after they do bad things. (Do bad people misuse cars? It's tough to steal and misuse a drone; should cars be theft-proof? Maybe outlaw cars until they cannot be stolen.)

I want prevention - bad things avoided, but not by ensuring no things happen. Most people aren't malicious, so arguments that are based on those people is a strawman. A hobbyist Transatlantic drone flew over 10 years ago. How many have been built by non-nations and used for bad purposes anywhere but the battlefield since?

"13. Malicious operation of helicopter and aircraft is extremely difficult (but of course it has been successfully done) mostly because of the large number of people and computers involved in most aircraft and helicopter operations."

Yeah. 9/11 never happened. That has taken roughly 100,000-500,000 lives and trillions of dollars wasted, all because the FAA had not issued guidance that letting anyone who is not flight crew into the cockpit for any reason is a bad thing.

However there is fault of the FAA and manned aircraft owners not wanting to accept they have to spend money to coordinate with the drone industry to deconflict the airspace. The FAA refuses to allow ADS-B OUT to be attached to powered parachutes, for example; refuses to require it for ALL manned flight operations in ALL US airspace. Refuses to allow ADS-B OUT on drones. Refuses to require ADS-B IN for ALL manned operations. Drone makers are already including ADS-B IN, but there is no required signal for them to use.

Instead the FAA wants drone operators to have a separate, disconnected system to funnel money into the most effective lobbying firm, but only for operations where there is no option to use that system. Yeah, in the middle of nowhere they want a persistent internet connection to provide location data to a website. Where nobody has an internet connection. And prohibit operation wherever there is a possible persistent connection - near cities. Rule-making to remove drones from any legal use, except maybe the hands of law enforcement and national "security."

This at the time when agricultural drones can be used for targeted application of pesticides and fertilizers and for crop condition surveillance for accurate water delivery. When they can provide a more rapid response for search and rescue. When they can decrease the risk to inspection of infrastructure.

The FAA is working like legislators did when the first cars came out; requiring a man on foot to walk 300 feet ahead of the car and announce it was coming to avoid startling horses. No one learns from history. Then again, no one listened when the Wright brothers suggested airplanes not be allowed to fly over cities. And look how that turned out.

Also - I did not red flag anything.

The drones that people want to use for activities such as news footage and aerial inspection are not 1 lb hobbyist units. They are 100# ones with $10k worth of cameras on them.

The FAA has screwed up ADS so badly that it is painful to talk about. This need a swift kick to the nuts to straighten it out, but that is another issue.
And yes, the FAA only wants to deal with users that provide a source of revenue since they need those funds just to function.
But if you are flying anything for a business purpose what is a few thousand dollars? And why not openly identify yourself? After all I can track almost every airplane that there is.

The Gov in general botched handling drones badly. But that doesn't make operations in clear violation of the rules OK. But as long as your chances of being identified are nil we will continue seeing this. And that likely means no action until an aircraft is actually brought down in a drone collision.
So far collisions have only cost aircraft operator hundreds of thousands of dollars.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

Not exactly on topic, except as perhaps a solution for those drones that are found flying where they shouldn't be:

Where Eagles Dare: French military using winged warriors to hunt down rogue drones

https://www.foxnews.com/world/where-eagles-dare-fr...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Yes I've heard of that, too.
I have a lot of fear for the health of these eagles. A drone of any size can threaten to injure the animal. The effectiveness and instincts of the eagle, however, can't be argued with.

The dramatic photo in the article is just training with a toy. The eagle wouldn't stand a chance against a 20kg machine.

www.sparweb.ca

Here's the kind of nuisance that widespread abuse of drones can cause:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/uk/climate-activist...

The users of these drones had a political goal in mind. They did not have licenses, or training, or really accept any responsibility if anything went wrong. They just wanted to fly drones around Heathrow intending to disrupt it. Compounded the silliness by calling the police themselves. They attempted arguments that they would keep the drones at low altitude and not actually over the airfield, however this assertion was not backed up by a skilled ability to control the location of their drone at all times, or a flight plan, or any means to prevent errors in their operation.

I don't actually have a dispute with their higher political goal, but the way the went about it was an act that resembled an act of malicious endangerment. It's as if you steer your car into oncoming traffic when the road is clear - only turning back when another car approaches in the opposite lane. You can swear up and down that you always intended to steer back onto the proper side of the road, but the fact remains you were the hazard, and you caused it by a deliberate action on your own part.

This is the kind of chaos that I was referring to in questions 12 and 13 of my quiz above.

www.sparweb.ca

The same can be done with helium filled balloons, or kites, if there is a breeze. Worse can be done with a deer rifle. Anyone seeking to do harm is practically unlimited in available tools for mischief. The FAA let basically 4 box-cutters kill between 100,000 and 500,000 people. Anyone going to outlaw box-cutters?

Of course they called the police. It's not much of a demonstration without publicity. Already demonstrated the last time drones were seen at Heathrow it was police drones in use looking for non-existent drones that were reported, closing the airport; didn't stop the police arresting uninvolved people and charging them.

Quote (3DDave)

The FAA let basically 4 box-cutters kill between 100,000 and 500,000 people.

While I think I understand how you derived the value of the number(s) that you did, I still think it's a bit disingenuous to leave the impression that those numbers were the direct result of someone using four box-cutters.

As for your question about outlawing box-cutters, have you tried to get on a plane, or for that matter, enter any building or area where you have to pass through a metal detector, with a box-cutter in your pocket? For all intents and purposes, as they relate to your claim about them, box-cutters HAVE been outlawed.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Just a tech note about ADS which I admit I have relatively little experience with apart from squirting it everyday and using radar24 to find out how long until my next aircraft arrives.

The data we see on the web is collected by a load of volunteer sensors around the world. The individual gets a "free" account of one of the relevant web sites and pumps the data in and gets the full service.

The data is delayed by 5-10 mins after its received before being made public. It is possible to restrict the public data to not show your aircraft. How you do this I have zero clue but some biz jets have this.

Now the setup up to gather this and process is utterly colossal. The people that have it say they send the data off to one of 6 server farms run by amazon.

ADS is a open none secure line of sight protocol. It was never meant to separate aircraft and was more for awareness of things within 5-10 miles in upper airspace which were limited with radar cover. Due to line of sight the number of sensors that can be seen in even high density areas reduces dramatically below 1500ft agl. Quite often its not possible to pick up ADS below 500ft due to terrain masking.

The international required collision avoidance system for civilians is called TCAS which works off secondary transponders speaking to each other on radar band. Mode S is the top level of transponder but it can offer warning against mode A but no resolution. It is expensive and relatively heavy and power hungry.

The biggest issue with ADS is that its completely unsecure and open. There are a few battery powered boxs in receivers in aircraft but they are limited to single engine piston and gliders and the like. Nobody has either been brave enough or managed to integrate it into an avionics stack and comply with regulations for ADS in. ADS out I think this year is the final year that all +5700kg aircraft require it and also in a lot of countries you need it to enter any controlled airspace class E and above. ATC use it a lot for upper airspace management where radar is problematical. I believe the North Atlantic track system they can see these days using it. They run there own system, own sensors, own servers etc. They also use it in some airports for ground monitoring with everything with power having an ADS out transmitter. Our ops also has a display showing where tech vans are, where the toilet service carts are and can see who is being de-iced etc. So they can deal with flight plans real time. But it has its own server etc.

From my limit research over the last few days ADS is not seen as a suitable method of separation mainly due to the lower levels it would need to work at and colossal sensor network required, The IT infrastructure required and also the system is way open to spoofing and abuse. IN some regards the FAA has its hands tied by international agreements in regards to class G airspace. They can't change the requirements for it without everyone agreeing. Currently you don't need even a radio to operate in class G, and only lights at night. I believe a lot of photo drones turn the lights off anyway at night even though its illegal so it doesn't effect the photo's. If they can't turn them off they put tape over them.

This is just what I have found on the subject. Being IFR fixed wing we don't play at those levels apart from landing and take off. Yes we do get a very occasional issue with drones. But I would say getting illuminated by a laser is far more frequent. In some ways the USA is leading the way with this because it has way more of the things than most places in the world and also far much more low level traffic density's. From what I can see the ADS network currently couldn't be used for low level separation of a drone and aircraft.

From what I can see nobody really knows what to do with drones or there operators. And the various solutions all hit off against technological issues with current setup or require colossal inputs of cash to create a new setup. The previous generation of RC aircraft really didn't have these issues because they were limited by line of sight and where extremely limited with what they could do. They also required a far higher level of skill to successfully complete a flight. Where as these drones you basically unbox them charge the battery and your flying, and your not likely to crash on the first landing.

BTW I have zero solutions for dealing with them. The kids models for the park I have already found you can't use anywhere near people its just to dangerous with a phone as the visuals not above 100ft. But we have plenty of places to go with no people. The big ones which are semi autonomous and are capable of height and speed I really wouldn't like to meet in the air or on the ground. And if all you can see is an ipads worth of view to see and avoid its pretty useless for moving targets especially at speed and that's with the lens pointing at the object never mine actually finding it 2D.

Quote (3DDave)

The FAA let basically 4 box-cutters kill between 100,000 and 500,000 people.

Anytime my wife needs beans off the top shelf and I'm not home, I'll have to call Dave. He should be able to reach them wherever he is.

Yes Alister, ADS was meant to provide for aircraft spacing control in places out of ATC coverage, like over oceans.
And you are also correct that this wasn't an issue with RC because of the high barrier to entry (money and skill). I have seen some RC planes that would make very scary weapons given their size and speed, but man are they hard to fly.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

Soooooo…..a couple box cutters killed hundreds of thousands of people, but when a drone being operated illegally hits a helicopter its really the helicopter's fault? As my southern friends say, "oh bless your heart!"

I don't see drones being outlawed any time soon, however I do foresee punishment increasing for operator idiocy and possibly further restrictions on their use.

Quote (moon161)

Anytime my wife needs beans off the top shelf and I'm not home, I'll have to call Dave. He should be able to reach them wherever he is.

My brain had to roll this one around for a second or two before it clicked...

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Quote (CWB1)

however I do foresee punishment increasing for operator idiocy

The problem with that is you cannot legislate for stupidity. Exhibit A is the SCROTUS tweeting from the White House.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Everyone I am only a clueless driver on this stuff.

It did tickle my fancy so I spent 3 days having a look on the internet.

RC wise none drone I can just about land a small rc aircraft in favourable conditions. Heli sod that way to expensive.

I can land a aircraft 60 tons with my bum strapped in it. I am qualified on in a Hurricane.

Drone I have zero quals in ,and I do have a couple for keeping the kids happy. So would class my self as zero experience or knowledge. Although I do have a rather developed risk 5th sense when it comes to aviation.

Ironic, if the operator commits an idiotic crime then yes, you can legislate against stupidity. As for your exhibit, leave the political gibberish in the "Pub" or go elsewhere. You're not yelling into an echo chamber here.

I'll second that. No need to make political fun here.

I get a kick out of the old story about the flagman in front of cars. It's usually told to make fun of "the people who stand in the way of progress". Sure, it was a check on progress and the introduction of automobiles, but people just weren't ready for them, either. Some people use tidbits of history to piss on the things people did in the past, but I often don't need much effort to discover that they were doing something smart. Only the quaint bits get exaggerated by someone today with an axe to grind.

There is another side to the automotive acts of the 1860's UK. Many other sides, in fact. What about the counties that maintain the roads? What about pedestrians who do not know how to react when an automobile approaches? Or vice-versa, the driver of a car who has not been informed when to expect a person to walk in front of the vehicle? What about the horses, sheep and cattle? All these people and animals hanging about on roads was not a big deal before cars showed up. So many questions had to be answered, but had not been asked yet. Driving at night? Cars need lamps. Driving on gravel? Need mudflaps. Sharp corners? Need speed limits. Soft ground? Need weight limits. And on it goes. The silly red flag was just one part of this, and much of it was sensible and necessary. Those locomotive/automotive acts (mostly in the UK) were passed by town and city councils that reacted to the appearance of these machines with a rightful "WTF". Dealing with these machines would cost them money, and they were getting an earful from citizens and businesses. The rest is democracy in action. They chose to protect people until a safe track record could be established, with some pendulum swings back and forth.

For the record, I know personally what it looks like to see a dozen cars on the same road, when few of the drivers were taught how to drive or had any traffic safety laws to obey. Sensible laws and orderly use of them does not spring up overnight, anywhere. Confronted with it in real time as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a person with no such knowledge of law or courtesy, made me very uncomfortable.

So all this is a fine example of the development of laws and regulations to control the safe use of drones in public airspaces. The real threats have not all been exposed yet, but we can guess at what they probably will be, and act to prevent them. The idea of waiting for a disaster track record to be built is not palatable to anyone, now, just like it wasn't appealing to the city councilors in the 1860's to just let cars be driven anywhere, and "figure out what's dangerous later when the death toll is high enough to count".

www.sparweb.ca

So far the death toll from 50 years of models colliding with manned aircraft is what, exactly? It's been a half century.

In the meantime, DJI is doing the FAA's work and all their drones have ADS-B In and could report nearby aircraft to the user. Too bad the drones are in airspace in which the FAA refuses to make ADS-B Out mandatory. And the FAA prevents any drone from using ADS-B Out because it's too confusing on the current aircraft instruments if there are too many transmitters nearby. The computing power to filter them to conflicting traffic is found in a 10 year old smartphone.

The FAA safety plan re the drones, applied to aircraft is: Fine the hijackers if they get in the cockpit and put them in jail.
Also the FAA plan: Fine anyone who isn't a hijacker but might be because they boarded through the door near the cockpit.
Final stage: Exclude passengers from flights. They could be hijackers, we don't know, but it's possible. But if they want to, we'll let them pay for an expensive pilot training school and then they will understand all the risks. Just like the 9-11 hijackers did.

Is the only thing you're grieved about is having to purchase an ADS-B In unit for your drone, but you resent paying for it and it's not as good as you would like it to be?

www.sparweb.ca

Quote (SparWeb)

I'll second that. No need to make political fun here.

What's funny? Politics as usual is killing people by the tens of thousands, and we're all supposed to be too polite to mention it?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

It isn't about politeness. It is a problem regarding the topic at hand. Your comment had nothing to do with it and causes a pointless distraction from the conversation and content. What the president is doing and whether or not tweeting from the White House should be made illegal has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of drones interference with manned aircraft.

Exhibits A through E are the 5 posts (including this one) that should ideally be deleted from the conversation aside from maybe SparWeb's post regarding the rollout of automobile safety rules.

Edit: Unless of course those tweets were in regard to drone legislation. I assume they were not, but if that is the case, I apologize for jumping to conclusions and do please carry on.

Andrew H.
www.MotoTribology.com

Quote:

Is the only thing you're grieved about is having to purchase an ADS-B In unit for your drone, but you resent paying for it and it's not as good as you would like it to be?

Call me confused but I thought the point was that he wanted to legally share airspace currently restricted from drone use, essentially arguing for pedestrian or horse traffic on the freeway. Fancy electronics are rather pointless if never used.

Quote (SuperSalad)

It is a problem regarding the topic at hand.

The topic at hand involves government regulation or lack thereof, or complete failure due to incompetence and/or corruption. Which a number of posters have referenced, so I would say my post has relevance.

But now that we actually are off-topic, I will shut up.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

I read a book as a kid by Vernor Vinge called "Across Realtime". I won't elaborate on the similarity to this polemic, but the reaction to the conflict between regulation and prerogative was miniaturization.

Sparweb - You must be replying to someone else. It's pilots who are complaining about spending the money, which is why the FAA exempts so many from the requirement when operating in the very airspace most likely to be used by drones and R/C models. The money is already being spent by hobbyists, and gladly so, but it only works if the FAA works.

Yours is an argument against safety in favor of exclusivity.

What's odd is that the FAA sold ADS-B as part of allowing any aircraft to go anywhere they wanted because everyone would be continuously updated. ATC would no longer have to restrict commercial aircraft to certain corridors. And they would allow this because ADS-B gave pilots superior situational awareness. But now the FAA doesn't really want that. They sold everyone that ADS-B was for safety.

Why doesn't the FAA want drone operations to be safe? Instead they want no drone operations at all.


CBW1 - That's quite the comparison. Do you have a highway in your backyard? Per the FAA no one is legally allowed to fly in their own back yard, subject to 3 years in prison and $250k fine.

What I said was that all airspace will be restricted from use by hobbyist drones. All of it. Every last cubic inch. On the excuse that it is entirely unsafe for them to operate at all. There's a method to make it even more safe against mid-air collisions between manned aircraft that the FAA won't mandate because that would also make it safe for drones to share that space. The FAA would rather see people getting killed than allow drones.

Quote (3DDave)

The FAA would rather see people getting killed than allow drones.

I am getting more and more confused by your rants.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Waross,

What is your conclusion about the FAA refusal to allow ADS-B Out on drones or require ADS-B In and Out on all manned aircraft in all phases of flight?

I wasn't aware that the FAA was refusing to allow the voluntary use of ADS.
Apart from that I get more than enough argument from my 14 year old son.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

What aircraft and boxes currently accept ADS-B in?

From what I can tell we all pretty much all squirt it. But none of us can accept the data, apart from a few with battery powered boxes with no link to any control systems.

It is because the protocol is completely open and unsecure and extremely open to spoofing and miss use. It was never intended in the first place for aircraft to use. It was created to allow Air traffic to know where you are as an off shoot to GPS.

Is ADS actually being used as an input into a collision avoidance system on drones?

If not, how does the operator holding a remote with a display and joysticks know how to avoid a nearby plane or helicopter?

Quote:

That's quite the comparison. Do you have a highway in your backyard? Per the FAA no one is legally allowed to fly in their own back yard, subject to 3 years in prison and $250k fine.

What I said was that all airspace will be restricted from use by hobbyist drones. All of it. Every last cubic inch. On the excuse that it is entirely unsafe for them to operate at all.

NYS ran an interstate through the family farm back in the 50s, so yes, BTDT as a kid.

What disallows folks from flying what in their own backyards? One of my neighbors stores and launches his lil 2-seat sport helicopter from his backyard weekly, and I've known many others that owned their own grass strips including a cousin who is a professional bush pilot flying anything <2k lbs anywhere needed in North America. Last I knew, both were perfectly legal within common sense safety and practical limits after a number of legal hoops were jumped through. Drones are also perfectly legal over ones own property albeit subject also to common sense limits like their operating ceiling. Both must respect other property owners' rights. Common sense. Even if some draconian law were to ban drones outright it will be bc operators broke existing law, not bc of any inaction on the part of the govt. Before we get to that point tho, I would suspect the govt would simply require software limiting drone operating ceilings, which is likely simple vs the options discussed otherwise.

CWB1 - funny and meaningless story. Did they run an interstate through all backyards? Also funny - you know I was referring to flying drones, because that's what the paragraph was about. Out of context is the best argument though, right?

Read the current FAA regulations regarding drones and what they are proposing for the near future.

Alistair - I cannot understand what you are talking about: "none of us can accept the data" is in direct conflict with what ADS-B In is for. If you cannot use it then how are you flying? GPS doesn't tell ATC where you are, so it's not an offshoot.

Oh, so it's open to spoofing? Then why is the FAA depending on it for NextGen? It is defined for aircraft to use.

Our collision avoidance system works off secondary radar transponder. If both have a mode S transponder they both speak to each other on the secondary radar band. It's called TCAS. If you up against a mode c it will report Baro alt but won't speak to yours but you will get resolution not to hit it.. Mode a will just be putting out a 4 digit octal number without alt and you will only get traffic and no resolution.
All altitude transponder work with 1013 hpa Bari because they only care about relative seperation and time.

Mode s equipment all has a unique international hex decimal code in it. These are registered internationally.

ADS squirts a load of stuff to ATC including what we have set for targets. So if they tell us to do 240 knts and we set 260 knts then they know your taking the pee. Converse ly if they want you to do 170 to 4 and you set 145 at 6 miles they also know about it. High level where radar can't reach it gives GPS data for horizontal position but altitude is from Baro 1013.

If your told to descend to fl300 and you set fl200 they will also know.

The main difference is that altitude is always reported on Baro. You need to have the local pressure set to make any sense. Above transition alt we all go onto standard 1013 hpa or what ever that is in inches of mercury.

The egpws does have a terrain database in it but it also uses rad alt for height from ground which operates below 2500 ft.

Quote (3DDave)

Oh, so it's open to spoofing? Then why is the FAA depending on it for NextGen? It is defined for aircraft to use.

Quote (FAA website)

Starting January 1, 2020, you must be equipped with ADS-B Out to fly in most controlled airspace.

Bolding is mine...

As for spoofing... my career can be generally defined as "cyber security" (typically from a hardware/firmware perspective). A number of years back I looked into what it would take to make some of the common protocols used in flight operations do what they aren't supposed to do. To say it was easy would be a major understatement. They just weren't designed with security in mind.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

MacGyvers, do I understand correctly?
Does that mean that terrorists/activists can use a ground based transmitter near a flyway to spoof imaginary drones and create more havoc than real drones, short of an actual collision?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

As for nextgen.

It will allow them to turn off loads of high level primary and secondary radar. It will save a fortune. Centralise man power alot less technicians etc.

Yes, it can be spoofed. It hasn't stopped the FAA from requiring its use in certain air spaces. The cyberthreat is unrelated to this conversation, but a separate one could be started to discuss why the FAA has been going this way for 20 years or more without a second thought.

And yes, waross, they can do that now, using heavy jet identifications. It could look like 500 identical 747s were about to crash into the tower. It doesn't have to be near it - you could be anywhere within radio range; the system is incapable of determining from the signal where the source is, it depends on the content of the message carried by the signal. Or just call in a bomb threat to the terminal; no need for anything besides a phone. Or any number of actual attack vectors if killing people is the goal. Most people won't ever want to do that and there's no value for those who might consider it.

Sorry Alistair, I was referring to what the FAA says about ADS-B for traffic you are generally not part of and which does conflict more directly with drone use. I can see you don't have much insight into helicopter and general aviation. You might call them bug smashers.

I do enjoy seeing a memory item recall from a commercial pilot about how a small part of the system works for an unrelated application.

(typo)

You are completely correct about the bug smasher and puddle jumper part of aviation. Theses days I am more up to speed with gliders than them. But most single engine piston carry a transponder. If they go into controlled airspace they carry ADS-B. I think 2020 is the dead line to have it fitted in the USA. Gliders can squirt it and use and it is power by a motorbike battery and can last up to 5 or 10 hours depending on the battery. The flight aware ADS-B receiver is in the 1500$ price range and again is powered by battery. You can get fly leads to power form USB power banks and the 12V socket in the cockpit.

I can remember when ADS was started. And it was mainly a cost cutting exercise for ATC to find out what aircraft were doing without radar.

And in most places in the world and where R&D is focused that's what it is used for. IF they want to know what's going on in a blank spot they just need 6000$ worth of receiver and a connection to the main ATC database. Instead of a secondary radar head which first sends a interrogation signal to the aircraft and then it squirts it data back to the head. The ADS data can also be sent via sat link over water. I believe we also send it via VHF datalink.

I really don't have a clue what the FAA have said on the subject. I suspect though that most of it has been produced by none technical ATC types. And the techs who were brought in relatively late on in the process have pulled their hair out in frustration because the system just won't work low level using real aircraft. The whole concept of ADS-B was never intended for that use. And the current system just isn't set up to handle 10'000'd plus of additional contacts supplying real time data and technical stuff for deconfliction. They more than likely set it up with a 20 year projection on commercial air traffic density's. Over night if you added every drone into the equation you will have double if not tripled that. The system just won't cope and the amount of cash required to expand things to allow it means they just can't afford to include all drones in the mix.

I still can't se how you can integrate a load of drones using a completely different altitude reporting method to everyone else.

Too busy arguing to actually post anything technical. Once again, how does ADS-B in on a drone stop the operator from having the drone hit by a plane?

Quote (3DDave)

Oh, so it's open to spoofing? Then why is the FAA depending on it for NextGen?

Quote (3DDave)

Yes, it can be spoofed. It hasn't stopped the FAA from requiring its use in certain air spaces. The cyberthreat is unrelated to this conversation...

I'm confused... what point are you arguing? Your first response was to question why the FAA would require it if it can be spoofed, then in your next reply you agree that it can be spoofed.

Personally, I don't think spoofing CAN be ignored in this thread, particularly if the argument in the spotlight is the use of ADS-B IN when I've already pointed out that FAA requirements will only be for ADS-B OUT.

I've either missed the entire point, or we're running in circles...

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Quote (waross)

Does that mean that terrorists/activists can use a ground based transmitter near a flyway to spoof imaginary drones and create more havoc than real drones, short of an actual collision?

Can you not think of an easier way to confuse all principles involved than to flood the airspace with so many virtual objects that no one knows a safe glide path? Imagine it's night and your system just showed 1,000 new objects surrounding you in an instant... what if some of those objects were real and on intersecting vectors? Which is real, which is fake? I imagine there would be a lot of brown pants at that point...

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

This should demonstrate of the potential for total airspace mayhem. In fact it would make an effective war weapon.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Well, Mac, the point you have missed is that if ADS-B Out is good enough for the FAA to require on manned aircraft then it is good enough for the FAA to allow on drones. If the FAA is willing to use it, in spite of the ability for spoofing, to keep airplanes and helicopters from colliding with each other, then any exploitable systemic flaws that already exist are not an excuse for refusing expanded use. I did not "question why the FAA would require it if it can be spoofed" I questioned why they would be discriminatory to certain classes of aircraft if they were pushing it for their master plan.

ironic - we already know what damage can be done to at least 3 countries at the price of a dozen or so airplane tickets. Much cheaper than that bunch of drones from Intel. The military already has more destructive elements available.

Alistair,

Now you will know what the FAA has to say on the subject. And you make my point - The FAA doesn't want to spend their money on safety, and neither do the pilots and owners of manned aircraft. They don't want to be safe. They want to be exclusive.

Helicopter ADS-B

ADS-B isn’t just for fixed wing aircraft — it’s also an important tool for helicopters. For the Prince George’s County Maryland police department, having ADS-B is a critical component of every flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa3Hx1G8IC8

Avoiding a Close Call in the Air

Have you ever had a mid-air “close call” in what seemed like wide-open skies? Even the most seasoned pilots have occasionally been surprised by unseen aircraft. Thanks to ADS-B In, pilots can see traffic on their devices in the cockpit, affording them an extra level of safety and security. For the pilots in this video, having a “near miss” turned them into ADS-B believers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcsBQMU0a6w

Yes I have enough thanks usually with mil aircraft in class G but also a few with helicopters usually air sea rescue . When I say aircraft, helicopters are included. I spent my youth flying out of Aberdeen which due to to the oil rigs have some of the highest rotary operations in the world.

To my knowledge all aircraft above 5700kg are now fitted with ADS-out and Modes S.

And they all have a registration fee and hex code allocated and a 2 yearly inspection and calibration of said installation.

The helicopter in the above report is here

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Resu...

Its hex code is A97A67 on the mode-s transponder.

I say again it is the mode S transponder and secondary radar which TCAS uses which is the anti collision system on commercial aircraft. It is done on time and the altitude is taken from baro and 1013 pressure setting. GPS alt is not used. We receive the ADS info via it on 1090 freq. We do not do anything until a resolution advisory is issued by the TCAS and it only gives vertical separation. I had 2 traffic warnings yesterday, I was doing 1000ft/min and so were they and we both levelled off with 1000ft sep and everyone was happy. But a TCAS anti collision processor is 35K $ I think.

I really don't know why he is going on about ADS in relation to terrain avoidance its run through the EGPWS system which has its own GPS and links to a world wide terrain database. From what I could see there it was a pretty standard TCAS and EGPWS integrated avionics setup. Maybe its all mixed in with his synthetic visual system. His display used standard TCAS symbology.

Seems USA aircraft can take a software load and accept ADS in but I have zero clue if Part 121 can. We certainly can't.

Anyway this seems to run through the issues.

https://uavionix.com/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/

6 x 16 bit is about 16.75 million different codes I think and that the world wide total. But I do think FAA's reluctance is down to how much it would cost if every drone had one the airwaves would be swamped. They would want a registration fee which coast more than the drone to buy. The power consumption would make most not want them anyway. But the main issue is the receiving network and back end infrastructure to process all the data even if its to kill all the sub 500ft traffic.

The registration fee's and every two year test of registered avionics are way more than most drones cost in the first place.

Quote:

Read the current FAA regulations regarding drones and what they are proposing for the near future.

Current regulations dont appear to have changed much in the past few years. Any links to proposals you dont like? I'm not seeing much via google.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story...
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/...

They say it's for "safety." What they mean is "exclusion".

According to the FAA, as of December 2019: "nearly 1.5 million drones and 160,000 remote pilots are registered with the FAA"

Sounds like there's some good uptake on the registration process. Maybe not 100% but the difference between the # of drones and # of registered operators is more likely that most of them are below the 1kg size limit. Are the hold-outs to operator registration taking a stance of some kind, that you know of? What would their reason be to not register their drone?
My cars are registered. If I had a rifle or an airplane, I'd register them. Not a big deal. If I had a drone, I would register it too. What reason would I have to object to that?

Reading the Fed Register (thanks for the link), this explains some of it:

Quote (FAA)

the potential saturation of available radio frequency spectrum. The FAA proposes to address the identification issues associated with UAS by requiring the use of new services and technology to enable the remote identification of UAS.

That makes sense. Once you loft a million drones, each one has to be able to communicate clearly without obstructing the rest. Since drone operators do not (yet) show competence to tune radio frequencies in flight, each drone may have to be be assigned a permanent unique frequency for its ID beacon. That means tens of millions of unique ID's being broadcast. Well most drones don't travel very far or very fast, so something similar to the mobile cellular network could be appropriate. The FAA isn't very specific, yet.

Quote (FAA)

This information could be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.

Like the concerns I expressed above. It's good to see the FAA taking a solid stance on this before it becomes a greater threat to civil aviation.

www.sparweb.ca

It's bad to see regulations without reason. What does registration do? For a car it's to grab cash. Guns are made to kill people, so maybe registration might make sense. Would you register your laptop and lawn mower? You might commit some cyber crime with that laptop or injure a person with the mower. Own a camera? Better register it as you might be gathering information a terror plot could use. In fact, having personal property of any kind is something of a risk.

The uptake is that the FAA threatened hobby sellers if they didn't register the drones they sold. That's not uptake, that's coercion. And what difference has it made? The limit is .55 POUNDS; 250 grams.

Best reason not to register - cops with a warrant to search the house because someone spotted a drone in the area and they know you registered one. Much like the couple arrested at Heathrow because someone thought they owned one. Not sure where you live, but our cops, once given this permission, have a habit of taking knives to all upholstered furniture and bedding to make sure nothing is inside, smashing solid furniture to make sure there's no hiding places, and often enough, just shooting as they come through the door. They don't think there's a drone in the sofa - they want to let you know your freedom is in danger if you file any complaint at all.

Unique frequency? This isn't 1940. And how will this work where there aren't comms back to the Internet? It's also a lie that there will be saturation. How do I know - read the FAA report. Oh, wait, they did not do one. They had a catered lunch meeting where they agreed that 1,000,000 drones at the same location might pose a problem, pass the mustard please.

What, exactly will the registration do to prevent a collision?
Nothing, because it's not about safety, It's about exclusion and revenge.

No worries though. The drones are coming for aviation jobs, and the laws Amazon will see passed will force hobby pilots from urban areas.

Quote:

They say it's for "safety." What they mean is "exclusion".

So when the transponder is on manned aircraft its a great idea, but when its on a drone its an invasion of privacy? Good for thee, not for me comes to mind.

Quote:

What does registration do? For a car it's to grab cash. Guns are made to kill people, so maybe registration might make sense.

Most every vehicle manufactured is used to commit a crime during its life, hence why their registration is mandatory stateside - to allow their and thereby their owner's identification. They're also typically the second-most valuable item we own and frequently stolen, so again, identification is important. Firearms OTOH are rarely used to commit crime, are relatively low-cost, and rarely stolen, hence why we have very limited registration laws for them.

Regardless, I don't see mass drone use ever becoming viable in urban areas, prob why so many have given up on attempts to commercialize their use. Most cities have already banned their use outside of special areas to protect privacy and safety. There are several schemes that I'm aware of for getting around "lack" of operating frequencies, but the bigger issue is simply the infrastructure concentration in cities which already makes GPS and even cell coverage rather challenging in many areas.

Quote (3DDave)

What does registration do? For a car it's to grab cash.

If by "grab cash" you mean provide supplemental funding for a state's infrastructure to help deal with keeping track of the registration, upkeep of the roads they drive on, etc., then sure, it's a money grab.

Of course, if you meant "just another source of random income for the state", then I think you miss the point entirely.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Its going to cost a colossal amount to have any sort of control over 1.6 million drones.

There is no way the current Air traffic infrastructure can hope to process all the info coming from even a small fraction of 1.6 million drones. It will take an utterly colossal IT infrastructure.

I think there is somewhere in the region of 600 000 licensed pilots of aircraft in the USA and if there are already 160k drone pilots that a major addition to the licensing department.

ADS-B doesn't even have a drone data flag to specify the type. And any changes to ADS-B have to be agreed internationally along with any changes to the rules of Class G airspace.

Why Canadians resist registration:
Handguns were required to be registered in Canada since 1934.
In the early 70s there was a push by the Canadian Government to publicize the requirement and to have all previously unregistered handguns registered.
This was back when many Canadians trusted the government and were basically obedient to the government.
A lot of handgun owners who had been unaware of the legislation came forward and registered their handguns.
Compliance was good among law abiding citizens. Not so good in the criminal sector.
A few years later, a number of classes of registered handguns were reclassified as "Prohibited" and owners were instructed to surrender their prohibited handguns.
Strongly implied was:
"We know who you are and we know where you live."
This may have been the start of the decline of respect for the government in Canada.
If not the start, it was certainly a strong negative force.
In the early 90s a bill was passed that required all firearms including hunting rifles to be registered.
There was widespread opposition and non compliance.
Many gun owners remembered the events of the 70s and feared that this was the first step in disarming Canadians.
Many gun owners refused to comply.
There was an underground market for "Never registered" rifles.
The registry was finally abandoned and the records were destroyed.
While many of those who remember the events of the 70s have forgotten the details, the mistrust/distrust of the government remains and even if the specifics have been forgotten, the attitudes become part of the collective memory and are passed on.
Register my drone?
Well then if the government decides that I can no longer have it, "They will know who I am and they will know where I live."
Note: This post is not against the registration of drones.
This is an attempt to explain one possible reason for the resistance to the registration of drones.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

ironic metallurgist: "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization."

This statement wittingly or unwittingly endorses ALL taxation and, by implication, everything these taxes are spent on. In reality, not all taxes are good, fair, just, justified, appropriate, etc. and not everything these taxes are spent on are good, fair, just, justified, appropriate, etc. I would argue that the number of "bad" taxes and "bad spending" is pretty high, maybe even higher than the "good" taxes and "good" spending.

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

I did not say taxation would be fairly applied or that governments behave well.
The race to the bottom after 40 years of corporate-sponsored demonization of all government and taxation have gotten the US to where it is now, a kleptocracy.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

It is only a matter of time before the GOP can finally dismantle Social Security; they've been working particularly diligently at it for 40 yrs or so, by not objecting to deficits, since that makes SS' financial position more precarious, and therefore, more amenable to privatization.

Little do people know that this means their benefits will plummet, like crazy, since the average person's contributions don't come close to feeding their own retirement income.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I suspect most of the issues are not with normal people who this will hit the hardest anyway.

Most of shall we say the most risk operations will be done by various public entities who shall we say have a loose interpretation of what they actually have to do.

As 3ddave said the original report will more than likely involve some form of law enforcement entity flying it. They will deem their mission to override any rules the FAA has about max height and also lighting and if they had anything about squirting unsecure information about location. So they would have turned it all off and/or taped over the lights. This isn't just a feature of where it happened. The entities in Europe and rest of the world think the same way.

There is no way the FAA can afford to regulate and develop a secure system which pulls in all operators including Government entities who will use them. Although to be honest now with 1.6 million already out there and the natural aversion to people wanting to pay a sizable sum to be legal on both the the ownership and piloting side of things I suspect it will be an uphill battle to enforce things which is why they are going after the suppliers on the principle that drones will have a limited lifespan.

They will have to charge something. To be honest the current fee numbers look to me that they are definitely not making a profit out of it.

Quote (This was back when many Canadians trusted the government and were basically obedient to the government.)

The distrust was earlier and started with Diefenbaker, and has gotten worse.

Dik

Distrust of government has been around since government has existed. As people get older they experience more and more disapointed expectations. They think the world is changing, but it is not. In general there has never been a freer and more prosperous time in human history. That does not mean that every thing is perfect. It never will be.

Quote (dik)

Quote (waross)

(This was back when many Canadians trusted the government and were basically obedient to the government.)

The distrust was earlier and started with Diefenbaker, and has gotten worse.

Not always - 1919.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote:

The race to the bottom after 40 years of corporate-sponsored demonization of all government and taxation have gotten the US to where it is now, a kleptocracy.

Check your definitions. I'd argue 40+ years of corporate-sponsored kleptocracy created a natural demonization of government and taxation, no corporate lobbying needed for that distrust to evolve. A century ago my grandfather paid exactly one tax, the annual farm property tax. As noted in his memoirs in 1985, many folks mistakenly thought he was frugal because he'd lived through the depression. In reality he claimed to be frugal because over his lifetime the taxes and bills multiplied from less than one day's wages to more than a month's. Today I pay city, county, state, and federal tax on my cell phone bill alone.

Quote:

As 3ddave said the original report will more than likely involve some form of law enforcement entity flying it. They will deem their mission to override any rules the FAA has about max height and also lighting and if they had anything about squirting unsecure information about location. So they would have turned it all off and/or taped over the lights.

Then that operator needs to be reported to the FAA for prosecution. As I have reminded folks many times, civilian law enforcement is still civilian and the only folks with any reasonable exemption from our laws are our military.

I suspect that the operator thought that they could do what they want because its in their patch just like they do with multiple other issues where they use the grey areas of legal argument to do what the hell they want.

And lets face it the training and intelligence of said official entities is extremely variable.

When it happened they discovered the FAA runs the air ground to the heavens and the law is pretty clear on this fact. It is a federal offence.

After they lost the drone someone realised this fact and it disappeared and its cost was lost in other budgets. And they didn't say a thing so they couldn't be caught. Which is why the FAA wants to know about every drone in existence and have a method of finding out what it does. Currently they have zero clue. And know fine that if a police force thinks a drone will help them they will use it. And to them if breaking federal FAA rules to get a conviction so be it, because they are the law and the ground is their patch that's acceptable. When it turns out it's not acceptable, they are masters at evidence manipulation so can ensure there is nothing that sticks.

https://flarm.com/technology/traffic-collision-war...

But that's private industry. Sigh. Multiple mid-airs in USA airspace in the last month.

it used ADS-B and its what we use in gliders and light aircraft in Europe.

Its one of the battery powered boxes that I was on about. there are 3 different types I think

There is also a dongle attachment version which you can connect to an ipad which does a more integrated approach keep you clear of controlled airspace and terrain as well.

But the cost per month was horrendous, It was worth it for flying club aircraft flying 6-8 hours a day 30 days a month. But it was stupid amounts for a private owner who only fly's 1-2 hours a month.

Found this on the state of play in EASA land.

https://consortiq.com/european-uas-regulation-furt...?

Its just for info it has zero impact on me.

Speaking of drones and the problems they encounter, here's a story where the drone was the victim of a midair 'attack'...

Shoreline mapping drone taken down by bald eagle on Lake Michigan near Escanaba

The brazen eagle vs. EGLE drone onslaught took place near Escanaba on July 21 when EGLE environmental quality analyst and drone pilot, Hunter King, was mapping shoreline erosion.

https://www.abc12.com/2020/08/13/shoreline-mapping...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

ADS-B for drones and eagles, Canadian geese ... and every bird weighing more than 250gm?

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

Another near miss, only this one would have made the above-the-fold headlines for sure:

Air Force One Just Had A Near Miss With A Drone According To Reporter Onboard

The C-32A was descending into Andrews Air Force Base when the incident supposedly took place.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35763/air-fo...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

A drone on AirForce One?
I haven't heard him called that before.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Was it blue, or ... red?

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

Isn't it hard to see a drone close up when moving at 130knts. And hard to see small things when they far away. I think it wasnt so close, or ... it was a big one!

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

Quote (JohnRBaker)

The brazen eagle vs. EGLE drone

Seriously, the drone was called EGLE? That is too funny

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote:

Was it blue, or ... red?

Orange I think.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

I can fully understand the eagle taking out the drone because it was orange.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

That either goes to a level of irony beyond mere mortals or is an indication of total cluelessness.

I saw a lot of orange drones nesting in a tree.

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

Reread the two most recent posts by waross and the JRB post immediately before Bill's first. Eagles and orange drones were two different topics.

Quote:

That either goes to a level of irony beyond mere mortals or is an indication of total cluelessness.

Will you accept "Inappropriate satire", David?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

An update on that drone taken-out by that eagle:

Drone attacked by eagle found, EGLE posts lighthearted statement on recovery

https://www.wnem.com/news/drone-attacked-by-eagle-...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

If you thought drones were bad flying near other aircraft, what about this situation:

Airline Pilots Landing At LAX Report "A Guy In Jetpack" Flying Alongside Them

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36096/airlin...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

No worries. New movie production. George Jetson looking for Astro.
I can see where this will turn into a big problem some day. Will FAA make these guys get some kind of pilot's license? Ultralight are prohibited from flying into controlled airspace. That seems to have worked so far.
But, this could be different ...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/travel/2020/08/31/skydr...

This appears to have been an actual collision between a drone and an police chopper over Los Angeles back in September. This is believed to be the first drone operator to face criminal charges for improper operation of a drone resulting in a mid-air accident:

Hollywood Man Arrested For Crashing Drone Into LAPD Chopper

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/11/19/hollywo...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

JRB you beat me to it.

www.sparweb.ca

According to the rules, it looks like choppers can fly below the ceiling if done safely... from the damage, it looks like the chopper ran into the drone... maybe they weren't flying so safely?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

That's what I suspect as well dik.

From what a I can tell any local or national agency operation seems to think that the rules apply to everyone else but them.

The helicopter will have been blow the 300ft ceiling travelling reasonably quickly.

So it will be interesting see what they actually try and pin on him.

He really doesn't seem to be the type that would process a powerful very expensive drone that can go serious distance or that high. And please don't read anything derogatory or nasty in anyway into that statement. I am in exactly the same club as him.

Quote (So it will be interesting see what they actually try and pin on him.)

He's already been charged...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

He has but the charge is a first of unsafely operating a drone.

I believe if the FBI are involved its a federal crime?

If he had busted any of the other FAA reg's then he would have been taken for that which says to me that he was below 300ft. If he didn't have lights he would have been done for that.

"unsafely operating a drone" is just open ended and sounds like they want to get a test case through to get something on the books by someone that can't afford to pay for big hitting lawyers.

It is a federal case because the law falls under the FAA mandate.

The fact that he admitted to distracted flying is damning enough.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I thought he just said he put it up to see what was going on?

They should charge the Helicopter pilot as well for flying under 300ft and at speed not for the purpose of takeoff and landing and not keeping a good look out.

It's police helo, and according the FAA rules, it can fly lower, provided flight safety is maintained, but the drone was a pop-up and not something the pilot is expected to keep clear of.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

But as the FAA has no traffic system in that airspace there is no way a drone operator can know what traffic is about.

Sub 300ft in a single engine'd helo is well inside the dead man's curve. And operating over high/medium density housing..... so I can't see how they can maintain flight safety even without any drones being up.

Quote (Alistair Heaton)

But as the FAA has no traffic system in that airspace there is no way a drone operator can know what traffic is about.

That's the crux. Who is responsible for separation? One, the other, or both?

As you point out, the heli is already operating below the dead-man's curve altitude. Helicopters do this ALL THE TIME. It is where the greatest utility of helicopters comes from. My rough estimate is 75% of heli operations happen below 300 feet with eyes on the ground. Given the risk implicit in that operation, would you add drone separation to the heli pilot's duties?

If the drone pilot is to be held responsible for separation, how would they gain the situational awareness to do it? Equip the toy with a transponder and relay TCAS data to their ground video screen? I may already be talking nonsense but from the FAA's point of view, the drone pilots do have to accept responsibility for their entrance into an airspace that is already being used, and that their appearance causes/increases hazards to the people/aircraft already there.

For now, the FAA is going to bat. As it stands, it looks like a no-win situation unless someone can propose a "lateral-thinking" solution. There are special-mission aircraft outfitters already planning offensive weapons to use against drones. Remember the nuisances over Heathrow last year? Using weapons such as these in the civilian realm makes me very uncomfortable, but the current liberty available to drone operators makes me equally uncomfortable. Ultimately, I think this will be decided by the people whose butts are at risk. If a police agency is concerned about the risk, you can be sure they will consider the weapons approach to dealing with it.

www.sparweb.ca

...with time, the problem may only get worse...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

to start this single engine single crew operation is completely illegal in Europe.

See and avoid is in the remit in class G airspace. VFR at night is country specific.

I might be coming across as a bit hard on the heli pilot but if your in that airspace you have absolutely zero protection your on your own like it or not. Sub 300 feet then you have to take a personal risk assessment on the flight conditions if you are going to be able to self separate from all threats including wires engine failures etc. So to me he shouldn't have been there what ever was going on on the ground. The fact that he hit something means he couldn't self separate.

The FAA is quite frankly screwed with drones in the USA they can't afford the infrastructure to separate traffic, there will be colossal political and legal fall out if they try and restrict peoples right to operate them. Even imposing licensing and hardware requirements is problematic.

I completely agree this is a test no win case. The FAA are more than likely wanting it to fail and won't be the ones pushing for it anyway, then they can say give us more money and then we can do something about it.

Concur...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

At that altitude the chopper pilot is trespassing on private property. LEO or not, he's violating the law stateside and should be held accountable.

Quote:

So to me he shouldn't have been there what ever was going on on the ground. The fact that he hit something means he couldn't self separate.

It was just past midnight; and ALL other manned aircraft, namely any new helos, know to stay out of the way of the police helos, since they specifically monitor the police radios and know what the police are doing at all times. This guy basically did a pop-up in the middle of a police operation; he only HEARD the helo and he did not know where any of the aircraft were, he should not have flown into the police helo flight path.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

IRS: I disagree... the chopper ran into the drone... and the chopper pilot should have been more aware...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Agree to disagree

Hernandez' craft was the interloper and it was small compared to ALL of the obstacles that the pilot already had to deal with in the dark of night. His drone should not have been there; therefore, it was the cause of the accident.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I can't read the minds of the members posting above, so if this feedback doesn't apply to you specifically, don't take it the wrong way.
If you suddenly realize it does apply to you, just take it as a reminder to think through what you say before posting.

How many of you didn't notice that it was a police helicopter that was struck?
Considering the operating rules that the LAPD pilots follow, I strongly doubt the positions taken above that the police flight crew were being reckless or derelict. Not personally involved in the special equipment is installed on these particular heli's to make night ops and low level flying tolerably safe, but personally involved with similar equipment for similar ops. Night helicopter operations are NOT like airline operations. Some hazards are bigger, some smaller. The threats and reactions are totally different. The energy equations are totally different. If for some reason you have a bone to pick with the cops in helicopters, how about all the other low-level helicopter ops that you DO believe fulfill a good purpose in society and maybe even VITAL?

www.sparweb.ca

So, if they have an obligation to fly safely below 300' then they really don't... to make matters worse then may have been trying to be undercover and not using their lights or anything to be identified... people have to get out of the idea that police are right, all around.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Seriously? They were responding to an air support request from ground units, so they would have been flying non-stealth and with search light on, and helos are hardly stealthy at 300 ft, particularly when the dope specifically flew his drone to see what all the helicopter commotion was about.

Quote:

So, if they have an obligation to fly safely below 300' then they really don't

You keep harping on this with no evidence; they were flying safely and would stayed safe, until some dope stuck a drone in their flight path.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I tend to agree that the police don't automatically have special airspace privilege just by flying, which means they need to ensure they are operating safely just as much as the drone operator has to operate safely. If they were operating below 300' then they need to be held responsible if they fly into something just the same as any other aircraft operator in that air space.

It would seem the key question not yet answered or publicly available is did the drone fly into the helicopter or did the helicopter fly into the drone? Flight path data, if available, should answer this and the at fault operator should be obvious. Considering the arrest, it's possible the FBI have already assessed this and have the data.

I would like to see links to the information backing up the statements that he flew the drone because he heard the helicopter and that he admitted to flying the drone distracted.

Quote (https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/hollywood-man...)

According to the complaint, Hernandez said he flew his drone “to see what was going on.” As the drone was ascending, Hernandez saw the drone “smacked” by the hovering police helicopter, and it fell to the ground at a nearby residence, the complaint states.

Quote (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/...)

As the drone was ascending, Hernandez looked down for a couple of seconds at the drone controller, which was attached to his phone. As Hernandez looked up again at his drone, he saw the drone being ‘smacked’ by the helicopter, which was hovering.

By some accounts, the drone was a Mavic Pro https://www.dji.com/mavic

It's barely 13 inches across, not exactly a large target in the dark, even with running lights

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Thank you. It's rather annoying seeing a news article posted and then claims being stated as fact that were not in the new article.

That first story is all over the place. It starts out saying that as the helicopter was coming into the area the pilot saw the drone and tried to avoid it but the collision still happened. And then the story says the drone was smacked by the hovering helicopter as the drone ascended, whatever that means. I simply can't make heads or tails from what happened reading that article.

The second article also appears to claim in a roundabout way that the drone ascended into the hovering helicopter even though the helicopter climbed to avoid it. That makes little sense because you'd have to be a complete idiot to fly a drone straight up into a hovering helicopter without realizing a collision was close to happening. Even if you were alternating between watching the drone and watching the controls, or more likely looking at the camera.

The initial article says he flew the drone when he heard sirens, not when he heard the helicopter. I wouldn't be surprised if he launched the drone before the helicopter got to the area or as the helicopter flew into the area.

Overall, my guess would be the drone was moving vertically upwards as it took off and the helicopter was moving horizontally and possibly downwards towards the scene. Even though the helicopter pilot saw the drone and tried to avoid by climbing, they still collided. Since the drone pilot was between building he might not have been able to see the helicopter coming until it was too late to avoid. He also might have looked down to try and find the helicopter on the camera. Who knows for sure at this point without seeing the evidence, but proving guilt could be difficult.

Of course, it's also possible he clearly and obviously flew the drone straight up into the helicopter for some reason making it a rather simple case to prosecute.

Quote:

I simply can't make heads or tails from what happened reading that article.

That's par for the course, even for actual eyewitnesses. All we can be certain is that H. flew his drone upward with no sense of situational awareness and the police helo barely saw the drone, pulled up, collided, but avoided getting collision debris into the engine intake. Relative speeds/positions, etc. are all guesses. Nevertheless, his drone was the interloper; I think prosecution will argue that a 1-ft wide drone is not particularly visible at night and should not have flown without the situational awareness that was needed for safe flight.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

No. The drone was the interloper only if it flew into the area after the helicopter had arrived. Otherwise, the helicopter was the interloper.

Saying he had no sense of situational awareness is just assuming too.

Quote:

The drone was the interloper only if it flew into the area after the helicopter had arrived.

Only if it was there long enough for the pilot to detect him and be able to avoid him; it would be no different that if you were driving 15 mph and changed lanes into the path of a car doing 65 mph with no warning or ability for the oncoming car to avoid you. Yes, you were there first, but your movement caused the accident.

And, he admitted to looking down and then looking up and seeing his drone get hit, ergo, no situational awareness.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (LionelHutz)

The second article also appears to claim in a roundabout way that the drone ascended into the hovering helicopter even though the helicopter climbed to avoid it. That makes little sense because you'd have to be a complete idiot to fly a drone straight up into a hovering helicopter without realizing a collision was close to happening.

I can't speak for this specific drone model, but many of the drones nowadays have a form of autopilot... you tell it to go to 'X' feet in altitude and it shoots straight up in an attempt to reach it. Same goes for the models who will go to a specific set of GPS coordinates... set it and press the big green 'go' button. Not all drone flight is hands-on the entire time.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Quote (IRstuff)

...it would be no different that if you were driving 15 mph and changed lanes into the path of a car doing 65 mph with no warning or ability for the oncoming car to avoid you.

That sort of thing actually happened, sort of.

I used to have to go to Germany almost every year for awhile to visit customers and attend engineering conferences. I can recall being their just before the wall came down and everyone was scared over what the Soviets were going to do. Of course, it all happened without a single Russian rifle round being fired. Anyway, I was back in Germany a year later and it was like the wall had never existed. Sure there were issues and the German government along with big companies were trying to sort out how to keep millions of former East Germans fed and employed while society readjusted to the new order.

But getting back to the issue of this this thread, one of the biggest adjustments that many West Germans had to make was just getting to work safely in the morning or home at night. Anyone who's ever driven on the German autobahns know how fast Germans drive. Well, during the first year or so the incidents of traffic accidents skyrocketed in Germany because these former East Germans would be coming over to the old West Germany in their Trabants or other old Soviet era cars, coming from a 'country' where the highest speed-limit was something like 100 km/h (62 MPH) and they were now driving on highways where many of them had no speed-limit at all. The big problem was that they just didn't know how drive in situations like that, often changing lanes without looking, which was something that a West German driver just didn't do, not unless he wanted some BMW or Mercedes stuck-up his tail pipe. Also, those old Soviet era cars just drove too slow (a two-stroke, 600cc engine Trabant could barely get-up to 100 km/h). It was horrible for awhile, until they could get those old death-traps off the road and until the drivers, on both sides, changed their driving habits.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Hi JRB,

I don't agree with your analogy to German autobahns. If you believe that there is some similarity or near-equivalence between the drone and the helicopter, in some way that compares well with a BMW versus a Lada, sorry, no. The consequences of an accident are tipped enormously against the helicopter or any aircraft that collides with a drone. If a Trabby and a Merc collide, the odds of injury is nearly even on both sides. How far do the odds have to tip in favour of one party and against another before you consider the disadvantage to the second party to be sufficiently threatening?

A more apt comparison is a bird versus an aircraft, or a missile versus an aircraft. Both are a threat to an aircraft, and both will be destroyed if they strike the aircraft in flight. There is a crucial difference between a bird and a missile, of course, which is the intent served by each being airborne. The drone fits in the middle of the range between bird and missile. The drone is not as hostile as a missile, but a drone is definitely not as innocent as a bird.

www.sparweb.ca

I was making a reference to what IR described, not necessarily a drone and a copter.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Quote:

Only if it was there long enough for the pilot to detect him and be able to avoid him; it would be no different that if you were driving 15 mph and changed lanes into the path of a car doing 65 mph with no warning or ability for the oncoming car to avoid you. Yes, you were there first, but your movement caused the accident.

Sure, but that analogy could be false for this situation. Instead, say both cars are driving at constant speeds in a huge parking lot. A small one is going N-S at 15 MPH and a big one is going E-W at 65mph. It's then not clear when attempting to assign blame for the collision.

Looking down at the controls (camera most likely) for a few seconds doesn't mean no situational awareness. I don't want to be driving anywhere near you if you lose all situational awareness while driving when you glance at the speedometer or look at the clock on the radio.


Dan, yes it could have been automatically rising to a certain altitude. But that still doesn't make sense of the news articles. You wouldn't set a drone down on the ground and launch it straight up when a helicopter was hovering low overhead. Looking down a couple of seconds then looking back up and "suddenly" seeing a hovering helicopter "smack" your drone also makes no sense.

I believe there is a maneuver called sudden stop or quick stop a helicopter pilot needs to learn. It's possible the pilot was doing a version of this when the drone was hit. That could make it appear the helicopter was hovering when the collision occurred.

Quote:

That could make it appear the helicopter was hovering when the collision occurred.

If it were hovering, there would have been way less damage, since the relative speeds would have been low.

Quote:

Instead, say both cars are driving at constant speeds in a huge parking lot.

Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy for midnight; should be more like a parking lot filled with parked and moving cars(normal lights in the dark) and car (another light) popping out from a side aisle that you couldn't see until you were nearly into the aisle. The basic issue is that while daytime clutter is pretty bad, nighttime has its own set of clutter issues, particularly given the amount of light pollution we generate. The MAVIC, assuming that's the correct drone, has relatively tiny lights, and would otherwise be completely invisible; I'm amazed that the pilot even saw it in time to do anything at all.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Both your analogies are more flawed then mine, But you've already clearly decided the drone pilot was at fault as soon as he decided to fly his drone at night, so there is no point posting about it any more.

I just don't see why everyone is blaming the helo pilot, who had a legitimate reason to fly in that air space. Nothing anyone has said shows the helo pilot was in the wrong.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The checks and balances are the same for all commercial flight ops.

I have worked with rule 5 dispensations.

UK is very tight on with both helimed and and police ops regulation. I also know more than a few that do such ops in a variety of hardware. Touch wood we haven't had any fatalities for years.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-...

This is the big one which tightened everything up.

It is never an excuse to endanger your aircraft for mission success what ever that is even if it means someone dies because you didn't.

Remember the week that Gatwick Airport in the UK was repeatedly closed because of drone sightings?
Here's the other side of the story. The mystery of the Gatwick drone - The Guardian - 2020 Dec 1

Some passages:

Quote:

In June 2020, Sussex police settled out of court with Paul Gait and Elaine Kirk, agreeing to award the couple £200,000 in damages and legal fees for their wrongful arrest. No one else has been charged over the drone incident, and the couple’s legal team said that “serious doubts remain as to whether there were, in fact, any drones flown over the airport”.

Quote:

In the US, the Federal Aviation Authority said it gets more than 100 reports every month from citizens who believe they’ve seen a drone near a plane or an airport. Back in 2015, the Academy of Model Aeronautics analysed these sightings and found that just 3.5% actually involved a near-miss between aircraft and a drone.

Quote:

Back in the 60s, Percy Walker, the director of Britain’s Ministry of Aviation accident inspection branch, said that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are “almost always wrong”.

Almost 2 years later and nobody knows what was actually in the sky over the airport. As the numerous eyewitness sighting stories are collated, less and less matches up, and what is reported doesn't make sense. Eg. "hovered for hours" which is impossible with almost any drone having a battery life of <30 minutes.


There are two scenarios under consideration. The incident at Gatwick shows that everyone is prepared to believe a story cranked up by fear of evil intent, terrorism, villainy.
What the story in LA shows (as well as the incident with the RCMP in Canada last year) is that real threat is just confusion and negligence.

So all we have left is:

Quote (Hanlon's Razor:)

Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity

www.sparweb.ca

Some recent 'drone' news:

U.S. to allow small drones to fly over people and at night

https://news.yahoo.com/u-allow-small-drones-fly-19...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

New drone rules...
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/29/951010863/u-s-annou...

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

I like the reactions from drone operators.

Quote:

As usual, the FAA has written a rule that is nearly impossible to interpret. Does this mean I DON'T need the new ID equipment if I NEVER fly at night or over people? Or does it mean that I DO need the special equipment if I operate under Part 107?

They've never read a flight operations regulation before, so they think this is crazy.

www.sparweb.ca

Speaking of drones, this might explain the recent sightings by airline pilots in the LAX area of a so-called 'jet-pack' guy in their airspace:

Airliner Pilot Says Jet Pack Guy Over Los Angeles Looked Just Like This Crazy Drone

Months after the first sighting of the jet pack guy over Southern California, we get new insights into the official investigation into the incidents.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38802/airlin...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

A helicopter of the Chilean Navy had a collision with a drone, which broke through the windscreen and injured the on-board mechanic.

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!
www.sparweb.ca

You may also be interested in this recent webcast from CASI.

AIR-TO-AIR COLLISIONS: DRONE IMPACT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ON AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE

These are drone collision tests using an actual drone and actual aircraft structure. This is jet aircraft structure so the speeds are higher. Collision speeds at 140 knots and 240 knots were simulated (typical of takeoff, approach speeds). The damage was substantial in many cases. Windshield impacts were terrible - fragmentation that would severely injure/incapacitate the flight crew. Damage to control surfaces (slats) rendered them non-functional. Components of the drone or the entire drone remained embedded in the structure in several cases. A case of primary structural damage occurred (not just skin damage). A case of lithium battery combustion was observed.

Some highlights:

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!
www.sparweb.ca

I had to stop reading through this thread. It's simple in my mind, per Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 91 rules, VFR flight in US airspace is based on see and avoid. For IFR flight in US Controlled airspace, ATC is responsible for providing separation services, regardless of weather, although if you can see you always need to avoid. All other systems, capability of personal electronic devices, fancy do hickeys and concepts are moot. It's been this way for a very long time.

Drones present a lot of opportunities, but working them into the operational environment is non trivial. US airspace, as well as EU 'single sky" airspace, and Transport Canada airspace, (Nav Canada?) are very complex already well engineered, controlled and regulated environments.

Like any air ops, if you don't know what you are doing, nobody that does want's you there, stay on the ground. Just saying.

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm professionally affiliated with.

Nothing is going to change until there is a major incident and they are forced to do something politically. And that's a global comment not country specific.

You just can't see the things in the air until you can't avoid them.