Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Officials probe first possible drone-related aircraft crash in the US
US authorities have started investigating what could be the first drone-related aircraft crash in the US, according to Bloomberg. Pilots have been reporting more and more drone sightings these past few years based on data from the FAA, but most of those incidents have been harmless. That might not be the case this time around. The pilot and student flying the helicopter that crashed in South Carolina on Wednesday told investigators they saw a small drone appear in front of them while practicing… (www.engadget.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I question your suggestion that there are any downforces that extend OUT from the prop. Underneath, yes, but not out. In fact, from what I remember of my Fluid Mechanics class in school, there should be updrafts outside the downdrafts under the rotors, as the air that displaced downward makes it way around and back up to replace the air that is being pulled down from above the rotors.
See my post about the drone operator who was found at fault for the collision with the Blackhawk and the news report showing the piece of drone that hit it and took out a decent size chunk of the rotorblade. As a former crew chief on helicopters, I would not want to have a collision with one and we know that the rotor wash will not knock it out of the sky.
Due to how rotors work, a drone can most certainly get under the blades. Now if the helo was flying backwards, there might not be a chance of it, but it is highly doubtful that there is a need to fly backwards outside of combat or in lift operations such as placing electrical pylons and then it would not be very far.
Due to how rotors work, a drone can most certainly get under the blades. Now if the helo was flying backwards, there might not be a chance of it, but it is highly doubtful that there is a need to fly backwards outside of combat or in lift operations such as placing electrical pylons and then it would not be very far.
That's what I thought from the beginning.
I like Dogs, Drones, Model Airplanes. However if they are playing in the street/sky I will run over them instead of losing control and drive into the ditch/fly into the trees. Always fly the Airplane. The guy hired the wrong instructor.
Dogs have been here forever. Drones will be here from now on.
Dogs have been here forever. Drones will be here from now on.
Problem here is if it was a drone was it in a legally allowed area. Practice areas are usually a controlled airspace the only students and their instructors are allowed into. This allows them to maneuver in relative safety on a see and be seen basis. Problem is a drone operator would not be looking at an aeronautical map and know that it is a control spaced and not to fly there
I know of no practice areas below 400 feet more than 5 miles from an airport, that are in controlled airspace. In fact, almost all, if not all, practice areas below 400 feet are in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. Moving on to what IS true. ALL drone pilots are responsible for NOT being a hazard to manned aircraft, not the other way around. The fault of this incident rests primarily on the drone pilot for failing to operate his vehicle in a way as to NOT be a threat to a manned aircraft.
if the drone was already in the airspace and a real aircraft suddenly entered the space - regardless what is was doing or if it was operating below minimums - it will take a moment for the drone operator to realize their space was being encroached upon and find an appropriate exit.
The mentality CANNOT be "I'm here now everyone else GTFO of my way!" on part of manned... that's the kinda stupid arrogance college students pull at class change time & crossing all over busy streets that cut through or around campus. And they wonder why they get run over...
Drones have to observe maximums - and manned has to observe minimums. Both have to be aware of each other, respect each other's airspace - and both have to have REASONABLE expectations when there is encroachment.
The mentality CANNOT be "I'm here now everyone else GTFO of my way!" on part of manned... that's the kinda stupid arrogance college students pull at class change time & crossing all over busy streets that cut through or around campus. And they wonder why they get run over...
Drones have to observe maximums - and manned has to observe minimums. Both have to be aware of each other, respect each other's airspace - and both have to have REASONABLE expectations when there is encroachment.
You don't understand the law. A drone pilot CANNOT operate his drone in an area where he COULD be surprised by a manned aircraft.
The "mentality" in reality is exactly like you say that it "CANNOT" be. Manned aircraft have all the rights over unmanned aircraft. That is the law. You are living in a fantasy.
The "mentality" in reality is exactly like you say that it "CANNOT" be. Manned aircraft have all the rights over unmanned aircraft. That is the law. You are living in a fantasy.
"The "mentality" in reality is exactly like you say that it "CANNOT" be."
And the sad part is that some folks will believe that position is justified, become entrenched in that mindset, let it affect their behavior, demeanor, and ultimately their reactions -- just making things more dangerous.
No one is debating that drones should yield to manned aircraft. Most of your comments are twisting and torturing both the other person's opinion and the law (for example, nothing says drones cannot operate within 5 miles of any airport, but some are controlled).
And specifically, the exclamations over the "audacity" of a drone being anywhere near a manned aircraft - deliberately and actively denying any consideration that those conditions may occur even if both were conscientious operators operating within parameters. The legal separation is only 100 ft.
So ignoring the reality and asserting that "A drone pilot CANNOT operate his drone in an area where he COULD be surprised by a manned aircraft" is at best a misplaced black/white oversimplification but could lead to the rationalization and abdication of any responsibility on behalf of the manned aircraft.
That attitude, mindset, and approach is how a minor -within lane- swerve on the highway can lead to a road rage accident.
Not that I expect you to understand the parallels, but: While turning in to a parking lot, my wife scraped the side of her truck on the corner of a front-end loader bucket. The front-end loader was parked illegally half on the sidewalk half on the road. Is he responsible? Or did she just misjudge clearance? Would it change anything if they had a permit to close the road and were just briefly parked there to get out and set up the traffic cones?
And the sad part is that some folks will believe that position is justified, become entrenched in that mindset, let it affect their behavior, demeanor, and ultimately their reactions -- just making things more dangerous.
No one is debating that drones should yield to manned aircraft. Most of your comments are twisting and torturing both the other person's opinion and the law (for example, nothing says drones cannot operate within 5 miles of any airport, but some are controlled).
And specifically, the exclamations over the "audacity" of a drone being anywhere near a manned aircraft - deliberately and actively denying any consideration that those conditions may occur even if both were conscientious operators operating within parameters. The legal separation is only 100 ft.
So ignoring the reality and asserting that "A drone pilot CANNOT operate his drone in an area where he COULD be surprised by a manned aircraft" is at best a misplaced black/white oversimplification but could lead to the rationalization and abdication of any responsibility on behalf of the manned aircraft.
That attitude, mindset, and approach is how a minor -within lane- swerve on the highway can lead to a road rage accident.
Not that I expect you to understand the parallels, but: While turning in to a parking lot, my wife scraped the side of her truck on the corner of a front-end loader bucket. The front-end loader was parked illegally half on the sidewalk half on the road. Is he responsible? Or did she just misjudge clearance? Would it change anything if they had a permit to close the road and were just briefly parked there to get out and set up the traffic cones?
All wrong. Let's start citing the actual regulations, instead of making things up, shall we? From Public Law 112-95, Section 336, titled “The Special Rule for Model Aircraft”:
Model aircraft may operate free of other FAA regulations (which means the pilot does not have to licensed by the FAA) if:
"the (model) aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft" In the reported instance we are all talking about, the model aircraft was NOT operated in a way that it did NOT interfere with a manned aircraft. Period. Suggesting anything else is living in one's own fantasy world.
"Legal separation is only 100 ft." What? I challenge you to reference the reg that states this! And I will be so "audacious" as to say that that is B.S.
And your front end loader bucket analogy is not appropriate. The vehicle was not being operated illegally. It was not even being operated at all. The law sees the difference, you should, too.
Model aircraft may operate free of other FAA regulations (which means the pilot does not have to licensed by the FAA) if:
"the (model) aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft" In the reported instance we are all talking about, the model aircraft was NOT operated in a way that it did NOT interfere with a manned aircraft. Period. Suggesting anything else is living in one's own fantasy world.
"Legal separation is only 100 ft." What? I challenge you to reference the reg that states this! And I will be so "audacious" as to say that that is B.S.
And your front end loader bucket analogy is not appropriate. The vehicle was not being operated illegally. It was not even being operated at all. The law sees the difference, you should, too.
This is your quote " In the reported instance we are all talking about, the model aircraft was NOT operated in a way that it did NOT interfere with a manned aircraft. Period. Suggesting anything else is living in one's own fantasy world." and this is what the NTSB said "the National Transportation Safety Board is aware that a drone MAY HAVE BEEN involved and is investigating the case with that in mind." No where does it say there was DEFIBITLEY a drone so we are not living in some fantasy world!
What does “in the reported instance” mean to you? Given my very important qualification, that was provided in advance, what issue can you have with what I said? What evidence suggests the report that a drone was involved is false? Besides just plain unsubstantiated conjecture?
What important qualification? The reported instance is just as everyone else in this forum read it. It does not say a drone WAS definitely involved, it states MAY!
The report is that the pilots stated a drone WAS involved. That was what was reported. Those hearing the story second hand (or thid hand), added the 'may'.
A flying fixed wing aircraft has small vortices close to front of the aircraft itself, very strong negative vortices closer to an engine or huge vortices behind it, such as the wake of an A380 taking off and yes a drone can will cause significant damage and possible loss of life if it hit the windscreen or got sucked into an engine..but the positive vortices of a flying helo extend around it from the rotor assembly out and down, not just close to it and if a drone was close enough that the pilot could identify the make of it, he would have to be facing it and it below the rotors. If there was a drone, and again I am not disputing either way, the rotor wash should have blown the thing away before the pilot could even see it.