6 ms·

Drone nearly collides with helicopter, operator gets caught

31 points by nols 11y ago

dang 11y ago
Url changed from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-collides-with-helicopter-operator-gets-caught/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-coll..., which points to this.
microcolonel 11y ago
New title: Person alleged to have flown model aircraft above legal limit, following a complaint that the activity interfered with a manned flight. New subtitle: Alleged offender may face prosecution for the standard charges associated with this activity. This aircraft could only loosely be considered a drone to begin with.
- mikeash 11y ago
  What about a Phantom 3 makes it "only loosely be considered a drone"? Looks pretty drone-y to me. Fits both the traditional definition of "vehicle with no people on board" and the emerging modern definition of "electric multirotor helicopter." I don't see why your proposed title/subtitle are better. The most interesting thing here is not the violation of regulations, but the near miss with a manned aircraft.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    If that's your definition of "drone" then have all RC aircraft have magically become "drones" since the media started using the word? What about kites? Model rockets? Birthday balloons?Frisbees? Boomerangs? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but it's clear that right now there's no community consensus on the technical definition of "drone" anything more rigorous than the "I don't know what obscenity is, but know it when I see it" argument. Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? Does it need to carry a camera? Does it need to be a multirotor? Is there a size limit? Is my 1.5oz CX10 a "drone"? My ~1kg GPS guided autonomous quadrotor? Where's the line? How about my 450g non-autonomous FPV one? Or my 320g one that doesn't even have a camera? Was the heli pilot any more at-risk that if it's been a buzzard or a goose? (Note: I think the guy was a jerk for being up at 7-800 feet with a chopper nearby, but nobody died - there's no suggestion that anybody even came close to dying. Is the situation and it's outcome any worse than it he'd been somewhat recklessly driving at 90mph on the highway rather than somewhat recklessly flying at 800 feet over it? If you do 90 in your car and hit someone, they hold you accountable. If you do 90 in your car and don't hit anyone else but happen to be observed by the police, they don't penalise you as though you just killed someone, they write you a ticket. Should this guy be treated any differently?)
    - mikeash 11y ago
      RC aircraft have been "drones" since long before anybody in the media cared about the word. Probably the most common use of the word before the current quadcopter craze was in the phrase "target drone," which is typically a large remote-controlled aircraft that military pilots can shoot at for training. I think the word implies some kind of guidance, whether automatic or remote-piloted, so model rockets and such would not qualify. Kites aren't really aircraft. Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? I see no use, past or present, that implies autonomy. Camera? Again, no. Multirotor? Historically no, current media usage maybe. Size limit? Don't think so. A large hobby drone is definitely more of a risk than a buzzard or goose. Birds can dodge. They're not always successful, but the instinct for self-preservation usually gets them out of the way, at least for slow aircraft like a typical helicopter. Helicopters make a ton of noise too, which probably helps a lot. Going 90MPH on the highway is a pretty major offense in many places. Here in Virginia that's an automatic reckless driving misdemeanor charge that's likely to result in jail time. No, they don't punish you the same as they would if you actually kill somebody, but then there's no indication they'll punish this guy as if he killed somebody, so I have no idea why you'd mention that.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    >...the emerging modern definition... IOW, people want to feel special so they are calling their toys by a name the feel is better.
- mirimir 11y ago
  DJI Phantom 3 Professional http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro Looks like a drone to me. But a big and expensive drone, I admit. Weight is 1.3 Kg, about the same as a duck. Aren't helicopter windows able to resist duck hits?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Ducks don't typically have bits of metal in them (at least, live ducks).
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    No. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/helicopter.crash.cause/ http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/helicopter.crash.cause/ On January 4, 2009, a dual-engine Sikorsky S-76C helicopter crashed into marshy terrain near Morgan City, Louisiana, about seven minutes after takeoff from Amelie, Louisiana. The copter was on a charter flight to a Gulf of Mexico oil rig. Both pilots were killed, along with six of the seven passengers, according to the NTSB. Heard on the helicopter's cockpit voice recorder was a "loud bang, followed by sounds consistent with rushing wind and a power reduction on both engines," according to the statement. "The aircraft crashed several seconds later." Feathers and other debris, identified as belonging to a red-tailed hawk, were collected from the helicopter's canopy and windshield, the NTSB said.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      > "Contributing to the accident, the board said, were the lack of [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations and guidance requiring helicopter windshields to be resistant to bird strikes," among other factors, the NTSB said in a news release. So why aren't windows typically polycarbonate? A few layers of that can stop bullets.
      - thrownaway2424 11y ago
        No idea. You might as well ask why general aviation is still using leaded gas. General aviation is a bit of a shitshow.
- r00fus 11y ago
  A Phantom3 was the same model that was shot down by neighbor: http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/28/9625468/drone-slayer-kentucky-cleared-charges http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/28/9625468/drone-slayer-kent... Fine, call it a UAV if you want, but it's a drone to me.
click170 11y ago
As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close calls with drones in my area, what I want to know is since when did ignorance of the law become a defense from it? I wouldn't be allowed to murder someone and then hide behind that excuse. Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted.
- grubles 11y ago
  Clearly murder is way way way more widely known to be illegal. That isn't a good example. The article doesn't even mention the laws the RC helicopter pilot could have broken.
  - blizkreeg 11y ago
    If the helicopter had crashed, killing people on the street and the pilot, does that make it a good example?
    - grubles 11y ago
      The issue is what law(s) did the RC heli pilot break? A part of that issue is making RC pilots aware of the limits of their flying.
      - cgriswald 11y ago
        These drones come with information and resources for responsible and legal flight. Depending on where you buy it, you may also be encouraged to review that information before you even make the purchase. I agree the author of the article should also have done his research and helped to spread the word (as should the CHP officer whose only advice was to use "common sense" - which is different for a CHP officer than it is for the common person).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- 11y ago
1024core 11y ago
> The drone could come through window and take out the pilot, and the helicopter could come down,” he said. Really? Unless the 'copter was flying at a very high speed, I'd deem this very unlikely. I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can handle hail? I don't think a small drone like a Phantom would pack the power of hail. I'm not saying that this is OK; but hyperbole bothers me. Drone operator should be prosecuted, but not to the extent that he could have crashed through the window and brought down the helicopter.
- steveax 11y ago
  I imagine a three pound hailstone (Phantom 3 specs say 1280 gram weight) would cause some problems for a chopper.
  - ryan_j_naughton 11y ago
    I think his point was that the drone is unlikely to carry much more force than hail. F = MA Thus, even though the drone is heavier than hail, it won't likely be going as fast as hail (such that its deceleration when hitting the helicopter would be less significant). Thus, the comparison is apt. If we had 3 lb hail, it would have much more force than most 3 lb drones bc of its speed.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Hail was mentioned in the context of, "I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can handle hail?" I can guarantee you that a helicopter windscreen cannot handle 3lb hail. If such a hailstorm were ever encountered (unlikely, the record in the US is 1lb 15oz) then the helicopter would be completely destroyed. If we consider a somewhat more sane hailstone size of 8cm, that has a terminal velocity of about 170km/h and weighs about 1.5lbs. And a helicopter is not going to survive flying through a storm like that either. This drone, by comparison, weighs twice as much. The helicopter's cruising speed is about 245km/h, so that would be about the impact speed. I don't understand why anyone would think that a 3lb chunk of machinery moving at 150MPH relative to a helicopter wouldn't go through the windscreen. I also don't understand why everyone in this thread is apparently so eager to minimize the risks presented here. There are some good arguments to be made about not over-regulating and about the low probability of an actual impact, but the attempts to downplay the potential effects of an impact should one occur are getting pretty crazy.
bprater 11y ago
Unless it was an industrial-sized drone, I don't see it doing much damage to a helicopter. Helicopter blades carry an enormous amount of energy in them. There are stories of Vietnam-era military pilots using the rotor's blades to cut down small trees to rescue American soldiers in harrowing circumstances. Regardless, all airborn vehicles should be able to transmit their location to other aircraft. Rather than forcing drone pilots to get FAA approval, this technology should be built into all drones. Bad actors will get culled out quickly and all non-transponding drones could be considered a threat.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Damage to the rotor blades could either snap a blade or cause it to become unbalanced. Choppers are barely flying it doesn't take a whole lot to bring one down.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    Yet we don't see them falling out of the sky and killing people at rates that comment would suggest. A flock of geese dropped an airliner into the Hudson, but we still all buy plane tickets when it suits us, because we acknowledge that while there are risks and immensely tragic consequences - the balance of probabilities makes you seem like a crazy-person if you say you're afraid of flying.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Helicopters are pretty safe (well, not quite as safe as airliners but not bad, just stay away from the really small ones). But rotorstrikes with metal/plastic composites change the equation in a fairly bad manner. Especially a tail rotor would be pretty easy to break with a 3 pound drone and losing the tail rotor on a helicopter makes your day suddenly much more interesting. Has there been a controlled test where someone flew a drone purposefully into the rotor of a helicopter?
      - bigiain 11y ago
kbutler 11y ago
The constant issues with drones just make me really sad for the prospects of flying cars.
- uptown 11y ago
  If that ever comes to pass, they won't be piloted by the passenger.
shkkmo 11y ago
So.... if the problem here is one of education. Why didn't this article quote the relevant safety guidelines (https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/) or link to the FAA's information campaign (http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/ http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/)?: The operator violated the '400 ft ceiling' guideline and the 'remain well clear of manned aircraft' guideline, and so could face civil penalties from the FAA. I would guess that if the operator's behavior was malicious or caused active harm, it would also be possible to be charged under other laws (e.g. manslaughter).
- shkkmo 11y ago
  For those that are curious, the AMA (http://www.modelaircraft.org/ http://www.modelaircraft.org/) provides its members with 2.5M of liability coverage (as long as they are following the AMA safety guidelines, which are more extensive that the FAA's).
- manicdee 11y ago
  There is no indication of who broke the 400ft level: did the drone go over it or did the chopper go below it? As for drone pilots keeping clear of aircraft, that is only possible when the aircraft are maintaining visual contact with all drone operators on the ground. Ideally drone pilots would be able to receive smething similar to ADS-B signals and the ground control stations would all direct drones away from nearby aircraft. Sadly the resolution and accuracy of ADS-B in all four dimensions is insufficient to allow automatic avoidance of scenarios like the one posted.
  - tzs 11y ago
    > There is no indication of who broke the 400ft level: did the drone go over it or did the chopper go below it? Huh? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article states that the encounter was at 700 to 800 feet.
    - manicdee 11y ago
      Confirmed, I am blind :\
dkroy 11y ago
I hate how they are constructing news stories like this by dropping in the word drone, and adding a little fear mongering to stir up us "common folk". It may not be useful news, but it sure must get the eyeballs...
- dkroy 11y ago
  As an additional note the news outlets did this with laser pointers when those started becoming popular, and how many aircraft did those also take down? I am going to guess the same amount, which I am assuming to be zero, unless someone else here tells me differently.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It's hard to be accidentally dangerous with a laser pointer. People know you're not supposed to point them at others, and the only reason to point them at an airplane is if you're up to no good. UAVs, on the other hand, have lots of interesting uses which are also potentially dangerous. That means your risk is from normal users who are just ignorant or careless, not just pranksters. Thankfully there are not a lot of people out there willing to deliberately endanger aircraft, but there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people.
  - aaronem 11y ago
    It's a lot harder to FOD a jet engine with a laser pointer.
dham 11y ago
Used to fly RC gliders regularly at 2000 feet in the 90's with my dad. Great times, but never near airports. Of course you couldn't just go on Amazon and buy an RTF easy to fly machine at that time. You had to go to a hobby store and spend 2 - 3 months building it.. from scratch. I'm talking putting the wing together piece by piece. Then you had to know someone who already knew how to fly to teach you, or you crash your expensive glider that you spent the last 2 months building. As time went on you could then by kits that had the wing and such prebuilt. Then as the internet caught on people's attention spans dwindled. RTF started to be come more a thing. Then as time went on more, people didn't have the attention span to fly a 4 channel RC plane, let alone a 6 channel collective pitch helicopter. Then vuala you get quadcopters.
- prawn 11y ago
  For next time: voilà.
refurb 11y ago
Anyone know how much damage a drone (like ones average people buy) could do to a helicopter or plane? Bird strikes are a risk, but don't typically take down a helicopter or plane. I'm imagining it's a risk, but not like the helicopter is doomed to crash into the ground.
- mikeash 11y ago
  A Phantom 3 officially weighs 1280g (just under 3lbs) which is pretty heft. It's dense, too. As the article says, probably the biggest risk is if it goes through the windscreen and hits the pilot. I wouldn't be surprised if it could do some unpleasant things to a helicopter rotor as well, but I'm not sure just how strong those are. Birds are a lot squishier so are probably somewhat more benign at the same weight. Bird strikes do cause significant damage with some regularity, even if it's not too common.
- aaronem 11y ago
  It's a risk, but realistically not all that much of one; it'd take an amazingly unlucky tail-rotor hit to really imperil the aircraft. On the other hand, a drone which can climb high enough to almost hit a cruising police helicopter is a drone which can climb high enough to get sucked up by a commercial jet during takeoff or landing. Jet turbines are actually quite fragile, and something the size and mass of a bird or a drone can easily wreck one. (Ever see that video where the guy feeds a brick to a washing machine? It's like that, only much more energetic and not nearly so funny.) Bird strikes in such circumstances have been known to result in fatal crashes; a drone strike could easily do likewise. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if that fact had more to do than any other with the heavy penalties apparently being contemplated in this case; despite there having been no harm done this time, I imagine some of the people involved in deciding what to do about it are thinking it'd be good to try to deter anyone from doing something similarly stupid around an airport, where it might well actually kill people.
donatj 11y ago
So what would have actually happened if the drone had hit the Helicopter, in reality and not paranoid helicopter operator world?
- mikeash 11y ago
  Depending on where it hit, anything from a "did you hear that?" followed by normal flight, to an unconscious pilot followed shortly by a spectacular crash. Worries about three pounds of machinery coming through the windscreen aren't really "paranoid" so much as "justifiably cautious."
  - donatj 11y ago
    How fast is that helicopter moving at top speed? I'm genuinely curious the amount of energy involved in a collision like that and if it would be enough to break the windshield. I presume the windshield (possibly incorrectly) on a helicopter like that is Plexiglass or some other plastic to save on weight. How do they handle impact? I have to imagine birds as big as geese get hit regularly. How do they handle that kind of impact?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      It's a Eurocopter AS350 which has a cruise speed of about 150MPH and a top speed around 180MPH. Bird strikes aren't all that common. Certainly they happen, but it's not an ongoing massacre up there. For one, birds are equipped with good vision and hearing, and a strong instinct for self-preservation. When a small aircraft does hit a large bird, the result is extremely messy and sometimes fatal.
      - donatj 11y ago
        This is exactly the information I was looking for. Thank you.
guelo 11y ago
How about installing WiFi jammers on aircraft? When they're flying high enough the jammers shouldn't interfere with normal civilian use but they would immobilize any approaching drones.
- manicdee 11y ago
  Many drones don't use WiFi, and at the speeds that aircraft are usually travelling you'd need a fairly large radius of effect on your WiFi jammer. What happens when the drone's emergency behaviour is to either hold position or simply fall out of the sky?
manicdee 11y ago
There is a publicly accessible list of US no-fly-zones which a drone operator can use to program their drone's geofences: https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/# https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/#

31 points by nols 11y ago

dang 11y ago

Url changed from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-collides-with-helicopter-operator-gets-caught/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-coll..., which points to this.

microcolonel 11y ago

New title: Person alleged to have flown model aircraft above legal limit, following a complaint that the activity interfered with a manned flight. New subtitle: Alleged offender may face prosecution for the standard charges associated with this activity. This aircraft could only loosely be considered a drone to begin with.

mikeash 11y ago
What about a Phantom 3 makes it "only loosely be considered a drone"? Looks pretty drone-y to me. Fits both the traditional definition of "vehicle with no people on board" and the emerging modern definition of "electric multirotor helicopter." I don't see why your proposed title/subtitle are better. The most interesting thing here is not the violation of regulations, but the near miss with a manned aircraft.
- bigiain 11y ago
  If that's your definition of "drone" then have all RC aircraft have magically become "drones" since the media started using the word? What about kites? Model rockets? Birthday balloons?Frisbees? Boomerangs? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but it's clear that right now there's no community consensus on the technical definition of "drone" anything more rigorous than the "I don't know what obscenity is, but know it when I see it" argument. Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? Does it need to carry a camera? Does it need to be a multirotor? Is there a size limit? Is my 1.5oz CX10 a "drone"? My ~1kg GPS guided autonomous quadrotor? Where's the line? How about my 450g non-autonomous FPV one? Or my 320g one that doesn't even have a camera? Was the heli pilot any more at-risk that if it's been a buzzard or a goose? (Note: I think the guy was a jerk for being up at 7-800 feet with a chopper nearby, but nobody died - there's no suggestion that anybody even came close to dying. Is the situation and it's outcome any worse than it he'd been somewhat recklessly driving at 90mph on the highway rather than somewhat recklessly flying at 800 feet over it? If you do 90 in your car and hit someone, they hold you accountable. If you do 90 in your car and don't hit anyone else but happen to be observed by the police, they don't penalise you as though you just killed someone, they write you a ticket. Should this guy be treated any differently?)
  - mikeash 11y ago
    RC aircraft have been "drones" since long before anybody in the media cared about the word. Probably the most common use of the word before the current quadcopter craze was in the phrase "target drone," which is typically a large remote-controlled aircraft that military pilots can shoot at for training. I think the word implies some kind of guidance, whether automatic or remote-piloted, so model rockets and such would not qualify. Kites aren't really aircraft. Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? I see no use, past or present, that implies autonomy. Camera? Again, no. Multirotor? Historically no, current media usage maybe. Size limit? Don't think so. A large hobby drone is definitely more of a risk than a buzzard or goose. Birds can dodge. They're not always successful, but the instinct for self-preservation usually gets them out of the way, at least for slow aircraft like a typical helicopter. Helicopters make a ton of noise too, which probably helps a lot. Going 90MPH on the highway is a pretty major offense in many places. Here in Virginia that's an automatic reckless driving misdemeanor charge that's likely to result in jail time. No, they don't punish you the same as they would if you actually kill somebody, but then there's no indication they'll punish this guy as if he killed somebody, so I have no idea why you'd mention that.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  >...the emerging modern definition... IOW, people want to feel special so they are calling their toys by a name the feel is better.
mirimir 11y ago
DJI Phantom 3 Professional http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro Looks like a drone to me. But a big and expensive drone, I admit. Weight is 1.3 Kg, about the same as a duck. Aren't helicopter windows able to resist duck hits?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Ducks don't typically have bits of metal in them (at least, live ducks).
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  No. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/helicopter.crash.cause/ http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/helicopter.crash.cause/ On January 4, 2009, a dual-engine Sikorsky S-76C helicopter crashed into marshy terrain near Morgan City, Louisiana, about seven minutes after takeoff from Amelie, Louisiana. The copter was on a charter flight to a Gulf of Mexico oil rig. Both pilots were killed, along with six of the seven passengers, according to the NTSB. Heard on the helicopter's cockpit voice recorder was a "loud bang, followed by sounds consistent with rushing wind and a power reduction on both engines," according to the statement. "The aircraft crashed several seconds later." Feathers and other debris, identified as belonging to a red-tailed hawk, were collected from the helicopter's canopy and windshield, the NTSB said.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    > "Contributing to the accident, the board said, were the lack of [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations and guidance requiring helicopter windshields to be resistant to bird strikes," among other factors, the NTSB said in a news release. So why aren't windows typically polycarbonate? A few layers of that can stop bullets.
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      No idea. You might as well ask why general aviation is still using leaded gas. General aviation is a bit of a shitshow.
r00fus 11y ago
A Phantom3 was the same model that was shot down by neighbor: http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/28/9625468/drone-slayer-kentucky-cleared-charges http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/28/9625468/drone-slayer-kent... Fine, call it a UAV if you want, but it's a drone to me.

click170 11y ago

As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close calls with drones in my area, what I want to know is since when did ignorance of the law become a defense from it? I wouldn't be allowed to murder someone and then hide behind that excuse. Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted.

grubles 11y ago
Clearly murder is way way way more widely known to be illegal. That isn't a good example. The article doesn't even mention the laws the RC helicopter pilot could have broken.
- blizkreeg 11y ago
  If the helicopter had crashed, killing people on the street and the pilot, does that make it a good example?
  - grubles 11y ago
    The issue is what law(s) did the RC heli pilot break? A part of that issue is making RC pilots aware of the limits of their flying.
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      These drones come with information and resources for responsible and legal flight. Depending on where you buy it, you may also be encouraged to review that information before you even make the purchase. I agree the author of the article should also have done his research and helped to spread the word (as should the CHP officer whose only advice was to use "common sense" - which is different for a CHP officer than it is for the common person).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
11y ago

1024core 11y ago

> The drone could come through window and take out the pilot, and the helicopter could come down,” he said. Really? Unless the 'copter was flying at a very high speed, I'd deem this very unlikely. I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can handle hail? I don't think a small drone like a Phantom would pack the power of hail. I'm not saying that this is OK; but hyperbole bothers me. Drone operator should be prosecuted, but not to the extent that he could have crashed through the window and brought down the helicopter.

steveax 11y ago
I imagine a three pound hailstone (Phantom 3 specs say 1280 gram weight) would cause some problems for a chopper.
- ryan_j_naughton 11y ago
  I think his point was that the drone is unlikely to carry much more force than hail. F = MA Thus, even though the drone is heavier than hail, it won't likely be going as fast as hail (such that its deceleration when hitting the helicopter would be less significant). Thus, the comparison is apt. If we had 3 lb hail, it would have much more force than most 3 lb drones bc of its speed.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Hail was mentioned in the context of, "I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can handle hail?" I can guarantee you that a helicopter windscreen cannot handle 3lb hail. If such a hailstorm were ever encountered (unlikely, the record in the US is 1lb 15oz) then the helicopter would be completely destroyed. If we consider a somewhat more sane hailstone size of 8cm, that has a terminal velocity of about 170km/h and weighs about 1.5lbs. And a helicopter is not going to survive flying through a storm like that either. This drone, by comparison, weighs twice as much. The helicopter's cruising speed is about 245km/h, so that would be about the impact speed. I don't understand why anyone would think that a 3lb chunk of machinery moving at 150MPH relative to a helicopter wouldn't go through the windscreen. I also don't understand why everyone in this thread is apparently so eager to minimize the risks presented here. There are some good arguments to be made about not over-regulating and about the low probability of an actual impact, but the attempts to downplay the potential effects of an impact should one occur are getting pretty crazy.

bprater 11y ago

Unless it was an industrial-sized drone, I don't see it doing much damage to a helicopter. Helicopter blades carry an enormous amount of energy in them. There are stories of Vietnam-era military pilots using the rotor's blades to cut down small trees to rescue American soldiers in harrowing circumstances. Regardless, all airborn vehicles should be able to transmit their location to other aircraft. Rather than forcing drone pilots to get FAA approval, this technology should be built into all drones. Bad actors will get culled out quickly and all non-transponding drones could be considered a threat.

jacquesm 11y ago
Damage to the rotor blades could either snap a blade or cause it to become unbalanced. Choppers are barely flying it doesn't take a whole lot to bring one down.
- bigiain 11y ago
  Yet we don't see them falling out of the sky and killing people at rates that comment would suggest. A flock of geese dropped an airliner into the Hudson, but we still all buy plane tickets when it suits us, because we acknowledge that while there are risks and immensely tragic consequences - the balance of probabilities makes you seem like a crazy-person if you say you're afraid of flying.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Helicopters are pretty safe (well, not quite as safe as airliners but not bad, just stay away from the really small ones). But rotorstrikes with metal/plastic composites change the equation in a fairly bad manner. Especially a tail rotor would be pretty easy to break with a 3 pound drone and losing the tail rotor on a helicopter makes your day suddenly much more interesting. Has there been a controlled test where someone flew a drone purposefully into the rotor of a helicopter?
    - bigiain 11y ago

kbutler 11y ago

The constant issues with drones just make me really sad for the prospects of flying cars.

uptown 11y ago
If that ever comes to pass, they won't be piloted by the passenger.

shkkmo 11y ago

So.... if the problem here is one of education. Why didn't this article quote the relevant safety guidelines (https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/) or link to the FAA's information campaign (http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/ http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/)?: The operator violated the '400 ft ceiling' guideline and the 'remain well clear of manned aircraft' guideline, and so could face civil penalties from the FAA. I would guess that if the operator's behavior was malicious or caused active harm, it would also be possible to be charged under other laws (e.g. manslaughter).

shkkmo 11y ago
For those that are curious, the AMA (http://www.modelaircraft.org/ http://www.modelaircraft.org/) provides its members with 2.5M of liability coverage (as long as they are following the AMA safety guidelines, which are more extensive that the FAA's).
manicdee 11y ago
There is no indication of who broke the 400ft level: did the drone go over it or did the chopper go below it? As for drone pilots keeping clear of aircraft, that is only possible when the aircraft are maintaining visual contact with all drone operators on the ground. Ideally drone pilots would be able to receive smething similar to ADS-B signals and the ground control stations would all direct drones away from nearby aircraft. Sadly the resolution and accuracy of ADS-B in all four dimensions is insufficient to allow automatic avoidance of scenarios like the one posted.
- tzs 11y ago
  > There is no indication of who broke the 400ft level: did the drone go over it or did the chopper go below it? Huh? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article states that the encounter was at 700 to 800 feet.
  - manicdee 11y ago
    Confirmed, I am blind :\

dkroy 11y ago

I hate how they are constructing news stories like this by dropping in the word drone, and adding a little fear mongering to stir up us "common folk". It may not be useful news, but it sure must get the eyeballs...

dkroy 11y ago
As an additional note the news outlets did this with laser pointers when those started becoming popular, and how many aircraft did those also take down? I am going to guess the same amount, which I am assuming to be zero, unless someone else here tells me differently.
- mikeash 11y ago
  It's hard to be accidentally dangerous with a laser pointer. People know you're not supposed to point them at others, and the only reason to point them at an airplane is if you're up to no good. UAVs, on the other hand, have lots of interesting uses which are also potentially dangerous. That means your risk is from normal users who are just ignorant or careless, not just pranksters. Thankfully there are not a lot of people out there willing to deliberately endanger aircraft, but there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people.
- aaronem 11y ago
  It's a lot harder to FOD a jet engine with a laser pointer.

dham 11y ago

Used to fly RC gliders regularly at 2000 feet in the 90's with my dad. Great times, but never near airports. Of course you couldn't just go on Amazon and buy an RTF easy to fly machine at that time. You had to go to a hobby store and spend 2 - 3 months building it.. from scratch. I'm talking putting the wing together piece by piece. Then you had to know someone who already knew how to fly to teach you, or you crash your expensive glider that you spent the last 2 months building. As time went on you could then by kits that had the wing and such prebuilt. Then as the internet caught on people's attention spans dwindled. RTF started to be come more a thing. Then as time went on more, people didn't have the attention span to fly a 4 channel RC plane, let alone a 6 channel collective pitch helicopter. Then vuala you get quadcopters.

prawn 11y ago
For next time: voilà.

refurb 11y ago

Anyone know how much damage a drone (like ones average people buy) could do to a helicopter or plane? Bird strikes are a risk, but don't typically take down a helicopter or plane. I'm imagining it's a risk, but not like the helicopter is doomed to crash into the ground.

mikeash 11y ago
A Phantom 3 officially weighs 1280g (just under 3lbs) which is pretty heft. It's dense, too. As the article says, probably the biggest risk is if it goes through the windscreen and hits the pilot. I wouldn't be surprised if it could do some unpleasant things to a helicopter rotor as well, but I'm not sure just how strong those are. Birds are a lot squishier so are probably somewhat more benign at the same weight. Bird strikes do cause significant damage with some regularity, even if it's not too common.
aaronem 11y ago
It's a risk, but realistically not all that much of one; it'd take an amazingly unlucky tail-rotor hit to really imperil the aircraft. On the other hand, a drone which can climb high enough to almost hit a cruising police helicopter is a drone which can climb high enough to get sucked up by a commercial jet during takeoff or landing. Jet turbines are actually quite fragile, and something the size and mass of a bird or a drone can easily wreck one. (Ever see that video where the guy feeds a brick to a washing machine? It's like that, only much more energetic and not nearly so funny.) Bird strikes in such circumstances have been known to result in fatal crashes; a drone strike could easily do likewise. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if that fact had more to do than any other with the heavy penalties apparently being contemplated in this case; despite there having been no harm done this time, I imagine some of the people involved in deciding what to do about it are thinking it'd be good to try to deter anyone from doing something similarly stupid around an airport, where it might well actually kill people.

donatj 11y ago

So what would have actually happened if the drone had hit the Helicopter, in reality and not paranoid helicopter operator world?

mikeash 11y ago
Depending on where it hit, anything from a "did you hear that?" followed by normal flight, to an unconscious pilot followed shortly by a spectacular crash. Worries about three pounds of machinery coming through the windscreen aren't really "paranoid" so much as "justifiably cautious."
- donatj 11y ago
  How fast is that helicopter moving at top speed? I'm genuinely curious the amount of energy involved in a collision like that and if it would be enough to break the windshield. I presume the windshield (possibly incorrectly) on a helicopter like that is Plexiglass or some other plastic to save on weight. How do they handle impact? I have to imagine birds as big as geese get hit regularly. How do they handle that kind of impact?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It's a Eurocopter AS350 which has a cruise speed of about 150MPH and a top speed around 180MPH. Bird strikes aren't all that common. Certainly they happen, but it's not an ongoing massacre up there. For one, birds are equipped with good vision and hearing, and a strong instinct for self-preservation. When a small aircraft does hit a large bird, the result is extremely messy and sometimes fatal.
    - donatj 11y ago
      This is exactly the information I was looking for. Thank you.

guelo 11y ago

How about installing WiFi jammers on aircraft? When they're flying high enough the jammers shouldn't interfere with normal civilian use but they would immobilize any approaching drones.

manicdee 11y ago
Many drones don't use WiFi, and at the speeds that aircraft are usually travelling you'd need a fairly large radius of effect on your WiFi jammer. What happens when the drone's emergency behaviour is to either hold position or simply fall out of the sky?

manicdee 11y ago

There is a publicly accessible list of US no-fly-zones which a drone operator can use to program their drone's geofences: https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/# https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/#