5 ms·
UK Airprox board says police drone and jet had 'near-miss'
- hexscrews 8y agoLiterally 30 seconds of searching brought up a IFF transponder that would add 100 g (3.53 oz). Why isn't a state owned drone not equipped as such? (XPC-TR Mode C Transponder)
- PeterisP 8y ago100g is a lot for the type of drones used there, it's comparable to their whole battery pack weight. Also, the power draw of such a transponder is likely to be significant.
- jsjohnst 8y agoSorry, but unless it’s a toy drone, the battery weighs a lot more than 100g. I own almost 20 drones and I think only the Tello batteries clock in at that range in weight and it’s useless imho to a police department. My Phantom (nearly 500g battery) / Inspire (515g) / Mavic (~250g) batteries are all way heavier than 100g and the batteries I use for my S1000 are over 2,000g. That said, 100g additional payload is significant for everything but my S1000, but I had to correct the statement re: batteries. As to transponder power usage, it would be very negligible compared to the power draw of the ESC/motors.
- cjrp 8y agoWould it make a difference though? I don't think F-15s have TCAS / would respond to a RA.
- pjc50 8y agoSome of the RAF Tornado GR4s have TCAS; there's an ongoing safety concern about them colliding with civilian aircraft or each other, especially after two collided near Lossiemouth with casualties.
- ptero 8y agoFirst, even if the transponder weighs 100g mounting it securely on the drone will likely add more weight and affect flight. Ditto for reliable receive / reply. Even if it were equipped with the transponder it is not a given that F-15, as flown, would be (A) interrogating it, (B) show the pilots the replies, (C) show the pilot the replies early enough to make the difference. Pilot flying F-15 at 500AGL is likely training for other things than avoiding small drones. I think at those altitudes and speeds he is given the clearance to exercise (500+kts; not the regular restriction of under 250kts below 10000ft) in a well defined region and assumes that it is clear.
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoNo error, and no lessons to be learned? If the drone pilot believed a crash was imminent, and the F15 pilot was oblivious, I'd be concerned. It could have been a lot worse.
- tempodox 8y agoThat's what baffles me, too. “No lessons to be learned” sounds like they leave it to chance when an actual crash will occur.
- evgen 8y agoThere is no error nor a lesson to be learned because in the estimation of the board this was not a "near miss" and the drone operator was in error in making this assessment.
- peteretep 8y agoI don't think that's right -- they got lucky that it was a near miss. The aircraft could well have been lower -- there's overlap in the operating ranges of the aircraft in this area, and of drones.
- retrac98 8y agoWe have police drones now?
- jstanley 8y agoSince July last year, it seems: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-40595540 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-40595540
- jaytaylor 8y agoI didn't know jets were allowed to fly at less than 400 ft over populated areas.
- taneq 8y agoI believe fighter jets are allowed to fly approximately wherever the hell they want.
- jstanley 8y agoThey can't really complain if they end up flying near model aircraft then.
- pwagland 8y agoAccording to the article, they didn't complain. They didn't even notice that they had flown close to the drone.
- azernik 8y agoWhen the territory they're flying over is run by the same government that owns them (or even a friendly government) this is definitely not the case. The limits are just more permissive than civilian aircraft.
- pjc50 8y agoIt's Devon, it's not very dense. The UK has some areas used for low level fast jet training where people get Tornadoes over their house every week. It's practically a tourist attraction. E.g. https://machloop.co.uk/ https://machloop.co.uk/
- tim333 8y agocool video
- TrickyRick 8y agoSimilar to the Jedi Transtion in the US I guess. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-jedi-transition-a-canyon-that-fighter-pilots-love-1678453195 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-jedi-transition-a-cany...
- garyfirestorm 8y agoPutting lives at risk doesn't carry sentence anymore?
- TheRealPomax 8y agoNot if there is a 200 foot distance, and the situation was deemed safe. If actual lives _had_ been at risk, this report would read rather differently. The drone operator had a little panic. That's not a lesson anyone can do anything with.
- sgentle 8y agoWorth reading the report itself, linked from the article: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2018/New_Assessed_Folder/Airprox%20Report%202018011.pdf https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standa... It's only 4 pages, and explains the situation fairly clearly. Choice quotes: The Airprox occurred on the northern edge of Dartmoor some distance from any notable habitation and therefore in an area where military aircraft can operate to their minimums. Both the drone operator and the F-15E pilot were operating within their regulations which, in the case of the F-15E, was not below 500ft agl. Nevertheless, it is of note that within the UKLFS RAF fast-jets can use a minimum of 250ft MSD although the drone operator perceived that the F15s were extremely close to his drone, in actuality they appeared to have had sufficient separation after discussion about the likely separation between the two air systems, it was agreed that the circumstances were probably best described as a sighting report, with the risk assessed as Category E, normal safety standards and procedures had pertained. Nevertheless, the Board agreed that the drone operator had been right to raise a report with his concerns and thanked him for doing so because it had provided useful discussion points about the integration of drones and military fast-jets. To be clear, nowhere in the report does it say "near-miss", or that the risk was "high" (these were the words of the drone operator, not the board). A high risk would correspond to a Category A assessment, which is basically the opposite of what happened. Edit: Also, "no blame nor any lessons to be learned" is a curious characterisation given that the military flight was booked through CADS, the Centralised Aviation Data Service, which is mandatory for low altitude military flights but not currently used by police drone units. There was substantial discussion about the police checking CADS in future or booking their operations through CADS. The military are also considering integrating the existing Drone Assist location sharing system into a future unified CADS replacement.
- vorticalbox 8y agoArticle states the jets were flying at 500 ft and the drone at 300, I doubt the jets lost 200 ft just by banking.
- jsjohnst 8y agoYou’d be surprised. Jets bleed a lot of altitude in a bank unless it’s compensated for. That said, I find it highly suspect that a jet is banking at 500ft altitude in the first place, unless it’s at an air show. It’s highly dangerous doing maneuvers like that at that altitude.
- ed_blackburn 8y agoI grew up near the area - well 50miles west of. North Dartmoor is used extensively by the forces for training and low flying jets are not uncommon. 'Tis a beautiful place to visit too!
- tempay 8y agoDoes anyone have any information on how bad it would have been if the crash had actually happened?
- ricardobeat 8y agoThis drone is on the heavy side at 6kg, could be ugly if it’s sucked by the engine intake or hits a wingtip (as happened recently to a commercial flight).
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoWhile I don't disagree an F-15 hitting a 6kg multirotor could be catastrophic... There's at least one incident of an F-15 and a Douglas A-4 colliding, A-4 fireballed on impact and the F-15 flew home and landed. On one wing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M359poNjvVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M359poNjvVA
- tobyhinloopen 8y agoA near-miss? Shouldn’t it be a near-hit? Since it didn’t hit?
- foota 8y agoNear miss is the term.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TrickyRick 8y agoIt was a miss but it was nearly a hit I think is the rationale behind the term.
- pjc50 8y agoThis led me to an internet research rabbit hole, via http://www.ukserials.com/ http://www.ukserials.com/ to the crash report (years ago) of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8587389.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8587389... It drove home that the aircraft doing low-level flights have very little manuverability option when flying at 400kts (~200 meters per second). Dodging a drone would be infeasible even if you could see where it was. Transponders with LOS limitation might be of limited use given that the terrain is extremely hilly and the aircraft could come round a corner in the valleys or over a ridge. It's also a major tourist area, just the sort of place that people might want to send up a photography drone...
- omegant 8y agoIt's not only limited manuverability, is the time window to see something that small and react at that speed. In an airliner at 180kts is like 5-7 seconds, you see a bird, confirm that is in a collision path and you correct you trajectory. At 400kts it's maybe 2-3 seconds to do all that. You need to be looking forward to have time enough, but you need to look elsewhere sometimes(instruments, to the sides, etc..). So it's possible to crash with something you didn't see comming if it's small.
- cstross 8y agoWho was operating the F-15E? USAF? (The RAF doesn't have any F-15s, but routinely hosts visiting aircraft from other NATO air forces. One wonders if differing operational standards played a role in this airprox -- or if politics played a role in the incident being downplayed.)
- jacquesm 8y agoWow. An actual 'cops eye'. RAH predicted them decades ago.
- sjtgraham 8y agoWho was piloting the airplane, it's a US aircraft? AFAIK the RAF itself doesn't operate F15 aircraft. Could it have been USAF 48th fighter wing out of RAF Lakenheath?
- chx 8y agoMay I grab this no particular occasion and ask English speakers: is this natural to you? A near miss? I mean, a near miss is something I would expect from sports where a shooter nearly misses the target but manages to hit it but barely. How is an avoided collision a near miss...? Close call, close to a collision, but a near miss?
- swampangel 8y agoI think this expression would be familiar to most native English speakers, but it is idiomatic. It's using "near" as a synonym to "close" -- as in "a close shave" (actually close) rather than as a synonym for "close to" as it is in the expression "near death" (almost, but not quite dead). The second sense is definitely more common. This post suggests "near miss" became common as a military phrase to mean "missed, but still damaged the target" but changed as it entered the vernacular: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nea1.htm http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nea1.htm
- Goronmon 8y agoIt's definitely a strange phrase in some ways. But I would say that the way the wording makes sense if you consider 'near' to be an adjective to 'miss' and that 'near' in this case means 'close' and not something else like 'approximate'. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/near_miss https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/near_miss