5 ms·

The details in the avweb article are pretty damning... 500 AGL and one mile final is not even "near an airport," it's very obviously right in front of the appro

The details in the avweb article are pretty damning... 500 AGL and one mile final is not even "near an airport," it's very obviously right in front of the approach end. Hard to imagine how anyone was operating a drone there without complete reckless disregard for safety.

walrus01 5y ago
Any reasonably professional part 107 operator (or Canuck equivalent thereof) would say hell no to operating in the glideslope of a runway like that.
- tonyarkles 5y ago
  In fact, Canada doesn’t distinguish between commercial and hobby RPAS operators. Anything over 250g needs at least a Basic license, and anything operating in controlled airspace needs an Advanced license and a filed SFOC. The basic license clarifies where you’re allowed to fly at all. Soooo these clowns either had no clue at all about the licensing, or just straight up didn’t care. The IR says that Nav Canada (ATC) wasn’t informed of the flight ahead of time, so pretty unlikely that an SFOC was involved.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - soco 5y ago
    I can totally understand that they didn't care - they are police after all and peasant regulations rarely apply. But having no clue? I mean, if I just walk close to a runway I make sure to look in all hundred directions just in case, yet they flew right through it, yolo?
jollybean 5y ago
The airplane reported both 500AGL and 1NM (nautical mile) which is oddly the exact lower limit for altitude, and the exact limit to distance for 'advanced operating' drone from the airport, as far as I understand. Why those exact legal limits? What are the odds of that? If the drone operator reported those numbers, they'd only be 100ft outside of where they should be legally. Since both '500' and '1' are pretty arbitrary numbers, any reasonable margin of error puts a ton of range for the drone to be flying in safety while the pilot being at error. Or both. This seems to be a 'threshold' issue, not some arbitrary invasion of space, but we'll have to wait for Transport Canada, hopefully the drone will have precise information. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  This is not a threshold issue (other than a Boolean threshold of the drone operator needing to comply with the law and not doing so). There is no lower limit for aircraft in the process of taking off or landing. I’m much more familiar with US aviation law, so I’ll give you US citation there, but it’s not likely to be wildly different elsewhere. A fairly typical approach slope is 3°, which would put an aircraft around 320’ above touchdown zone elevation at 1 nm. There is of course some variation above and below that. There’s no incentive for the pilot to shade or cheat their reported position. They would be legal at 419 feet and 1.625 nm just as well as 500’ and 1 nm. Canadian regs (US are different here) require that if this were an airport without a control tower, the drone would need to be a minimum of 3 miles away from it. With an operating control tower, the drone operator needs permission and active radio contact with the tower. The general safe altitude law in the US is 91.119*, which begins: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (Necessary is consistently interpreted somewhat broadly rather than extremely narrowly.) * https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  I would mostly attribute it to what the pilots are likely to notice - 500' AGL is a standard call-out on landing approach (not that light aircraft pilots necessary 'call it out' but their Foreflight or whatever very well may have), and the airport in question is actually uncontrolled so "one mile final" would be a common point to make a radio call. So it's probably that it happened somewhere near those numbers, and they were the references the pilot readily knew of.
labcomputer 5y ago
The last time drone training came up, I pointed out that drone operators have no skin in the game, and often act like it too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27618757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27618757 I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals. So clearly my fears were unfounded. From the avweb article: "The police department has not commented any further on the mishap except to say the drone was part of a police operation in the area." Perhaps someone would care to explain how the department's response is substantively different from "opsie daisy"? Is it just that the pilot happend to get lucky this time, and the mid-air collision only caused a massive dent on the engine cowling?
- bigiain 5y ago
  > I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals. A pretty apt description of the cops operating that drone...

walrus01 5y ago

Any reasonably professional part 107 operator (or Canuck equivalent thereof) would say hell no to operating in the glideslope of a runway like that.

tonyarkles 5y ago
In fact, Canada doesn’t distinguish between commercial and hobby RPAS operators. Anything over 250g needs at least a Basic license, and anything operating in controlled airspace needs an Advanced license and a filed SFOC. The basic license clarifies where you’re allowed to fly at all. Soooo these clowns either had no clue at all about the licensing, or just straight up didn’t care. The IR says that Nav Canada (ATC) wasn’t informed of the flight ahead of time, so pretty unlikely that an SFOC was involved.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- soco 5y ago
  I can totally understand that they didn't care - they are police after all and peasant regulations rarely apply. But having no clue? I mean, if I just walk close to a runway I make sure to look in all hundred directions just in case, yet they flew right through it, yolo?

jollybean 5y ago

The airplane reported both 500AGL and 1NM (nautical mile) which is oddly the exact lower limit for altitude, and the exact limit to distance for 'advanced operating' drone from the airport, as far as I understand. Why those exact legal limits? What are the odds of that? If the drone operator reported those numbers, they'd only be 100ft outside of where they should be legally. Since both '500' and '1' are pretty arbitrary numbers, any reasonable margin of error puts a ton of range for the drone to be flying in safety while the pilot being at error. Or both. This seems to be a 'threshold' issue, not some arbitrary invasion of space, but we'll have to wait for Transport Canada, hopefully the drone will have precise information. Correct me if I'm wrong.

sokoloff 5y ago
This is not a threshold issue (other than a Boolean threshold of the drone operator needing to comply with the law and not doing so). There is no lower limit for aircraft in the process of taking off or landing. I’m much more familiar with US aviation law, so I’ll give you US citation there, but it’s not likely to be wildly different elsewhere. A fairly typical approach slope is 3°, which would put an aircraft around 320’ above touchdown zone elevation at 1 nm. There is of course some variation above and below that. There’s no incentive for the pilot to shade or cheat their reported position. They would be legal at 419 feet and 1.625 nm just as well as 500’ and 1 nm. Canadian regs (US are different here) require that if this were an airport without a control tower, the drone would need to be a minimum of 3 miles away from it. With an operating control tower, the drone operator needs permission and active radio contact with the tower. The general safe altitude law in the US is 91.119*, which begins: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (Necessary is consistently interpreted somewhat broadly rather than extremely narrowly.) * https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
jcrawfordor 5y ago
I would mostly attribute it to what the pilots are likely to notice - 500' AGL is a standard call-out on landing approach (not that light aircraft pilots necessary 'call it out' but their Foreflight or whatever very well may have), and the airport in question is actually uncontrolled so "one mile final" would be a common point to make a radio call. So it's probably that it happened somewhere near those numbers, and they were the references the pilot readily knew of.

labcomputer 5y ago

The last time drone training came up, I pointed out that drone operators have no skin in the game, and often act like it too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27618757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27618757 I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals. So clearly my fears were unfounded. From the avweb article: "The police department has not commented any further on the mishap except to say the drone was part of a police operation in the area." Perhaps someone would care to explain how the department's response is substantively different from "opsie daisy"? Is it just that the pilot happend to get lucky this time, and the mid-air collision only caused a massive dent on the engine cowling?

bigiain 5y ago
> I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals. A pretty apt description of the cops operating that drone...