Close Call at Hollywood Beach...

It's only "legal" if the sUAS meets several specific requirements including:

"The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft;"

If a manned aircraft is hit or has to avoid an sUAS then the above has not been met and is in violation of FARs. If a sUAS is flying (not in formation or in a controlled manner coordinated with the manned aircraft) within 500' of a manned aircraft it's no longer legal.

So a drone pilot is expected to be able to locate and avoid a craft flying in excess of 125 mph? Let's go to the video: Count how many seconds that chopper goes from small blip to flying by. I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way. And it seems the attitude here is that since helis can fly right down to the wave tops, no drones should be flown over the water for fear of 'interfering' or not being able to 'give way to' a manned aircraft. Preposterous! As there are many sea birds larger in size and weight than a drone, why isn't heli flight at that level also prohibited? I'd bet big money any heli pilot would rather hit a drone than a pelican any day of the week.
 
'Tha attitude the helicopter pilots probably have is the drones shouldn't be anywhere near where they are flying.'

You say they should fly not expecting the unexpected........Poor, poor attitude. Sounds extremely 'ignorant and irresponsible' to me. Good way to end up dead. If you know names of pilots who fly with that attitude, you'd do a better public service publishing those names instead of weeping over altitude considerations.
 
So a drone pilot is expected to be able to locate and avoid a craft flying in excess of 125 mph? Let's go to the video: Count how many seconds that chopper goes from small blip to flying by. I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way. And it seems the attitude here is that since helis can fly right down to the wave tops, no drones should be flown over the water for fear of 'interfering' or not being able to 'give way to' a manned aircraft. Preposterous! As there are many sea birds larger in size and weight than a drone, why isn't heli flight at that level also prohibited? I'd bet big money any heli pilot would rather hit a drone than a pelican any day of the week.
Sounds to me like the controllers need an "OH $#!+" button.

Quadcopters can lose altitude surprisingly quickly and nimbly but the sUAS pilot still must have the presence of mind to yank that stick down without augering the bird.
 
Sounds to me like the controllers need an "OH $#!+" button.

Quadcopters can lose altitude surprisingly quickly and nimbly but the sUAS pilot still must have the presence of mind to yank that stick down without augering the bird.

But in this instance, the best response was to increase altitude! If you tried to drop the drone in a panic, all you'd do is fly it right into the heli's rotor. Most everyone would try to panic descend although the chopper is clearly below the drone. To realize that fact takes a 'presence of mind' that is frequently absent in flying conditions such as that.
 
I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way.

That's entirely plausible. In that case, a UAS operator shouldn't fly in areas where they aren't willing to accept that responsibility.

I have yet to experience a helo "sneaking up" on me. I am vigilant about scanning the sky and try to avoid flying in environments that limit my ability to do so. I could choose to do neither and accept the subsequent risk, instead I choose to do both. If I am flying in a higher traffic area, I'll bring a spotter with (seems like the minimum sensible thing to do in this particular environment). If I can't satisfy my safety requirements, I don't fly . . . because it's a privilege, not a right.

If you think it's hard to see a large, loud helo from a fixed position, imagine how hard it is for a moving helo to see a tiny silent drone. Like it or not, UAS are low on the totem pole as things stand today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
So a drone pilot is expected to be able to locate and avoid a craft flying in excess of 125 mph? Let's go to the video: Count how many seconds that chopper goes from small blip to flying by. I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way. And it seems the attitude here is that since helis can fly right down to the wave tops, no drones should be flown over the water for fear of 'interfering' or not being able to 'give way to' a manned aircraft. Preposterous! As there are many sea birds larger in size and weight than a drone, why isn't heli flight at that level also prohibited? I'd bet big money any heli pilot would rather hit a drone than a pelican any day of the week.

Unfortunately you managed to get just about everything wrong here. Firstly, if you don't have sufficient visual/audible situational awareness, don't fly. The lack of good advance warning in the video is a great example of why FPV is not adequate, and VLOS is needed. Secondly, if you are in an area that regularly has low-flying aircraft, don't fly. Thirdly, pelicans are pretty soft - they don't have magnesium cores and high-density lithium batteries. Even small drones will exert far higher forces in a collision and do a lot more damage. You would lose your bet.
 
I had an incident at the beach where the helicopter came so fast, I didn't know it till he passed me. I was 36 ft. and started coming up, when it came by. I never heard it till the helicopter was over my head. I caught it in my camera only by accident. Forget any evasive actions.
As far as I can tell, he did nothing wrong. He was over the water. Perspective is off because I was much lower. My clip has regular speed, half and regular again.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

ps. Only took me 3 hours to get this video on. I'm learning. LOL
 
So a drone pilot is expected to be able to locate and avoid a craft flying in excess of 125 mph? Let's go to the video: Count how many seconds that chopper goes from small blip to flying by. I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way. And it seems the attitude here is that since helis can fly right down to the wave tops, no drones should be flown over the water for fear of 'interfering' or not being able to 'give way to' a manned aircraft. Preposterous! As there are many sea birds larger in size and weight than a drone, why isn't heli flight at that level also prohibited? I'd bet big money any heli pilot would rather hit a drone than a pelican any day of the week.

You are living in a fantasy world my friend. Comparing sea birds to a sUAS is literally apples to oranges and completely pointless. Last time I checked birds have soft tissue for most of their bodies and even their bones are hollow. I'd take a 4lb bird over a 4lb drone carrying a LiPo battery and metal motors ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Let's look back at what a Phantom4 did to the rotor blade of a COMBAT aircraft last fall.

I tried to find a current article that noted the price to repair. IIRC the cost was estimated $250,000 because it's a complete set of blades to be replaced. I couldn't find the article so I'm going off of memory.

See picture below... an actual picture not "assumed/simulated".

1213_ntsb_helo_drone_rotor_16x9.jpg


That is the damage to the leading edge of one of the UH-60M main rotor blades. Considering it was "just" a Phantom4 it did inflict some significant damage to a major (non redundant) component on the Blackhawk.

Keep in mind this is an aircraft designed to take on some very nasty scenarios around the world and it was still grounded with an expensive repair/replace procedure.

What do you nay-sayers think would happen to the impeller blades of a passenger aircraft jet engine? What if this part had made it's way into one of the engines (General Electric T700-GE-701D turboshaft engine) in the Blackhawk UH-60M? Luckily the debris guard (not the technical name BTW) kept it out thank goodness or we might know the answer to that question.

If you can't fly in a manner that does not cause interruption to manned aircraft then you should stay grounded and either fly somewhere else or go try some other hobby all together.
 
So a drone pilot is expected to be able to locate and avoid a craft flying in excess of 125 mph? Let's go to the video: Count how many seconds that chopper goes from small blip to flying by. I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way. And it seems the attitude here is that since helis can fly right down to the wave tops, no drones should be flown over the water for fear of 'interfering' or not being able to 'give way to' a manned aircraft. Preposterous! As there are many sea birds larger in size and weight than a drone, why isn't heli flight at that level also prohibited? I'd bet big money any heli pilot would rather hit a drone than a pelican any day of the week.
It might be your knowledge of manned AC operations is significantly limited. I have flown with several heli pilots who are very concerned about colliding with birds- especially wedge tailed eagles who, believe it or not, can show an unhealthy interest in a helicopter in flight and could very easily take it out. The delicate tail rotor assembly is especially vulnerable and you have no yaw control without one.

Birds of prey excluded- my strong suspicion is that most birds would be significantly better equipped to avoid colliding with a manned AC than you might be in commanding your drone to stay out of harms way.

You must give way to manned AC without exception. You have no right of way or entitlement to fly where they are operating. If you can’t majntain the situational awareness to safely avoid them don’t fly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
'Tha attitude the helicopter pilots probably have is the drones shouldn't be anywhere near where they are flying.'

You say they should fly not expecting the unexpected........Poor, poor attitude. Sounds extremely 'ignorant and irresponsible' to me. Good way to end up dead. If you know names of pilots who fly with that attitude, you'd do a better public service publishing those names instead of weeping over altitude considerations.
Yes- drones shouldn’t be anywhere near manned AC, that might be a reasonable expectation of a pilot. Ignorant to think otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
So a drone pilot is expected to be able to locate and avoid a craft flying in excess of 125 mph? Let's go to the video: Count how many seconds that chopper goes from small blip to flying by. I do not know about you experts here, but I would have extreme difficulty trying to get out of the way. And it seems the attitude here is that since helis can fly right down to the wave tops, no drones should be flown over the water for fear of 'interfering' or not being able to 'give way to' a manned aircraft. Preposterous! As there are many sea birds larger in size and weight than a drone, why isn't heli flight at that level also prohibited? I'd bet big money any heli pilot would rather hit a drone than a pelican any day of the week.

They’d rather hit neither!
 
  • Like
Reactions: With The Birds
I had an incident at the beach where the helicopter came so fast, I didn't know it till he passed me. I was 36 ft. and started coming up, when it came by. I never heard it till the helicopter was over my head. I caught it in my camera only by accident. Forget any evasive actions.
As far as I can tell, he did nothing wrong. He was over the water. Perspective is off because I was much lower. My clip has regular speed, half and regular again.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

ps. Only took me 3 hours to get this video on. I'm learning. LOL

Thank You for Proof of my point! Phooey, Rootman, these guys here want you to never fly again! New choppers are much quieter than older ones, sometimes you can't hear any chopper depending on wind direction. Present company excluded, the rest of these 'experts' and 'moderators' seem to be mere shills for getting drones grounded. Fixed wing aircraft fly faster. So in case one may fly by, don't ever put your bird in the air again. I come to this site infrequently. These latest exchanges make that more likely. I like stuffed chicken, so if your with the birds, go get stuffed.
You are living in a fantasy world my friend. Comparing sea birds to a sUAS is literally apples to oranges and completely pointless. Last time I checked birds have soft tissue for most of their bodies and even their bones are hollow. I'd take a 4lb bird over a 4lb drone carrying a LiPo battery and metal motors ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Let's look back at what a Phantom4 did to the rotor blade of a COMBAT aircraft last fall.

I tried to find a current article that noted the price to repair. IIRC the cost was estimated $250,000 because it's a complete set of blades to be replaced. I couldn't find the article so I'm going off of memory.

See picture below... an actual picture not "assumed/simulated".

1213_ntsb_helo_drone_rotor_16x9.jpg


That is the damage to the leading edge of one of the UH-60M main rotor blades. Considering it was "just" a Phantom4 it did inflict some significant damage to a major (non redundant) component on the Blackhawk.

Keep in mind this is an aircraft designed to take on some very nasty scenarios around the world and it was still grounded with an expensive repair/replace procedure.

What do you nay-sayers think would happen to the impeller blades of a passenger aircraft jet engine? What if this part had made it's way into one of the engines (General Electric T700-GE-701D turboshaft engine) in the Blackhawk UH-60M? Luckily the debris guard (not the technical name BTW) kept it out thank goodness or we might know the answer to that question.

If you can't fly in a manner that does not cause interruption to manned aircraft then you should stay grounded and either fly somewhere else or go try some other hobby all together.

North Carolina,huh? YOU don't fly low along the beach, do you? No vested interest there. Shill. Jet engines have frozen turkeys fired into them by a cannon during testing and you propose a 2 pound piece of plastic will wreck you. Mass and Inertia, guys, look it up. Einstein don't lie. You are in more danger from a sea bird than any drone. I'm sure you and your buddy here are with the birds and for them, as well. Why don't you go find a real airplane site to bother? Does everyone on these boards know your real purpose here? Get lost. Is there a 'block' function available for these types of posters?
 
Thank You for Proof of my point! Phooey, Rootman, these guys here want you to never fly again! New choppers are much quieter than older ones, sometimes you can't hear any chopper depending on wind direction. Present company excluded, the rest of these 'experts' and 'moderators' seem to be mere shills for getting drones grounded. Fixed wing aircraft fly faster. So in case one may fly by, don't ever put your bird in the air again. I come to this site infrequently. These latest exchanges make that more likely. I like stuffed chicken, so if your with the birds, go get stuffed.


North Carolina,huh? YOU don't fly low along the beach, do you? No vested interest there. Shill. Jet engines have frozen turkeys fired into them by a cannon during testing and you propose a 2 pound piece of plastic will wreck you. Mass and Inertia, guys, look it up. Einstein don't lie. You are in more danger from a sea bird than any drone. I'm sure you and your buddy here are with the birds and for them, as well. Why don't you go find a real airplane site to bother? Does everyone on these boards know your real purpose here? Get lost. Is there a 'block' function available for these types of posters?

Not sure you are aware that the birds used for testing are NOT frozen. Another myth still perpetuated by many.

Ask yourself why would a frozen carcass be used as an analog for a live animal?
 
Perhaps the thing to do as a trained,expert pilot concerned for their safety and their passengers, is to not fly in areas where those ignorant, unwashed and unlicensed drones tend to hang out. You can't fix stupid we all know. So WHO is irresponsible if they take their aircraft and passengers into an area where drones have been frequently encountered? Sure the law is the law. But ultimately, it is the pilot of the craft, being aware of the situation he is flying in and has gone thru massive training, to take the higher road and stay out of these areas. Do not fly below 400 feet expecting operators of various experience levels to be able to get out of the way. If these were autos, there'd be no argument. Everyone knows people of various skill levels are operating them on the roads we share and a blind expectation that everyone will follow the law or perform in a certain manner will get you killed in short order. Now the public is coming to the skies. An 8 engine drone that you can fly is a reality,now. It's been in the news. I grin from ear-to-ear thinking how that news is souring your Wheaties, chop-chop!
 
Unfortunately you managed to get just about everything wrong here. Firstly, if you don't have sufficient visual/audible situational awareness, don't fly. The lack of good advance warning in the video is a great example of why FPV is not adequate, and VLOS is needed. Secondly, if you are in an area that regularly has low-flying aircraft, don't fly. Thirdly, pelicans are pretty soft - they don't have magnesium cores and high-density lithium batteries. Even small drones will exert far higher forces in a collision and do a lot more damage. You would lose your bet.
I only address your last sentence, the former are only shill-speak. Water is soft, as well. Hitting it at 100 mph, it acts like concrete. Mass and Inertia are two principles that seem to change the properties of items in a practical sense. I've seen pictures of a 2x4 driven through a telephone pole by a 100 mph tornado. I love how all the 'experts' are quick to pronounce everything 'Wrooong, do it again!' I doubt you are influencing many eyes with the ridiculous limitations you expect the public to place on itself in the operation of these small toys. And to read some of the mental assignations you pompously decree on fellow posters is a real great persuader as well, lemme tell ya. So the solution is: Since you might not always hear an aircraft coming, never fly your drone again. Real helpful. Go pound sodium chloride.
 
I only address your last sentence, the former are only shill-speak. Water is soft, as well. Hitting it at 100 mph, it acts like concrete. Mass and Inertia are two principles that seem to change the properties of items in a practical sense. I've seen pictures of a 2x4 driven through a telephone pole by a 100 mph tornado. I love how all the 'experts' are quick to pronounce everything 'Wrooong, do it again!' I doubt you are influencing many eyes with the ridiculous limitations you expect the public to place on itself in the operation of these small toys. And to read some of the mental assignations you pompously decree on fellow posters is a real great persuader as well, lemme tell ya. So the solution is: Since you might not always hear an aircraft coming, never fly your drone again. Real helpful. Go pound sodium chloride.

Please just stop posting this nonsense. Your understanding of physics is pitiful. And the inevitable tactic of resorting to the "small toys" description to imply that these things couldn't possible damage anything doesn't further your childish arguments to be able to fly wherever and whenever you want. You have made your point – you are an irresponsible and selfish hobby flier who neither understands nor cares about the hazards, laws or guidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: With The Birds
Not sure you are aware that the birds used for testing are NOT frozen. Another myth still perpetuated by many.

Ask yourself why would a frozen carcass be used as an analog for a live animal?

OK, 'thawed'. They tried frozen first, but the results were too devastating (snopes). Does that render the gist of my comment incorrect?? Jet engines are severely tested to ensure survivability. I also admit that heli windscreens are not as robust. So, being smart-guy whirlygig operators, you would charitably guess that, knowing what they know, they would not take craft and passengers into an area where the incidence of a crash-causing collision were high, regardless of regulations in place. You would think they would reason with their inflated intellect that if they stay above 500 feet, the possibility of hitting something would be halved, at least. But no, better to come on boards like this and browbeat everyone to follow the regs. They probably stand on the street corner and make sure every car turning left on a red comes to a complete stop.
Please just stop posting this nonsense. Your understanding of physics is pitiful. And the inevitable tactic of resorting to the "small toys" description to imply that these things couldn't possible damage anything doesn't further your childish arguments to be able to fly wherever and whenever you want. You have made your point – you are an irresponsible and selfish hobby flier who neither understands nor cares about the hazards, laws or guidelines.

As you have made yours: You will knowingly endanger craft and passengers and explain to the grieving families that the regulations clearly state you can fly 150 feet over the dunes. In the final analysis, if you can avoid taking passengers into known hazard zones, with your 'superior intellect' it should be easy to come to the conclusion, as the ultimate responsible party, that perhaps you should wisely steer clear. Or, as you nay-sayers seem to indicate, no, better to rely on everyone following the regs and '**** the drones, full speed ahead!'
Please post your real names as a public service so anyone who would hop in a whirlygig with you knows your attitude on their safety.
NOW I'm done.
 
As you have made yours: You will knowingly endanger craft and passengers and explain to the grieving families that the regulations clearly state you can fly 150 feet over the dunes. In the final analysis, if you can avoid taking passengers into known hazard zones, with your 'superior intellect' it should be easy to come to the conclusion, as the ultimate responsible party, that perhaps you should wisely steer clear. Or, as you nay-sayers seem to indicate, no, better to rely on everyone following the regs and '**** the drones, full speed ahead!'
Please post your real names as a public service so anyone who would hop in a whirlygig with you knows your attitude on their safety.
NOW I'm done.

That bears no resemblance at all to anything I've written - in fact you seem to be projecting your own position. What part of the law that UAVs must always yield to manned aircraft, in any location and at any height, are you unable to comprehend? It's not even a credible straw man argument. I really hope you are done.
 
OK, 'thawed'. They tried frozen first, but the results were too devastating (snopes). Does that render the gist of my comment incorrect?? Jet engines are severely tested to ensure survivability. I also admit that heli windscreens are not as robust. So, being smart-guy whirlygig operators, you would charitably guess that, knowing what they know, they would not take craft and passengers into an area where the incidence of a crash-causing collision were high, regardless of regulations in place. You would think they would reason with their inflated intellect that if they stay above 500 feet, the possibility of hitting something would be halved, at least. But no, better to come on boards like this and browbeat everyone to follow the regs. They probably stand on the street corner and make sure every car turning left on a red comes to a complete stop.


As you have made yours: You will knowingly endanger craft and passengers and explain to the grieving families that the regulations clearly state you can fly 150 feet over the dunes. In the final analysis, if you can avoid taking passengers into known hazard zones, with your 'superior intellect' it should be easy to come to the conclusion, as the ultimate responsible party, that perhaps you should wisely steer clear. Or, as you nay-sayers seem to indicate, no, better to rely on everyone following the regs and '**** the drones, full speed ahead!'
Please post your real names as a public service so anyone who would hop in a whirlygig with you knows your attitude on their safety.
NOW I'm done.

The protocol was never frozen animals. It was a communication issue between the Brits and US engineers which has resulted in this myth perpetuated by many folks who never researched the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers