Helicopter meet Phantom. Phantom lost

[Karlos-Kydd]

FAA is certainly not helping to "de-confuse" the public airspace and who can use it. The FAA says they want us drone pilots to keep our toys under 400 ft. AGL at all times, but yet I see plenty of helicopters flying under that ceiling. So if there is a collision --- who is at fault?

I personally don't see any reason why a manned helicopter should ever be flying under 500 ft. AGL, except when taking off or landing. And yet I see it all the time and I just shake my head.

 

[With The Birds]

FAA is certainly not helping to "de-confuse" the public airspace and who can use it. The FAA says they want us drone pilots to keep our toys under 400 ft. AGL at all times, but yet I see plenty of helicopters flying under that ceiling. So if there is a collision --- who is at fault?

I personally don't see any reason why a manned helicopter should ever be flying under 500 ft. AGL, except when taking off or landing. And yet I see it all the time and I just shake my head.

If you are unfortunate enough to fly your toy into one of those manned AC you suspect shouldn’t be below 500ft you are in the wrong- there is no ambiguity. Give way to manned AC in all circumstances. Pretty simple.

As to the article you shouldn’t be surprised the heli was flying below 500ft, would be a very ineffective and inefficient use of the chemicals if trying to spray an orange crop from that altitude.

Your will find most if not all the heli’s you see and suspect to below 500ft are flying within the regs.

 

[Karlos-Kydd]

If a UAV hobbyist collides with a manned RC they are at fault- there is no ambiguity. Give way to manned AC in all circumstances. Pretty simple.

Sorry but your response only makes the whole situation more confusing, not less. If the FAA explicitly states that drone pilots are legally able to fly our machines under 400 ft. AGL, and manned helicopters are also allowed to fly under 400 ft. AGL and there happens to be a collision --- why is it always the drone pilot's fault if everyone is allowed to fly under 400 ft? Common sense says if you are flying your drone at 390 ft. and you see an approaching helicopter that has a flight path dangerously in line with your drone, then it is imperative to you descend immediately. But what if you are hovering at 390 ft. in your backyard and suddenly a heli flies overhead with no warning and collides with your drone? How can a drone pilot be faulted for that?

As to the article you shouldn’t be surprised the heli was flying below 500ft, would be a very ineffective and inefficient use of the chemicals if trying to spray an orange crop from that altitude. Your will find most if not all the heli’s you see and suspect to below 500ft are flying within the regs.

99% of all the helis I see flying under 500 ft. are not spraying chemicals or doing any other task that requires them to be under 500 ft. It's almost like they are too lazy to get up above 1000 ft. where they can safely be out of the way of drones, high-voltage power lines, cell towers, etc. I really have never seen any good explanation why so many helis are seen flying in that 300-1000' AGL airspace. Really weird and confusing stuff !!

 

[WV. Rootman]

While we are on the subject, 3 Boeing ch-47 chinook helicopters today, flew slow and they flew low, like most do crossing my ridge. They shook the whole house and was loud!

 

[With The Birds]

While we are on the subject, 3 Boeing ch-47 chinook helicopters today, flew slow and they flew low, like most do crossing my ridge. They shook the whole house and was loud!View attachment 102691

Very cool.... out of curiosity- how long could you hear them for before you could see them. I suspect you would have plenty of time to be out of their way...

 

[BigAl07]

You guys who want the FAA to 'restrict" manned aviation to above 500' AGL are living in a fantasy world. Do you also want the DOT to put in a special lane on the highways that only R/C cars & trucks can use? No one else can use or cross that lane for any reason what so ever.

Come on folks let's be realistic here. General Aviation flies below 500' AGL very often (more than most people realize) and for very good reasons. I've had entire flights (in manned aircraft that barely made it over 500' AGL and we were legal the whole time. What about BUSH pilots who are flying low-n-slow landing in fields, roads, valleys, plateaus?

It's plane and simple... the unmanned aircraft has to give way to manned aircraft all the time EVERY TIME! No exceptions.

 

[sar104]

Sorry but your response only makes the whole situation more confusing, not less. If the FAA explicitly states that drone pilots are legally able to fly our machines under 400 ft. AGL, and manned helicopters are also allowed to fly under 400 ft. AGL and there happens to be a collision --- why is it always the drone pilot's fault if everyone is allowed to fly under 400 ft?

Because that is the law. And it's the law, partly because there is no training and certification required for most drone pilots, partly because the consequences are far higher for the manned aircraft, and partly because it's harder for manned aircraft to detect and avoid drones than the other way around. So, if you want to play in the NAS you either accept those rules or you don't fly.

 

[Karlos-Kydd]

Come on folks let's be realistic here. General Aviation flies below 500' AGL very often (more than most people realize) and for very good reasons. I've had entire flights (in manned aircraft that barely made it over 500' AGL and we were legal the whole time. What about BUSH pilots who are flying low-n-slow landing in fields, roads, valleys, plateaus?

I've been waiting many years to hear these "very good reasons" that helis and Cessnas need to fly below 500' AGL?

Outside of crop-dusters and police helis doing perp searches --- why do manned aircraft need to be under 500 ft? If a Medevac heli takes off from an accident site on the freeway --- why can't the pilot immediately ascend to 1000 ft. and then fly to the hospital? It would only take an extra 30-40 seconds to get to that altitude and it would certainly keep it out of the danger zone of consumer drones, power lines, and cell towers.

I don't have any personal experience with bush pilots but why do they need to fly "low and slow"? They have one simple task --- takeoff and land safely and I dont see why flying under 500 ft. helps them with that mission.

 

[Karlos-Kydd]

Because that is the law. And it's the law, partly because there is no training and certification required for most drone pilots, partly because the consequences are far higher for the manned aircraft, and partly because it's harder for manned aircraft to detect and avoid drones than the other way around. So, if you want to play in the NAS you either accept those rules or you don't fly.

Yes, like I said, common sense says that a drone pilot should always take necessary measures to avoid a collision with a manned aircraft --- but that certainly doesn't mean a drone pilot is ALWAYS at fault if a collision occurs.

For example, on many roads, cars and bicycles have equal legal rights to use the roadway. Under most cirumstances the car has to yield to the bicycle for obvious reasons that the bicyclist will suffer severe injury or death if there is a collision. However, if the bicyclist carelessly and suddenly swerves into the oncoming lane and collides with a car, then the bicyclist is clearly at fault --- even though the law says the car must always yield to the bike and yet they both have equal rights to the same roadway. Isn't this the same conundrum where consumer drones and manned aircraft are both allowed to occupy sub-400' airspace and yet the drone pilot is always at fault in case of a collision?

 

[BigAl07]

I've been waiting many years to hear these "very good reasons" that helis and Cessnas need to fly below 500' AGL?

Outside of crop-dusters and police helis doing perp searches --- why do manned aircraft need to be under 500 ft? If a Medivac heli takes off from an accident site on the freeway --- why can't the pilot immediately ascend to 1000 ft. and then fly to the hospital? It would only take an extra 30-40 seconds to get to that altitude and it would certainly keep it out of the danger zone of consumer drones, power lines, and cell towers.

I don't have any personal experience with bush pilots but why do they need to fly "low and slow"? They have one simple task --- takeoff and land safely and I dont see why flying under 500 ft. helps them with that mission.

The purpose of the MediVac is to get the patient to the medical facility with utmost urgency. Most times this means they do climb above 500' AGL but that depends upon terrain and the proximity to the facility. That's not the point... the point is they "Could be" below 500' at any time so we, as responsible aviators are required to see & avoid and give way to manned aircraft period.

Any helo "could" be below 500' AGL in uncongested areas. We had 3 UH-60's flying over today about 300'AGL scud running through the hills. I'm sure they were training or even showing off but the point is that's where they were and it was perfectly legal to do so. Yes it's unnerving because this was an area I fly frequently (I was flying at the time) and I heard them long before I saw them. I brought my MPP down to about 10' and watched them go across the hill and out of sight.

Bush planes are designed to be able to land short and take off quick on unprepared ground. It's common for a bush plane to be hopping around from peak to valley to field and so on. Take a few minutes to research Trent Palmer or the Flying Cowboys.

It's not that they "Need" to fly below 500' AGL but it's because they are designed to do so very well and because they CAN! You can't expect everyone else on the Aviation Food Chain to adapt to our hobby. We are required to see & avoid and if we do that this will go a LONG way to preventing sUAS to manned aviation incidents.

 

[sar104]

Yes, like I said, common sense says that a drone pilot should always take necessary measures to avoid a collision with a manned aircraft --- but that certainly doesn't mean a drone pilot is ALWAYS at fault if a collision occurs.

For example, on many roads, cars and bicycles have equal legal rights to use the roadway. Under most cirumstances the car has to yield to the bicycle for obvious reasons that the bicyclist will suffer severe injury or death if there is a collision. However, if the bicyclist carelessly and suddenly swerves into the oncoming lane and collides with a car, then the bicyclist is clearly at fault --- even though the law says the car must always yield to the bike and yet they both have equal rights to the same roadway. Isn't this the same conundrum where consumer drones and manned aircraft are both allowed to occupy sub-400' airspace and yet the drone pilot is always at fault in case of a collision?

No - it's not the same because traffic law does not attempt to segregate traffic in the same way as aviation law. Bikes and cars are assumed to coexist on the same roads whereas, in the air, drones are supposed to avoid manned traffic entirely. If they have come close enough for a collision to occur then the drone should not have been there in the first place.

 

[Karlos-Kydd]

It's not that they "Need" to fly below 500' AGL but it's because they are designed to do so very well and because they CAN! You can't expect everyone else on the Aviation Food Chain to adapt to our hobby. We are required to see & avoid and if we do that this will go a LONG way to preventing sUAS to manned aviation incidents.

I don't expect the entire aviation world to adapt to our hobby -- but the FAA could really clear things up by telling everyone "Hey you drone guys stay below 400 feet and all you heli and Cessna pilots stay above 500 feet and that way we can all enjoy the airspace and nobody is running into each other".

Like I said, outside of crop dusters and the boys in blue doing low-altitude heli searches for perps I really dont see much need for manned aircraft to be below the 500 foot deck most of the time. Maybe the law books allow them to be there now but that don't mean the laws can't change. After all, we need to see the enormous commercial potential of sUAS and the only way that can happen is if the sub-400' airspace is mostly dominated by unmanned aerial machines where they wont be colliding with manned aircraft.

 

[Karlos-Kydd]

No - it's not the same because traffic law does not attempt to segregate traffic in the same way as aviation law. Bikes and cars are assumed to coexist on the same roads whereas, in the air, drones are supposed to avoid manned traffic entirely. If they have come close enough for a collision to occur then the drone should not have been there in the first place.

Still doesn't answer the conundrum of why drones are allowed to be in the sub-400' airspace but if there is a collision, we are automatically at fault just because the other machine has a human inside of it. The law is not supposed to be contradictory --- but that is exactly what the FAA is trying to tell us --- " y'all can fly under 400' but if something bad happens, then you are at fault --- even though we gave you permission to be there".

Just dont make sense no matter how many times I look at it.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't expect the entire aviation world to adapt to our hobby -- but the FAA could really clear things up by telling everyone "Hey you drone guys stay below 400 feet and all you heli and Cessna pilots stay above 500 feet and that way we can all enjoy the airspace and nobody is running into each other".

Like I said, outside of crop dusters and the boys in blue doing low-altitude heli searches for perps I really dont see much need for manned aircraft to be below the 500 foot deck most of the time. Maybe the law books allow them to be there now but that don't mean the laws can't change. After all, we need to see the enormous commercial potential of sUAS and the only way that can happen is if the sub-400' airspace is mostly dominated by unmanned aerial machines where they wont be colliding with manned aircraft.

You really don't see the big picture my friend. In "our world" we are big and have massive #'s but as soon as you step outside into the real world that changes immediately. The very moment that unmanned cause a clear and present danger to manned ticket sales could plummet. When the Big Boys (airliners and Corp America) start losing $$ because of reduced ticket sales the lobbyist will smile all the way to the bank on their way to crushing our hobby and micro economy. Why not just keep your eyes on a swivel and practice See & Avoid at any cost? It's worked splendidly for many decades why change the world just because a new crop of aviators want to get it their way? Keep in mind I've been flying R/C since 1974 so I've seen a lot change but not the laws and regulations.

The FAA isn't going to change the world of aviation for our hobby aircraft. I don't see that happening on any level.

 

[Karlos-Kydd]

You really don't see the big picture my friend. In "our world" we are big and have massive #'s but as soon as you step outside into the real world that changes immediately. The very moment that unmanned cause a clear and present danger to manned ticket sales could plummet. When the Big Boys (airliners and Corp America) start losing $$ because of reduced ticket sales the lobbyist will smile all the way to the bank on their way to crushing our hobby and micro economy. Why not just keep your eyes on a swivel and practice See & Avoid at any cost? It's worked splendidly for many decades why change the world just because a new crop of aviators want to get it their way? Keep in mind I've been flying R/C since 1974 so I've seen a lot change but not the laws and regulations.

The FAA isn't going to change the world of aviation for our hobby aircraft. I don't see that happening on any level.

I'm certainly not advocating wanton disregard of incoming manned aircraft when flying our drones --- like I said, basic common sense mandates that an unmanned plastic toy should always give way to "souls on board".

What I am questioning is this conundrum of "you are allowed to fly under 400 feet but if something bad happens, you are getting 100% of the blame and you might go to prison because of doing something we gave you permission to do". The FAA is trying to play both sides of the coin here and we drone pilots are being targeted as the scapegoats for anything that might go wrong.

The FAA needs to stop being feckless and say something like "You drone guys stay under 400 feet at all times and all you real pilots stay above 500 feet unless you have special clearance to go under that ceiling. If anything bad happens, we investigate and blame the responsible party on a case-by-case basis". That really seems like the only fair way to look at it going forward into a future where unmanned aircraft can flourish right alongside our manned brethren.

 

[rustybucket]

I don't think it's nearly as incongruous as you think it is.

For ham radio testing, there are separate tests that a Volunteer Examiner must pass in order to administer exams and the VE can only administer exams up to the level of licensing of the VE (as both a ham operator and VE). The ARRL is the FCC's proxy for most of this.

Hams are to a great extent hobbyists but many are also professionals. Though I won't go into things like the radiotelephone licenses, etc.

So back to the proverbial brass tacks, part 107 pilots, ostensibly with additional examiner qualifications from the FAA and its assigned proxy (AMA), could and would administer a Part 107 test.

And you must have 3 VEs present to conduct testing. So, yes the hobby can regulate itself, we are not a bunch of idiots.

 

[sar104]

And you must have 3 VEs present to conduct testing. So, yes the hobby can regulate itself, we are not a bunch of idiots.

But we were not discussing testing for Part 101 hobbyists - this is about flight testing for Part 107.

 

[sar104]

Still doesn't answer the conundrum of why drones are allowed to be in the sub-400' airspace but if there is a collision, we are automatically at fault just because the other machine has a human inside of it. The law is not supposed to be contradictory --- but that is exactly what the FAA is trying to tell us --- " y'all can fly under 400' but if something bad happens, then you are at fault --- even though we gave you permission to be there".

Just dont make sense no matter how many times I look at it.

Then you are going to have to remain baffled and confused.

 

[BigAl07]

Still doesn't answer the conundrum of why drones are allowed to be in the sub-400' airspace but if there is a collision, we are automatically at fault just because the other machine has a human inside of it.

Drones are small, highly maneuverable, and carry no humans on board. That makes them the ones to stay clear of other (all other) aircraft in the sky. A Manned Aircraft is fairly easy to spot (in most cases) by a sUAS Operator on the ground but an sUAS is very hard to spot from a manned aircraft (again in most cases). I

The FAA is charged with Aviation Safety and the rules are designed to help ensure that to the best of their ability. it doesn't get any more simple/basic than that.

Also you do realize that the FAA could simply mandate that sUAS remain at even lower altitude than 400' (take 200' or 100' for instance) which would also go a long way to reducing the potential for conflict with manned aircraft but I'm pretty sure none of us want that... I know I don't.

The law is not supposed to be contradictory --- but that is exactly what the FAA is trying to tell us --- " y'all can fly under 400' but if something bad happens, then you are at fault --- even though we gave you permission to be there".

What you're missing is they are allowed in that space with stipulations/rules/regulations. The space is not carved out for one particular aircraft because many others could be in it. FARs are written so that everyone knows what to do in specific situations.

It's no different than other "types" of aircraft... (also I think maritime law is similar for boats on the water). The least maneuverable in an encounter has right of way. A Hot Air Balloon has right of way over a Cessna 172 if they are both operating legally in the same airspace.

 

[WV. Rootman]

Very cool.... out of curiosity- how long could you hear them for before you could see them. I suspect you would have plenty of time to be out of their way...

I'm very hard of hearing, but no problem with those guys. I ran out of the house to watch. I don't think they were 300 ft. above the house. I could feel the pressure from the props and the whole house shook. They rule.