NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[m0j0]

Hmmm... again I'm calling BS. The guy I'm talking about showed me a picture of his garage where he has 50 planes. I'm guessing they were all non-gps. He, like everyone else is able to use gear made in the year 2017. These guys have evolved just like their aircraft have. My point being, knuckleheads are knuckleheads.

 

[m0j0]

He was just an RC snob. He was probably more wreckless than any first time drone pilot. Suggesting night operations, no training requirements and obviously a proponent of flying 7 miles away from a launch point. Well why, because a plane is more efficient. No worries, I'm out! I will wait for them to fly an airplane into one of the many patrol aircraft in the area and wait for the lawsuits.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't agree. I agree with the lack of understanding some of the basics but... I do not agree that everyone should be required to pass the 107 or that the 107 is to easy. It isn't easy for someone new to aviation. To be honest though most of that stuff is unnecessary for operation under 107. When you start getting into the waiver areas though yes you need to understand everything. In all of my flights commercial and for fun, I can say 107 knowledge was not really necessary.

I don't mean the hobbyist should have to take the full 107 as it is but I think a basic test to demonstrate at least some small degree of understanding. This would also ensure that every "legal" operator was at least exposed to basic rules and safety concepts. Call me old school but learning to fly at local flying clubs we always had to demonstrate some degree of flight proficiency before we were allowed to fly there. This included some basic "RC Flying" questions, a thorough inspection of your aircraft (not by you) and then a flight demonstration closely accompanied by one of our volunteer flight instructors. This is one of the reasons why R/C had an amazing safety record for DECADES.

You do realize that the current Part 107 is much bigger than just "Phantom Pilots" right? It encompasses everything from the Spark sizes sUAS up to 54.99lb aircraft that are flying from runways, prepared launch pads and more. Part 107 is MUCH bigger than those of us flying our Phantoms around the neighborhood trying to get that perfect Real Estate picture.

For recreational flights no! Absolutely no reason to have to take a test. Follow the rules and that would stop almost every real or mostly imagined drone incident. The problem lies in people not following the rules. Unfortunately, that isn't ever going away. No amount of podium pounding will change it.

Lack of education and even more lack of responsibility is the problem. With some form of training/testing they can't say, "Oh I didn't know".

Funny you would say that most RC planes aren't beyond line of sight. I spoke yesterday to a tech who is responsible for representing my division in the development of a sUAS program. I took the 107 so that I could be one of the pilots in command when the program launched. Yesterday the tech tells me that he is developing a prototype aircraft that can fly out 7 miles and loiter with a flight time of 7 hours. I looked at him and walked away. I have voiced my opinion a number of times on the use of sUAS in law enforcement applications. It has a use in providing top cover for high risk entry. Has a use in providing eyes in areas where ground surveillance is not feasible.. but 7 miles away.. nope! That's insane, I want no part of it. I think planes that can fly farther because they are more efficient are more dangerous than quads. Wait and see.

LOL you are completely missing the big picture. While there are some instances of advanced aircraft flying like you stated that's a very VERY minuscule percentage of the total # of "RC Planes" being flown in the US. Just because you talked to an individual "responsible in development ...he is developing a prototype aircraft that can fly out 7 miles and loiter with a flight time of 7 hours" doesn't really add anything to the conversation at hand. You do realize that, to be honest, that doesn't even factor into the equation at least not TODAY! Maybe tomorrow but not today.

Do we have aircraft (right now) that can fly autonomously and loiter for hours? YES! We use them for mapping and other mundane tasks but these are VERY small in the big picture of things. I was specifically talking about the R/C enthusiasts who are at flying fields every Saturday & Sunday actually "flying" the aircraft as opposed to telling the aircraft what you want it to do and the Flight Controller actually flying it. That's a world away from what you're describing. Apples to oranges my friend.

Al is specifically talking about non GPS controlled aircraft. Theres a HUGE difference. Some of the older RC pilots know that it actually requires skill to fly an RC heli or plane and thats what sets them apart. Anyone can fly a Phantom, like a 5 year old, and pretty good I might add. Some spend years just learning to properly hover a CP RC heli. No person flying a non GPS craft is going to fly beyond visual sight because if you do, your going to crash.

^^^^^ @Helihover Nailed it!!

We actually have to fly them by seeing what they are doing and then manipulating the controls (moving actual control surfaces to affect lift, roll, yaw etc) to maintain flight and avoid obstacles. It's a Self Correcting Hobby in that if you don't know what you're doing or you lose concentration etc the aircraft doesn't hover in place, Return to Home, or fly autonomously to some predetermined .... It crashes and fairly quickly.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From AOPA

Drone far beyond sight during Black Hawk collision - AOPA

 

[Bad Andy]

Cool how they traced the Phantom back to the owner.

Also an interesting linked article there - registration requirement is back!!!

 

[N017RW]

Yea, traceability... definitely something some should now consider.

 

[Austin Ace]

The Initial report is out and it sounds very accurate.
NTSB News Release
National Transportation Safety Board Office of Public Affairs
Drone Operator Errors Caused Drone, Helicopter Collision
12/14/2017

I live near Jacksonville, Florida where there is a Navy Seahawk Romeo squadron. They fly over the St. John's river all the time at about 300 feet. I was thinking about flying out to video a big barge going up the river when I spotted a Seahawk coming on the same route as the barge. It would not have been good. Besides, this whole thing in New York sounds like Russian collusion.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

@Bakersfield Quad
no offense to you but that's exactly the problem. We are operating in the National Airspace System and as such we need to go above and beyond "opening the box, looking at the pictures, charging, and hitting the power button". IMHO anyone who wants to operate a sUAS that has the ability to fly over 100'AGL, >500' from take off point, has Gyro Stabilization, has GPS positioning should be required to take as a MIN Part 107 testing and pass. Also I think Part 107 is way too easy and it needs to be advanced by a large degree.

Do I think that a VERY large # of sUAS operators simply know and don't care? Absolutely as evidenced here and on many other similar forums. But at the same time I think the FAA has dropped the ball (again) and made entry into the NAS way too easy and they should make education mandatory and "verified" across the board.

Fact of the matter a POTUS TFR (or any VIP movement TFR for that matter) could pop up anywhere in the CONUS as any time. If you happen to be flying from a device that is not connected to the internet (very much like I do) you won't know about it unless you have the knowledge and foresight to physically check and check in the right places.

Excellent statement and I tend to agree..... as much as I don't want to. I don't want more rules and regulations, but with the increased amount of drones and safety incidents, I believe it's only a matter of time.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

I use airmap, and so far, it has worked for me. Last Jan 20th and 21st we had a TFR here in the DC area due to the inauguration. The TFR was listed on both airmap and the uavforecast site, which informed me and kept me from flying during the specific TFR hours of those days (wind was relatively calm both days and great for flying, but I stayed grounded). Point is, it's a simple matter to take a quick look for a TFR, it takes less than a minute.

Mark, where are you located if you don't mind me asking? I'm in Prince William county.

 

[Mark The Droner]

I am in northern Montgomery County - 19.5 miles due north of the White House as the crow flies

 

[PhamTon]

I'm disappointed to read the report.

Nothing much may happen from it immediately. But it's definitely pushing the hobby of drone flying towards more restrictions/geo fencing/pre-registration, etc.

It has to be acknowledged though, this drone pilot wasn't exactly taking the piss, doing orbits around the Freedom Tower. He stayed below 400' as recommended by the FAA.
The heli crew were at 300'.

People may say yeah well it was a military helicopter on official patrol so it can do what it wants. Maybe so. But look what happened. If the heli crew stayed at 500' are we to believe they couldn't carry out their role?
I'd say the sunset view from 300' was lovely.

I thought the rule was do not fly below 500agl unless taking off or landing.

Yes, VLOS is an important safety factor. What if you keep your drone at 300' and a heli comes round the dunes at 120kts at 300'? Who's at fault?

For a non-ppl or cpl holder, I found the drone pilot to have acted within the realms of reasonable, not reckless. His forthright admissions and unrestricted access for the NTSB team should be commended.

Let's hope costly and prohibitive rules aren't brought in over this incident......

 

[GPS_Ken]

Point is, it's a simple matter to take a quick look for a TFR, it takes less than a minute.

The real point is that most people consider an under $500 drone a play toy. The majority will understand and accept the 400 foot rule and the airport rule, but that is about the limit of their knowledge and compliance. Passing regulations for people to follow will not work. The only thing that would work is if you forced manufacturers to build in automated systems that prevented rule violations. I do not see this happening until there are more mid-air collisions, or some accident causing major human injury or death. If you look at the history of the FAA/NTSB, you'll find that most major changes only happened after fatal accidents.

 

[Helihover]

I'm disappointed to read the report.

Nothing much may happen from it immediately. But it's definitely pushing the hobby of drone flying towards more restrictions/geo fencing/pre-registration, etc.

It has to be acknowledged though, this drone pilot wasn't exactly taking the piss, doing orbits around the Freedom Tower. He stayed below 400' as recommended by the FAA.
The heli crew were at 300'.

People may say yeah well it was a military helicopter on official patrol so it can do what it wants. Maybe so. But look what happened. If the heli crew stayed at 500' are we to believe they couldn't carry out their role?
I'd say the sunset view from 300' was lovely.

I thought the rule was do not fly below 500agl unless taking off or landing.

Yes, VLOS is an important safety factor. What if you keep your drone at 300' and a heli comes round the dunes at 120kts at 300'? Who's at fault?

For a non-ppl or cpl holder, I found the drone pilot to have acted within the realms of reasonable, not reckless. His forthright admissions and unrestricted access for the NTSB team should be commended.

Let's hope costly and prohibitive rules aren't brought in over this incident......

There are designated military routes.

Military aircraft can fly at any altitude.

 

[sar104]

I'm disappointed to read the report.

Nothing much may happen from it immediately. But it's definitely pushing the hobby of drone flying towards more restrictions/geo fencing/pre-registration, etc.

It has to be acknowledged though, this drone pilot wasn't exactly taking the piss, doing orbits around the Freedom Tower. He stayed below 400' as recommended by the FAA.
The heli crew were at 300'.

People may say yeah well it was a military helicopter on official patrol so it can do what it wants. Maybe so. But look what happened. If the heli crew stayed at 500' are we to believe they couldn't carry out their role?
I'd say the sunset view from 300' was lovely.

I thought the rule was do not fly below 500agl unless taking off or landing.

Yes, VLOS is an important safety factor. What if you keep your drone at 300' and a heli comes round the dunes at 120kts at 300'? Who's at fault?

For a non-ppl or cpl holder, I found the drone pilot to have acted within the realms of reasonable, not reckless. His forthright admissions and unrestricted access for the NTSB team should be commended.

Let's hope costly and prohibitive rules aren't brought in over this incident......

So your argument is that while the UAV pilot was breaking numerous laws and guidelines, and the helicopter was flying entirely legally, we shouldn't blame the UAV pilot? He was flying in a TFR, beyond VLOS, had been above 400 ft on his previous flight, and expressed to investigators that he didn't think any of that was a problem. And you are commending him?

If the recreational community keeps defending this type of behavior with these kinds of spurious arguments it will hasten the appearance of much more stringent regulation of this activity.

 

[N017RW]

I'm disappointed to read the report.

Nothing much may happen from it immediately. But it's definitely pushing the hobby of drone flying towards more restrictions/geo fencing/pre-registration, etc.

It has to be acknowledged though, this drone pilot wasn't exactly taking the piss, doing orbits around the Freedom Tower. He stayed below 400' as recommended by the FAA.
The heli crew were at 300'.

People may say yeah well it was a military helicopter on official patrol so it can do what it wants. Maybe so. But look what happened. If the heli crew stayed at 500' are we to believe they couldn't carry out their role?
I'd say the sunset view from 300' was lovely.

I thought the rule was do not fly below 500agl unless taking off or landing.

Yes, VLOS is an important safety factor. What if you keep your drone at 300' and a heli comes round the dunes at 120kts at 300'? Who's at fault?

For a non-ppl or cpl holder, I found the drone pilot to have acted within the realms of reasonable, not reckless. His forthright admissions and unrestricted access for the NTSB team should be commended.

Let's hope costly and prohibitive rules aren't brought in over this incident......

What if??? (emphasis added to quote above).
That's right, what if something unexpected happens?

You're the PIC. There may be fault on both accounts. Being party to any incident will not be pleasant regardless of the determination.. You'll still have to defend yourself $$$.

What if... he doesn't fly beyond VLOS?
What if... he maintains capability to give way to manned aircraft at all times?

Basic rules broken, no excuses.

Souls are at risk.
Take the NAS seriously.

Thought not apparently intentional, destruction of gov't property???
Curious about the penalties for sure.

I hope Big-Al and the 'gang' keeps on top of this story should the consequences be published or searchable.

 

[PhamTon]

There are designated military routes.

Military aircraft can fly at any altitude.

As in that circuitous route in green? That was published somewhere? Showing a height of 300'? Fair enough, if so.

I wouldn't fly an SEP around at 300' any longer than it takes me to climb and descend through it.

Regarding the 2nd comment, absolutely. The can also fly outside TFR's at 300' and hit a guy flying his P4 at 300' doing 120kts.

If I was to be involved in a mid air incident that wasn't my fault, I'd still be kicking myself if my actions, had they have been different would've altered the outcome. There's no point saying well the other guy broke the law (as your aircraft is parked up in the hangar)

I wasn't condoning the droner's actions. Far from it. I just fear it's another step towards prohibitive restrictions.

 

[Mark The Droner]

...If the heli crew stayed at 500' .....

My understanding is manned ACs can fly below 500' if over open water or barren land...

 

[PhamTon]

So your argument is that while the UAV pilot was breaking numerous laws and guidelines, and the helicopter was flying entirely legally, we shouldn't blame the UAV pilot? He was flying in a TFR, beyond VLOS, had been above 400 ft on his previous flight, and expressed to investigators that he didn't think any of that was a problem. And you are commending him?

If the recreational community keeps defending this type of behavior with these kinds of spurious arguments it will hasten the appearance of much more stringent regulation of this activity.

Ok, I understand the relevance of the TFR. I'm not defending the droner. If I was standing beside him and he said, 'yeah watch this. I always fly it beyond VLOS out to 3 miles. It's fun', I'd be quick to tell him you will in your hole fly beyond VLOS, that's nuts. Unnecessary. You could hit something'.

I was merely acknowledging the difference in actions of said droner versus other goons uploading stuff to YouTube buzzing a skyscraper or people on a bridge etc. He was getting a sunset shot of an island/coastline at 300'. It just so happened that coincidentally that day, there was a TFR added for a period of time.

These are the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up. He wasn't positioning it at 300' 1 mile from the airport to get the heli coming in to land.

 

[Helihover]

As in that circuitous route in green? That was published somewhere? Showing a height of 300'? Fair enough, if so.

I wouldn't fly an SEP around at 300' any longer than it takes me to climb and descend through it.

Regarding the 2nd comment, absolutely. The can also fly outside TFR's at 300' and hit a guy flying his P4 at 300' doing 120kts.

If I was to be involved in a mid air incident that wasn't my fault, I'd still be kicking myself if my actions, had they have been different would've altered the outcome. There's no point saying well the other guy broke the law (as your aircraft is parked up in the hangar)

I wasn't condoning the droner's actions. Far from it. I just fear it's another step towards prohibitive restrictions.

I’m not sure where you keep coming up with this 300’ thing. Anyway, I don’t have time to research any of this, but can tell you from first hand experiences. I used to live in a designated military route close to Camp Penilton (I may have spelled that wrong) in SoCal. I’ve seen first hand low flying aircraft (helis, jets, etc), at high speeds sometimes. I’m talking like 100’ AGL and probably less. And this was at least 30 miles away from the base. I’ll never forget the cargo jet that buzzed my house who was definitely below 100’ @ probaly 200 knots plus.

You are responsible as a UAS operator to see and avoid. You are also required to give the right away to ANY manned aircraft. If you abide by these rules, you should never have a collision. I could never see a situation where a drone hit an aircraft and the drone pilot not be at fault.

 

[sar104]

Ok, I understand the relevance of the TFR. I'm not defending the droner. If I was standing beside him and he said, 'yeah watch this. I always fly it beyond VLOS out to 3 miles. It's fun', I'd be quick to tell him you will in your hole fly beyond VLOS, that's nuts. Unnecessary. You could hit something'.

I was merely acknowledging the difference in actions of said droner versus other goons uploading stuff to YouTube buzzing a skyscraper or people on a bridge etc. He was getting a sunset shot of an island/coastline at 300'. It just so happened that coincidentally that day, there was a TFR added for a period of time.

These are the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up. He wasn't positioning it at 300' 1 mile from the airport to get the heli coming in to land.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you looking for a sliding scale of stupidity, and saying that because other pilots also do stupid things, or even more stupid things, that this was somehow not so bad? His previous flight in that area was over 500 ft AGL so what, exactly, would you advise NY helicopter pilots to do? Stay over 1000 ft because there may be some well-meaning but ignorant idiot in the area who doesn't think the rules apply to him? Better make that 2000 ft, given that the Phantom will go over 1600 ft?

There are serious responsibilities associated with flying something that can get up into the NAS and fly around among manned aircraft. Unfortunately Congress, in its wisdom, handcuffed the FAA to prevent them from regulating the largest class of people with that privilege, and this is what we get as a result; stupid people with not even the slightest common sense and no interest in anyone but themselves, blundering around in restricted airspace and busy air lanes. Even had there not been a TFR he should not have been there. The faster that we get real regulation of all sUAS the better.