NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[PhamTon]

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

Ok. Fair enough.

Personally I wouldn't. Risk aversion would stop me.

Engine failure at 300' would give you less than a minute before splashdown. You're not giving yourself a chance at self preservation. That would be my take on a small part of aviation.

To each their own.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

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......

This is something that was talked about in another thread a little while back. You have some that bring up the professional vs hobbyist, manned aircraft vs unmanned and "it's been this way for x amount of years." So be it, however times have and still are changing. Moving manned aircraft up in altitude unless need to be lower, taking off or landing only makes since. Or, totally remove UAVS from the air. Im not condoning or supporting wrong doing. As time goes on, if near airport collisions were excluded (there is no reason to fly to close to airports anyway) you will be able to take the rest of manned vs unmanned incidents and average them out and I'm betting most of them will accrue under 500 ft. If that's true the answer becomes really simple.

 

[PhamTon]

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.

The 300' reference was the height the 2 aircraft struck at.

The descriptions of aircraft flying at 100' at 200kts. Ah here! And these guys would've gone through all their FAA exams and annual checks etc etc and still did this?!

 

[andy_k]

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.

I think that some form of training should be made compulsory and like you, I learned to fly at my local flying club. I don't understand why people don't want to join these places (there seems to be a lot of opposition to it from 'drone' owners). There are people at these clubs that have been flying for 60 years and are a mine of useful tips and information.

Our local club welcomes newcomers to the hobby, no matter what they are flying - not all clubs are the same but you can usually find a 'good one'.

I think that the various governments around the world are missing the point with licencing/registration schemes - just make membership of an affiliated flying club mandatory - that way, everybody gets some training and learns the rules from experienced pilots, everyone is carrying public liability insurance and governments stay out of hobby drone legislation.

 

[sar104]

This is something that was talked about in another thread a little while back. You have some that bring up the professional vs hobbyist, manned aircraft vs unmanned and "it's been this way for x amount of years." So be it, however times have and still are changing. Moving manned aircraft up in altitude unless need to be lower, taking off or landing only makes since. Or, totally remove UAVS from the air. Im not condoning or supporting wrong doing. As time goes on, if near airport collisions were excluded (there is no reason to fly to close to airports anyway) you will be able to take the rest of manned vs unmanned incidents and average them out and I'm betting most of them will accrue under 500 ft. If that's true the answer becomes really simple.

But there is a third option - proper regulation of sUAS operations so that pilots are trained and certified and UAVs are not flown in conflict with air traffic. There is already separation built into the guidelines (or rules, for Part 107) and so there is no requirement to change 91.119 beyond noting that low-altitude flights need to be more aware of UAVs.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

But there is a third option - proper regulation of sUAS operations so that pilots are trained and certified and UAVs are not flown in conflict with air traffic. There is already separation built into the guidelines (or rules, for Part 107) and so there is no requirement to change 91.119 beyond noting that low-altitude flights need to be more aware of UAVs.

All that is good and will help but not eliminate the collision issue.

 

[Helihover]

The 300' reference was the height the 2 aircraft struck at.

The descriptions of aircraft flying at 100' at 200kts. Ah here! And these guys would've gone through all their FAA exams and annual checks etc etc and still did this?!

Once again, these are military aircraft I am referring to. Once again, they can fly at any altitude. This one of the many reasons why you should never fly BVLOS.

 

[sar104]

All that is good and will help but not eliminate the collision issue.

That was my point - the only thing that will do that is banning sUAS completely. Raising the minimums for manned aircraft won't do any good unless you take them above the maximums for UAVs, which is too high to be practical.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

That was my point - the only thing that will do that is banning sUAS completely. Raising the minimums for manned aircraft won't do any good unless you take them above the maximums for UAVs, which is too high to be practical.

Practical, explain to us all.

 

[Helihover]

I think that some form of training should be made compulsory and like you, I learned to fly at my local flying club. I don't understand why people don't want to join these places (there seems to be a lot of opposition to it from 'drone' owners). There are people at these clubs that have been flying for 60 years and are a mine of useful tips and information.

Our local club welcomes newcomers to the hobby, no matter what they are flying - not all clubs are the same but you can usually find a 'good one'.

I think that the various governments around the world are missing the point with licencing/registration schemes - just make membership of an affiliated flying club mandatory - that way, everybody gets some training and learns the rules from experienced pilots, everyone is carrying public liability insurance and governments stay out of hobby drone legislation.

People don't want to join these clubs because anyone can fly a GPS controlled drone. Anyone with no experience can have a very successful flight with in hours of purchase. Anyone buying there first RC plane or RC heli will most likey crash on there first attempt to fly, and most seek help before they destroy there model. The best place to seek help for RC aircraft would be to find a local club.

 

[sar104]

Practical, explain to us all.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Are you asking me to explain why modifying 91.119 to require manned aircraft to stay above 2000 ft AGL would not be practical?

 

[andy_k]

Anyone buying there first RC plane or RC heli will most likey crash on there first attempt to fly, and most seek help before they destroy there model. The best place to seek help for RC aircraft would be to find a local club.

Not just the first attempt

 

[PhamTon]

That was my point - the only thing that will do that is banning sUAS completely. Raising the minimums for manned aircraft won't do any good unless you take them above the maximums for UAVs, which is too high to be practical.

But sar104, without sounding selfish, what about me?
Cars aren't banned for idiot drivers because of the economics of the motor industry. The driving test still doesn't stop car crashes, pedestrian involved crashes etc etc.
Aircraft still collide in Controlled Airspace between two fully FAA licensed pilots flying published VFR arrival procedures as well as IFR.

The answer isn't banning DJI phantoms because some spotty teenager wants to film a NY landmark.

I'm an ATPL holder. I fly SEP aircraft too. I bought a P4 last December as I've an interest in Videography. I've experienced none of the fly-aways or crashes that some droners have. There's probably a link there to be honest. Yet I haven't done the part107.

If I was a heli pilot doing 80kts average (it looks like it from the FAA incident map) at 300' well, let's just say I wouldn't be doing 80kts at 300'.

I understand the military guys operate to different rules. They'd want to or the job would never get done. But a drone doesn't know if it's a military helo or a civilian one it's about to hit.
That's why as a pilot, I wouldn't hang around at <500'.

There's no right answer to this. 100% right. It's just common sense, risk mitigation and self preservation.

 

[andy_k]

But sar104, without sounding selfish, what about me?
Cars aren't banned for idiot drivers because of the economics of the motor industry. The driving test still doesn't stop car crashes, pedestrian involved crashes etc etc.

You don't just go to your local electrical store, buy a car, take it home and go out driving without any training, supervision or knowledge of the laws do you?

 

[sar104]

But sar104, without sounding selfish, what about me?
Cars aren't banned for idiot drivers because of the economics of the motor industry. The driving test still doesn't stop car crashes, pedestrian involved crashes etc etc.
Aircraft still collide in Controlled Airspace between two fully FAA licensed pilots flying published VFR arrival procedures as well as IFR.

The answer isn't banning DJI phantoms because some spotty teenager wants to film a NY landmark.

I'm an ATPL holder. I fly SEP aircraft too. I bought a P4 last December as I've an interest in Videography. I've experienced none of the fly-aways or crashes that some droners have. There's probably a link there to be honest. Yet I haven't done the part107.

If I was a heli pilot doing 80kts average (it looks like it from the FAA incident map) at 300' well, let's just say I wouldn't be doing 80kts at 300'.

I understand the military guys operate to different rules. They'd want to or the job would never get done. But a drone doesn't know if it's a military helo or a civilian one it's about to hit.
That's why as a pilot, I wouldn't hang around at <500'.

There's no right answer to this. 100% right. It's just common sense, risk mitigation and self preservation.

I think you misunderstood that post - I was pointing out the logical extension of an argument, not proposing it as the solution. No single measure prevents all accidents in any arena, but in those that affect public safety, training and regulation certainly reduces accidents. I assume that you are not proposing abandoning pilot training and certification just because aircraft sometimes collide, or abandoning driver training and vehicle registration just because cars sometimes crash.

Untrained, unregulated UAV use is clearly leading to more incidents of poor judgement and reckless flying than would be the case if training and certification were required.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

My brother is a pilot, we have went out to fly many times in the past. He "chooses" to fly higher than he use to and we still are able to go out and have a nice flight and come back without hitting a UAV. Unless there is one at the airport, we are high enough to avoid them. It's actually a very simple thing to do.

 

[PhamTon]

You don't just go to your local electrical store, buy a car, take it home and go out driving without any training, supervision or knowledge of the laws do you?

No, but even when some do, as in get lessons and read the rules of the road, people still crash.

It's mitigating, sure. But so is not hanging around at 300'.

 

[sar104]

My brother is a pilot, we have went out to fly many times in the past. He "chooses" to fly higher than he use to and we still are able to go out and have a nice flight and come back without hitting a UAV. Unless there is one at the airport, we are high enough to avoid them. It's actually a very simple thing to do.

So you are proposing changing the 91.119 minimum to 2000 ft or? And you think that's okay because your brother's recreational flying would not suffer and you would still be able to have a nice flight? Are you serious?

 

[Buk]

Some days this is how I feel as a Phantom owner:

Some AMA clubs do not want me on their field. What I fly came assembled in a box, I didn't build it. I can easy fly beyond the boundaries of their field and still be within LOS.

Then some people running for national AMA offices have made it clear in their pre-election appeals of election dislike Phantom operators.

New rules are coming and not due to me, but due to Amazon-like businesses claiming and being FAA approved to take a bite out of that plum airspace between 200-500 feet.

New construction requirements will be made for manned aircraft to withstand incidents with Amazon-like UAS.

Trump will see more dollars in every form of artificial intelligence operating earth bound and sky bound vehicles future limiting the need or desirability of manned vehicles.

I think I said years ago owning and operating a Phantom would have the same requirements as owning and operating a car, such as flight training and education, written and flying testing.

 

[PhamTon]

Some days this is how I feel as a Phantom owner:

Some AMA clubs do not want me on their field. What I fly came assembled in a box, I didn't build it. I can easy fly beyond the boundaries of their field and still be within LOS.

Then some people running for national AMA offices have made it clear in their pre-election appeals of election dislike Phantom operators.

New rules are coming and not due to me, but due to Amazon-like businesses claiming and being FAA approved to take a bite out of that plum airspace between 200-500 feet.

New construction requirements will be made for manned aircraft to withstand incidents with Amazon-like UAS.

Trump will see more dollars in every form of artificial intelligence operating earth bound and sky bound vehicles future limiting the need or desirability of manned vehicles.

I think I said years ago owning and operating a Phantom would have the same requirements as owning and operating a car, such as flight training and education, written and flying testing.

I'd say there's some truth to what you write regarding big business and that piece of airspace. Shame.