Video has captured the moment a drone came within just three metres of a helicopter

[With The Birds]

Language is important when discussing the threat of consumer drones to aircraft. Yes, even a 2-lb. Phantom "could" take down a helicopter or private plane but what are the statistical odds? That's why we need rigorous independent testing of drone-aircraft impacts before we draw too many false conclusions. Geese are known to take down large commercial airliners --- but it's a very small percentage since most birds end up as bloody feathers as the aircraft keeps chugging along like nothing happened.

No doubt with the increasing prevalence of UAV operations testing will be done. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity to get close to one in the ground, have a look at how small AC are constructed. The blades of a tail rotor on a jet ranger Heli for example would be unlikely to fair well during high RPM operation and imoact with a phantom. A mate has small Robinson heli's and he is a lot more frightened of a wedge tailed eagle than the bird is of the AC.

Even if the chance of catastrophic consequences is unlikely sightings of UAV in close proximity to full scale AC just fuels the opportunity for community hysteria and likley restrictions being placed on the hobby.

 

[Jiggly-Wiggly]

No doubt with the increasing prevalence of UAV operations testing will be done. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity to get close to one in the ground, have a look at how small AC are constructed. The blades of a tail rotor on a jet ranger Heli for example would be unlikely to fair well during high RPM operation and imoact with a phantom. A mate has small Robinson heli's and he is a lot more frightened of a wedge tailed eagle than the bird is of the AC.

Good point --- but there again --- what are the statistical odds of a Phantom impacting a Jet Ranger tail rotor without first hitting the windshield or landing gear and shattering into tiny pieces? Pretty small, I'd say. And hopefully, innovation will continue to proliferate in the consumer drone industry and we get safer models --- perhaps made out of waterproof cardboard ot stiff styrofoam? I dont see how a drone made out of cardboard could ever bring down a heli or private plane. There are lots of interesting ideas that could be implemented.

 

[Jiggly-Wiggly]

You are an idiot. Any chance matters. You're advocating that it's OK to fly for fun even when there's a chance that it could cost lives. It's time that anyone who flies a a recreational drone the size of a Mavic or Phantom stop denying that an impact with a commercial aircraft could cause a crash or fatalities.

I clearly stated LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT --- just because a Phantom "could" bring down an aircraft doesnt mean there are high statistical odds that it will and therefore needs to be banned. Stop using the sheep mentality that eveything that has "potential" to bring down an aircraft should be immediately banned. A bottle rocket shot into the air could accidently spark a fuel leak in a passing airplane and bring it down --- does that mean bottle rockets should be banned? What about a gust of wind blowing away a large tarp on a skyscraper and it impacts a tail rotor of a passing heli and brings it down --- should all tarps be banned?

USE YOUR HEAD. Stop subscribing to the scared sheep mentality that wants to ban all consumer drones for eternity. Fight the ignorance.

 

[With The Birds]

Good point --- but there again --- what are the statistical odds of a Phantom impacting a Jet Ranger tail rotor without first hitting the windshield or landing gear and shattering into tiny pieces? Pretty small, I'd say. And hopefully, innovation will continue to proliferate in the consumer drone industry and we get safer models --- perhaps made out of waterproof cardboard ot stiff styrofoam? I dont see how a drone made out of cardboard could ever bring down a heli or private plane. There are lots of interesting ideas that could be implemented.

Or- more simple to implement in the absence of technical and material technology advances- safer pilots.

 

[Hawaii Drone Imaging]

If you guys are on your phones trying to see the video, tap on the old text in the original message and an option that says "more" should appear. Choose "more" and then it will say "web view". Tap that and you will be able to see the video. Frustrating....I know, but def a good video and article. You're welcome.

 

[Loz]

Yea the app (on iPad or iPhone etc) not showing hyperlink - here it is again 'It's deadly serious': Video shows the terrifying moment a drone almost takes down a helicopter

 

[The Springs]

Fun police issue drone fines for Easter egg hunt, wedding videos

 

[sar104]

Language is important when discussing the threat of consumer drones to aircraft. Yes, even a 2-lb. Phantom "could" take down a helicopter or private plane but what are the statistical odds? That's why we need rigorous independent testing of drone-aircraft impacts before we draw too many false conclusions. Geese are known to take down large commercial airliners --- but it's a very small percentage since most birds end up as bloody feathers as the aircraft keeps chugging along like nothing happened.

You just watched a video of a near miss, and it is precisely to try to avoid those near misses, or worse, that we have guidelines and regulations; guidelines and regulations that many recreational pilots really don't want to follow at all because it "spoils their fun". The resulting probability of an impact is, as a direct result of that behavior, much higher than it should be.

In terms of the impact, bird impacts should not be compared with UAV impacts. At this time, the vulnerability of aircraft to damage induced by collision with UAVs is not fully known, but we have good reason to suspect that windshields, rotors, control surfaces and engines are likely vulnerable to rigid impacts. Aircraft have, for years, been designed to be as resistant as practically possible to bird impacts. That is not the case with more rigid plastic/metal composite objects. If that Phantom had impacted the windshield, for example, the odds are likely not that good for the aircraft and its occupants.

So are you suggesting that, since the impact consequences have not yet been fully explored, we shouldn't worry too much about these kinds of near misses? I'd argue that's completely backwards - we should instead ban UAV flights anywhere with significant risks of collisions until such collisions are determined to be safe which, of course, they will not be. And I hope that the conclusive tests will be in a controlled research environment, and not inadvertent collisions with actual aircraft.

 

[Jiggly-Wiggly]

So are you suggesting that, since the impact consequences have not yet been fully explored, we shouldn't worry too much about these kinds of near misses? I'd argue that's completely backwards - we should instead ban UAV flights anywhere with significant risks of collisions until such collisions are determined to be safe which, of course, they will not be. And I hope that the conclusive tests will be in a controlled research environment, and not inadvertent collisions with actual aircraft.

I'm just saying be objective and look at the statistical data before rushing to silly statements like "BAN ALL DRONES, BAN ALL DRONES!".

To my knowledge, no manned aircraft in the U.S. has been brought down after impact with a consumer drone. That's pretty amazing considering there are now MILLIONS of consumer drones and many of them flown in airspace shared by low-flying helis and private planes. I'd have to guess there HAVE been impacts already, but I suspect it was nothing more than a 2-lb. plastic toy bouncing off the steel hull of an aircraft and the pilot was like "did we hit something?"

There's no crime against worrying about the impacts of drones with manned aircraft --- let's just let the science and statistical data guide our fears --- not unfounded paranoia and over-blown falsehoods.

 

[stones]

....
I'd have to guess there HAVE been impacts already, but I suspect it was nothing more than a 2-lb. plastic toy bouncing off the steel hull of an aircraft and the pilot was like "did we hit something?"
....

Let me put this in better perspective for you. Aircraft are made from aluminum. Unless it's a military fighter aircraft, the skin on a plane may be as thin as .025 inches thick. You have any idea how thin that is? ANYTHING, however small or light hitting an aircraft is, to say the least, not good. Think on that for awhile.

 

[sar104]

I'm just saying be objective and look at the statistical data before rushing to silly statements like "BAN ALL DRONES, BAN ALL DRONES!".

To my knowledge, no manned aircraft in the U.S. has been brought down after impact with a consumer drone. That's pretty amazing considering there are now MILLIONS of consumer drones and many of them flown in airspace shared by low-flying helis and private planes. I'd have to guess there HAVE been impacts already, but I suspect it was nothing more than a 2-lb. plastic toy bouncing off the steel hull of an aircraft and the pilot was like "did we hit something?"

There's no crime against worrying about the impacts of drones with manned aircraft --- let's just let the science and statistical data guide our fears --- not unfounded paranoia and over-blown falsehoods.

But now it is you making the silly statements and, apparently, misunderstanding statistics and probability.

Firstly, no manned aircraft has been brought down that way because there have been no collisions yet. But there have been near misses and UAV availability and use is increasing, faster than linearly, and so it is untenable to assume that collisions won't happen in the future. Are you seriously arguing that it is not a problem just because it hasn't happened yet?

Since there have been no collisions, there are no data on the actual consequences. However, all knowledgeable assessments that I have seen agree that the consequences of such a collision at normal flight speeds could be very bad, depending on impact site. That's also consistent with my experience of high-speed impact experiments in a different, though related, field of study.

Any reasonable analysis based on those two observations will conclude that it is essential to air safety to avoid UAV/manned aircraft collisions.

Banning drones is almost certainly not the best solution, but strict regulation is the only realistic alternative. And the more that existing guidelines and rules are flouted by recreational flyers, the more strict the regulation is likely to be in the end.

 

[N017RW]

I don't see why folks continue to engage with J-W. This person is either ill informed, ignorant, or inexperienced, and certainly is not interested in meaningful dialogue. I doubt he has any civil aviation experience and is just looking to be argumentative.
Seems worried about a total ban yet dues not understand how careless UAS operation only adds to the problem.
Quick to accuse folks of being sheeple yet parrots the tired trope of a total ban being precipitated by those who understand the dangers of a mid-air collision with anything.

 

[stones]

I don't see why folks continue to engage with J-W. This person is either ill informed, ignorant, or inexperienced, and certainly is not interested in meaningful dialogue. I doubt he has any civil aviation experience and is just looking to be argumentative.
Seems worried about a total ban yet dues not understand how careless UAS operation only adds to the problem.
Quick to accuse folks of being sheeple yet parrots the tired trope of a total ban being precipitated by those who understand the dangers of a mid-air collision with anything.

I'll speak for myself, as far as why I "engage" with what someone like "J-W" says. I think it's the whole condescending attitude that is exuded that propels one to, for lack of a better phrase, "get in their face" and show them that we are, in fact, not the "sheeple". It is their thought processes that are at fault with what most would consider "normal thinking". One can always just bow out of the discussion but, that just leaves them up on the podium, to continue their spiel. You never know, sometimes people get a " moment of clarity".

 

[N017RW]

I'll speak for myself, as far as why I "engage" with what someone like "J-W" says. I think it's the whole condescending attitude that is exuded that propels one to, for lack of a better phrase, "get in their face" and show them that we are, in fact, not the "sheeple". It is their thought processes that are at fault with what most would consider "normal thinking". One can always just bow out of the discussion but, that just leaves them up on the podium, to continue their spiel. You never know, sometimes people get a " moment of clarity".

Bravo stones!

But, that's why is used the verb "continue".

Make your point(s).
But don't expect to change minds unless the nature of the exchange is inquisitive.

It is rare to change such a mind given the lack of perspective displayed.

 

[stones]

Bravo stones!

But, that's why is used the verb "continue".

Make your point(s).
But don't expect to change minds unless the nature of the exchange is inquisitive.

It is rare to change such a mind given the lack of perspective displayed.

Agreed. I don't plan on loosing any sleep over it, or to feed banter with argumentative ramblings. Nuff said.

 

[DanMan32]

Distance perspective can be deceiving. Anyway, who took the video? Hopefully not the Heli pilot.

 

[N017RW]

Yes it can.
What are the conditions that you believe makes this case deceptive?
Please be technical if you can.

 

[With The Birds]

Distance perspective can be deceiving. Anyway, who took the video? Hopefully not the Heli pilot.

The Heli pilot did take the video, according to his account when first posted.

 

[anotherlab]

Distance perspective can be deceiving. Anyway, who took the video? Hopefully not the Heli pilot.

The camera was probably mounted to the helicopter, the aviation version of a dashcam.

 

[DanMan32]

Yes it can.
What are the conditions that you believe makes this case deceptive?
Please be technical if you can.

I didn't say it was deceptive, I said it could be. I've often thought things were closer or further away than they actually were.