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

[Wedgetail]

Like to know the altitude of the heli. Quad was lower and maybe still in its regulation limit. Maybe 1000m off shore and just within sight. So was that heli risking the safety of the quad? Just a thought.
Probably a near miss and not a near hit if that's any consolation.
Massive amount of space up there but seems hard to share it.

 

[With The Birds]

Like to know the altitude of the heli. Quad was lower and maybe still in its regulation limit. Maybe 1000m off shore and just within sight. So was that heli risking the safety of the quad? Just a thought.
Probably a near miss and not a near hit if that's any consolation.
Massive amount of space up there but seems hard to share it.

The helicopter pilot claims to have been at 152m. UAV are permitted in that area with a maximum altitude of 95m (90m referenced to runway ekevation) as it is within a main approach to Sydney Airport. If the UAV was 57m below the heli this conversation wouldn't exist.

As to the Heli presenting risk to the UAV the answer is simple- we give right of way to manned aircraft operations regardless of the circumstances, seemingly the VLOS recommendation hopes to ensure this might be possible.

 

[Wedgetail]

Yep OK I can see the island off Coogee beach and from the CASA "can I fly here" app puts a restricted altitude of 90m rather than the regular 120m. Both UAV and heli pilots have to be aware that they are sharing airspace separated by CASA management and they know of each others restrictions plus or minus a healthy "within meters" distance. Looks like the quad was below the hell so this puts grey area into question and Chanel 7s claims.....got to remember this was a news helicopter on the search for "news" for which they get paid

 

[With The Birds]

Yep OK I can see the island off Coogee beach and from the CASA "can I fly here" app puts a restricted altitude of 90m rather than the regular 120m. Both UAV and heli pilots have to be aware that they are sharing airspace separated by CASA management and they know of each others restrictions plus or minus a healthy "within meters" distance. Looks like the quad was below the hell so this puts grey area into question and Chanel 7s claims.....got to remember this was a news helicopter on the search for "news" for which they get paid

This was not a news chopper, it was westpac rescue. Which grey area are you referring to?

 

[Wedgetail]

Article shows a white helicopter Isn't rescue yellow? Just of interest too is this....."Stephen Leahy Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helictopters told 7 News "There is very little doubt indeed that that aircraft would've been brought out of the sky"." And he refers to "That" aircraft and I take it that means not one of his. The cut and past aircraft pic degrades the articles authenticity IMO.

 

[With The Birds]

Article shows a white helicopter Isn't rescue yellow? Just of interest too is this....."Stephen Leahy Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helictopters told 7 News "There is very little doubt indeed that that aircraft would've been brought out of the sky"." And he refers to "That" aircraft and I take it that means not one of his. The cut and past aircraft pic degrades the articles authenticity IMO.

Steven Leahy is the CEO of westpac reacue, he might not even be a pilot. The white helicopter depicted is almost certainly a computer rendering. My understanding, having seen various coverage of this incident, is that the Heli was westpac rescue. I'm not sure that it matters. The UAV was, I think most would agree, a lot closer than it should have been to the Heli. As to almost certainly grounding the Heli well I'm going to say I doubt it but who wants to test that theory? Nobody hopefully. Was that the grey area for you? That there is probably no issue here and the media is manufacturing it? Anything is possible. What sets this apart from most such reporting is there is video footage.

 

[The Springs]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

Here is another report you may or may not have seen .It is a serious matter but what annoys me a bit is how the reporter has take possibility that it was a drone strike and made it positively a drone strike.
In the long term I think we will see more restrictions due to public fear and media hype and wankers that do brainless things.
My wifes uncle was killed in a helicopter accident along with his two young daughters .Having witnessed the shocky effect this had on friends and family I just have no tolerance for people who shrug off the risk they might pose to others by their actions.

 

[Wedgetail]

Yes agreed ..but it raises more questions about the authenticity of that article like
Was the footage from a helicopter (that was a manned one)? Did it come off the net? Do we know who the pilot is? Was there other footage coverage of this incident? Might shed more light on this so its not so "grey".
Resolution is pretty bad so if so not a high end camera (like a rescue one) or it was at a very great distance away like more than 300m. May have been from tourists camera that was one of the passengers (in the rescue helicopter???) It just feels to me that channel 7 have wrapped a story around some pics off the net. I'm pretty sure that 7 would have a pic of the westpac rescue heli to dramatise a little more if it was a rescue heli but who knows?

 

[The Springs]

I think it might have been a bit more than 3m below the helicopter but that and other details still don't take away from the fact that it was very dangerous .
I get what you are saying about the media (why spoil a good story with the truth eh) .
There was a fake story(a written report not this video ) posted on the net years ago which many media outlets ran with,actually quite impossible but hey people still believe it happened

Maybe we need NSZs around fire fighting operations just in case

You read about near misses at airports around the word involving manned AC and they are measured in 100s of meters .I don't think this incident was faked and you can understand why pilots are so worried about drones adding another risk to what already is fairly dangerous occupation.

 

[With The Birds]

Your scepticism is understood and respected. We all know the media are often prone to sensationalism and there may well be a component of that here.

I think we can safely discount several of your concerns- the footage certainly looks like it was from a helicopter. The actual video was posted by the pilot on social media prior to the media picking up the story. The fact the westpac rescue CEO was prepared to make public comment adds credibility to the event.

While the video is low quality that has no relavence to the depicted perspective. The subject UAV is clearly depicted and seems, as I suspect most would agree, to be a lot closer to the helicopter than a safe distance.

If the UAV was 300m below the Heli it would have been under water.

 

[Wedgetail]

Yes all good points ... but drawing any conclusions is risky as there are so many holes in this story technicality. How low could a quad pass under a heli and survive the down draft. That means negotiating a void in middle as it passes under the body of the heli. If we believe the height of the incident and that value is 60m or more then the quad was within its altitude limit.

Was this the quad?

Shark detecting drones to fly above NSW beaches

 

[With The Birds]

Yes all good points ... but drawing any conclusions is risky as there are so many holes in this story technicality. How low could a quad pass under a heli and survive the down draft. That means negotiating a void in middle as it passes under the body of the heli. If we believe the height of the incident and that value is 60m or more then the quad was within its altitude limit.

Was this the quad?

Shark detecting drones to fly above NSW beaches

If we disregard the opinions offered by the aviation expert and westpac rescue CEO, and most of what was offered by the reporter, and just concern ourselves with what can be seen in the helicopter footage- for the UAV to be at or below recommended altitude it would need to be 50+ meters below the Helicopter. Regardless of what allowances might be made for perspective distortion in the footage it would be difficult to argue the UAV was 50+ metres away. I would also say that unless the operator was in a boat they would have been flying outside VLOS.

 

[Wedgetail]

Could the government licence a quad pilot beyond VLOS for shark survailence?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shark-detecting-drones-to-fly-above-nsw-beaches-20151024-gkhl0o.html
This was at Coogee beach.
I agree that quad pilots need to be very wary of their potential both good and bad and CASA have a good system in place as a guide for us to share the skies but Quads are cutting into helicopter business specially on close up work so they have motive to complain especially when they see one no matter how far away. Media love a spat and will say anything to sell a story
I would like to thank the poster for this article as it does raise the profile.

 

[N017RW]

W-t,

You said:
"Quads are cutting into helicopter business specially on close up work so they have motive to complain...".

Have you done any research into your hypothesis?
or, What is your (other) basis for this claim?

Show us what u got.

 

[Wedgetail]

Yeah down our way the local electricity authority used to surveil the poles and wires with very low flying heli. Felt you could almost touch it as they were looking for shorts on the cross arms on poles. The workers told me they have now bought drones to do the job I was surprised as I thought they would subcontract. The local flying school did the run over the beaches and did the shark patrol on weekends and holidays too but now the gov. Is using "new technology" see link Shark detecting drones to fly above NSW beaches.
Rural fire service is starting to use them for bushfire recon work on a local level but probably in addition to the few helicopters they own and run. Suppose it just comes down to costs. Didn't mention armed forces ....wow arnt they happy with them...don't have to risk a big chopper
Used to have a hypothesis but upgraded to a phantom 3

 

[N017RW]

I guess you fee

Yeah down our way the local electricity authority used to surveil the poles and wires with very low flying heli. Felt you could almost touch it as they were looking for shorts on the cross arms on poles. The workers told me they have now bought drones to do the job I was surprised as I thought they would subcontract. The local flying school did the run over the beaches and did the shark patrol on weekends and holidays too but now the gov. Is using "new technology" see link Shark detecting drones to fly above NSW beaches.
Rural fire service is starting to use them for bushfire recon work on a local level but probably in addition to the few helicopters they own and run. Suppose it just comes down to costs. Didn't mention armed forces ....wow arnt they happy with them...don't have to risk a big chopper
Not really hypothesis just reality.

How you can just hand-wave away any need to substantiate your claim(s) re: copter pilots falsifying incidents and related safety concerns as a basis to establish reality.
Are you not then drawing your own conclusions despite your condemnation of similar in post #51?

Very few jobs, industries, technologies, etc. are immune from technological disruption.

Adapt or perish

 

[Neon Euc]

One theory that I can think of is that if it is a news copter then with a camera they may have zoomed in to see if they can pick anything happening down below...

At that point a drone zoomed past. For all we know the helicopter could be at 700 meters, the drone at 90 meters but the camera zooming in makes it look like it was nearer

 

[With The Birds]

Could the government licence a quad pilot beyond VLOS for shark survailence?
Shark detecting drones to fly above NSW beaches
This was at Coogee beach.
I agree that quad pilots need to be very wary of their potential both good and bad and CASA have a good system in place as a guide for us to share the skies but Quads are cutting into helicopter business specially on close up work so they have motive to complain especially when they see one no matter how far away. Media love a spat and will say anything to sell a story
I would like to thank the poster for this article as it does raise the profile.

I must confess you have lost me now with your argument. The media is well known for embellishment and sensationalism, that is fact. It might be that some pilots and Heli operators could be motivated in reporting to protect their business, we could speculate on that. There is certainly nothing to suggest that might be the case here however. The video evidence tells the story. The UAV operator was way too close to the helicopter and almost certainly in contravention of at least one of the CASA guidlines for UAV operation.

 

[With The Birds]

One theory that I can think of is that if it is a news copter then with a camera they may have zoomed in to see if they can pick anything happening down below...

At that point a drone zoomed past. For all we know the helicopter could be at 700 meters, the drone at 90 meters but the camera zooming in makes it look like it was nearer

Look again Mate- enough of the surrounding landscape remains in view for the duration of the footage to reveal that no zooming took place. If it was a news copter why would the pilot and westpac rescue publically state it was a rescue chopper? Possible yes, I wouldn't think very likely however.

 

[sar104]

One theory that I can think of is that if it is a news copter then with a camera they may have zoomed in to see if they can pick anything happening down below...

At that point a drone zoomed past. For all we know the helicopter could be at 700 meters, the drone at 90 meters but the camera zooming in makes it look like it was nearer

I am in awe of the ridiculous lengths to which people will go to call into question even clear video evidence.

Did you watch the video? Did you notice the strongly curved horizon? Do you realize what that means in terms of optical geometry? It's a wide-angle lens, and that means that if anything the Phantom is closer than it appears based on normal visual cues.

But we can estimate the distance if we assume a camera FOV. It looks to me to be similar to a GoPro with a horizontal FOV of around 120°. Measuring the size of the Phantom in the last frame in which it is visible (see below) relative to the FOV indicates that the Phantom, diagonally, subtends approximately 3° from the camera. Given that a Phantom's diagonal size is 0.4 m we can calculate the distance in that frame as:

0.2 / tan(3/2) = 7.6 m
​

Obviously it will be closer when it is directly below the helicopter, so that is perfectly consistent with the pilot's estimate. And it's much too close for safety.