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

[Neon Euc]

Input and ideas are always welcome. Your ideas were easily refuted, which I did. You continued to push them, with absolutely no reasoning or evidence to support them, and no counter-arguments to mine. If you disagree with my assumptions and calculations then please share your reasoning. Otherwise your contribution continues to be zero.

I don't care in the least how you react to my posts; all you are doing is reinforcing the impression that you don't know what you are talking about and that all you can do is throw childish insults.

What a hypocrite. You said all ideas are welcome then said Without any evidence my ideas are basically zero???? Err. That's called an idea!! You obviously have no idea at all in how ideas and theory work in a forum

 

[With The Birds]

sorry but that drone was flying over 400' - - almost 500' and that's where planes fly. Should have be at 400' period. Idiot.

In that area UAV operation is limited to 90m above the runway elevation of Sydney airport- it is within an extended approach path. I often see sightseeing AC. And other operations at 200ft in that area so fly with extreme caution. Agreed, the UAV was way above a safe altitude.

 

[With The Birds]

The ignorance is you shooting down any input and ideas from other people as "nonsense" so maybe take your head out of your arse for one second and realize that not everyone agrees with your theory and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you don't like me reacting to your post then don't react to mine you muppet

Muppet LOL- I've just been out for a sunrise shoot and breakfast with a Pommie Mate, one of his favourite words.

 

[N017RW]

What a hypocrite. You said all ideas are welcome then said Without any evidence my ideas are basically zero???? Err. That's called an idea!! You obviously have no idea at all in how ideas and theory work in a forum

Theory and Hypothesis...two very different things.
You are presenting hypotheses (possibly conjecture) not theories.

So many arguments are posed as questions. It's passive-aggressive since no facts or tests are cited. It's an attempt to cast doubt rather than assert a known established position.

 

[Neon Euc]

Muppet LOL- I've just been out for a sunrise shoot and breakfast with a Pommie Mate, one of his favourite words.

Lol [emoji23] a word we use all the time in London [emoji16]

 

[The Springs]

I agree language is important because the most important aspect of the discussion on downing a chopper with a recreational drone has nothing to do with testing. It has to do with impressions, fears, and ignorance by law keepers and lawmakers. If there is just the slightest possibility a recreational drone could cause a midair catastrophe, and I believe there is, then we all should be able to see that anyone with authority will probably act on the side of greatest caution because we can live without drones but never with human deaths.

My neighbor runs eight agricultural aircraft .He has shown me the damage to a wing end that occurred when he knocked a dry limb from a tree on a spray run .When this happened he landed in the crop immediately due to fear of loss of control .The branch was not that big the damage was extensive.
I am sure he and the thousands of other pilots around the word are not keen to test your ideas regards manned AC and UAV collisions.
It doesn't really matter what we think either way since we (phantom pilots ) are a very small minority and the majority just see unregulated irresponsible and dangerous behaviour and will push for change.

 

[sar104]

What a hypocrite. You said all ideas are welcome then said Without any evidence my ideas are basically zero???? Err. That's called an idea!! You obviously have no idea at all in how ideas and theory work in a forum

No, that's not how it works. You are absolutely entitled to post your absurd hypotheses, but attempting to label them as your "ideas" or "opinions" will not protect their absurdity from being analyzed and called out.

I know exactly how hypothesis and theory work - I'm a physicist. They don't work by inventing BS explanations to support your preferred conclusion and then acting offended when it's pointed out that you are posting nonsense. They work by having your hypothesis tested by data and logic and, if you feel the critiques are wrong, by defending it with data and logic. You have made no effort at all to defend what you posted at all other than by claiming that it is a valid "opinion".

 

[Phil Tuggle]

... what kind of large objects are you referring to? Hopefully only birds, and the physics of bird impact is very different, with much lower forces generated. And why do you think that it would have been much worse with a Cessna?

Yes, mostly birds, and you are right there because the impulse - or force over time - is spread out by the bird over time relative to a rigid object like a drone. Even so, when a couple thousand kg helicopter going 100 m/s hits a 2 kg drone going 5 m/s, the momentum is going to instantly change a lot more in the drone and the impulse energy is going to tear it to smithereens. By the same token, if the heli were parked on the tarmac and a drone hit it with the same momentum as the combined system above (total mass * velocity as before), or faster than any bullet, it would destroy the heli no doubt about it. Impulse and energy exchange is (to me) the most mysterious thing (to me) about Newton's second law. Beats me how these vehicles "know or care" which has the greatest momentum, but they somehow do. Kind of reminds me of the undamaged broom handle through a barn door after a tornado. Crazy.

Yes, I know, it's really not that simple because these are complex objects combined from skins and windshields, hard parts and soft parts and those dense little drone motors, etc.

So, I'm agreeing with you....because I recon you are correct, thanks. Any way you look at it, the drone dude (or dude-ette) was a dummy that day.

 

[sar104]

Yes, mostly birds, and you are right there because the impulse - or force over time - is spread out over time relative to a rigid object like a drone. Even so, when a couple thousand kg helicopter going 100 m/s hits a 2 kg drone going 5 m/s, the momentum is going to instantly change a lot more in the drone and the impulse energy is going to tear it to smithereens. By the same token, if the heli were parked on the tarmac and a drone hit it with the same momentum as the combined system above (total mass * velocity as before), or faster than any bullet, it would destroy the heli no doubt about it. Impulse and energy exchange is (to me) the most mysterious thing (to me) about Newton's second law. Beats me how these vehicles "know or care" which has the greatest momentum, but they somehow do. Kind of reminds me of the undamaged broom handle through a barn door after a tornado. Crazy.

Yes, I know, it's really not that simple because these are complex objects combined from skins and windshields, hard parts and soft parts and those dense little drone motors, etc.

So, I'm agreeing with you....because I recon you are correct, thanks. Any way you look at it, the drone dude (or dude-ette) was a dummy that day.

OK - thanks for the clarification.

I should probably point out that you may have slightly misunderstood the momentum issue. In Newtonian (as opposed to relativistic) physics the only frame of reference is velocity, and all frames of reference are equivalent. Momentum is not equal in different frames of reference, and so one cannot equivalently make the helicopter stationary and instead give its momentum to the Phantom - only its velocity.

In terms of the forces and impulses generated, a 100 m/s helicopter hitting a stationary Phantom will produce exactly the same results as a 100 m/s Phantom hitting a stationary helicopter. Since momentum is the product mv and v is a vector, you also can't compute the total momentum of the system (comprising the helicopter and the Phantom) as the product of total mass and relative velocity, {m₁+ m₂}{|v₁| + |v₂|}, since their individual masses and velocities are different - you have to sum the individual momentum values {m₁v₁ + m₂v₂}. Momentum is conserved in both cases though, and so the impulses and forces are exactly the same. That's why Newton's third law requires that the forces acting on the two objects are the same, and thus also the impulses since I = ∫ F dt.

The Phantom will be destroyed identically in both cases, but not before it exerts a significant force on the helicopter as a result of its change in momentum. The helicopter will experience an equal and opposite change in momentum but, since it is much more massive, its change in velocity will be much smaller.

An energy equation is required to define a unique solution and in this case it is likely to be described by a largely inelastic collision in which the Phantom does not bounce from the collision. The impulses would obviously be higher for an elastic collision. In the case of a fully inelastic bird strike (excluding frozen birds) the duration of the impact, as you note, is much longer, and so while the impulse may be similar, or greater for a large bird, the forces are going to be significantly smaller.

 

[Phil Tuggle]

...The Phantom will be destroyed identically in both cases, but not before it exerts a significant force on the helicopter as a result of its change in momentum. The helicopter will experience an equal and opposite change in momentum but, since it is much more massive, its change in velocity will be much smaller....

Yep, I knew that. We can sure all agree we just have to be aware of our surroundings and, if the likelihood of an impact is greater than about 0.1 percent, it might be best to land. I wonder if the pilot could have known ahead of time whether this was a common or unusual flight path for helicopters? I mean for example, I have flown my drone at low altitude not too far from a hospital helipad, but I look and listen much more keenly.

 

[With The Birds]

Yep, I knew that. We can sure all agree we just have to be aware of our surroundings and, if the likelihood of an impact is greater than about 0.1 percent, it might be best to land. I wonder if the pilot could have known ahead of time whether this was a common or unusual flight path for helicopters? I mean for example, I have flown my drone at low altitude not too far from a hospital helipad, but I look and listen much more keenly.

Hopefully the operator knows now, if they didn't already. I live on the coast (north of the subject area) so know what to expect- frequent light AC traffic at of close to 200ft over the water and not far off the shoreline. Whenever I contemplate flying in an unfamiliar area I will do my homework so I know what to wxpect. There was likely an element of inexperience and or poor judgement involved in the planning and execution of the subject flight.

 

[robca]

OK professor Hawkins. Guess we are not all as smart as you. Thought about keeping an open mind rather then dismissing every factor? Oh wait. You were there right? You must be... I mean. You seem to think you got it sussed. Give me a minute as I need to get my shades to protect myself from the shine coming out of your arse

Look at the video. It's shot with a wide angle lens. Cannot be a zoom (it's actually the opposite, it makes everything look closer). Your point could be valid in abstract, but completely wrong in this case.So, I'm sorry to say, you are wrong and the OP is right

It's not a matter of being open minded or not. It's a matter of optics, and as proven before, that drone was very, very close (~8m at the time of the freeze frame, closer when directly underneath)

 

[robca]

What about the tens of thousands of private small aircraft pilots who fly for fun? They could crash anytime and kill people on the ground as well as in the plane, and they can and do crash into other planes. Not saying recreational pilots shouldn't put safety first, but you're taking it too far.

Small aircraft pilots have a pilot license, and have to undergo training, certification and periodic checks. a big part of the training is about safety. Not to mention that a real pilot is always putting his/her life at risk, so likely to pay attention

Drones, on the other hand, can be bought by any idiot with no exam/certification, and flown dangerously without any personal risk. As much as I don't like sensationalist coverage, drones are getting dangerous (this hobby used to be much safer when you had to build your own drone, learning along the way and developing your skills). I'm willing to bet that 80% of the Phantom pilots cannot safely fly their Phantom in ATTI mode on a windy day

As for the people upset at the use of the term "drone", that battle was lost a long time ago. Here's what the Merriam Webster dictionary has to say:

Definition of DRONE

3: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers

And that's what a Phantom is...

 

[With The Birds]

Small aircraft pilots have a pilot license, and have to undergo training, certification and periodic checks. a big part of the training is about safety. Not to mention that a real pilot is always putting his/her life at risk, so likely to pay attention

Drones, on the other hand, can be bought by any idiot with no exam/certification, and flown dangerously without any personal risk. As much as I don't like sensationalist coverage, drones are getting dangerous (this hobby used to be much safer when you had to build your own drone, learning along the way and developing your skills). I'm willing to bet that 80% of the Phantom pilots cannot safely fly their Phantom in ATTI mode on a windy day

As for the people upset at the use of the term "drone", that battle was lost a long time ago. Here's what the Merriam Webster dictionary has to say:

Definition of DRONE

3: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers

And that's what a Phantom is...

It's also a RPA, UAV etc.

I don't mind what anyone might call them however prefer UAV to drone, or even better remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) as they are referred to in the aviation regulations.

 

[Neon Euc]

No, that's not how it works. You are absolutely entitled to post your absurd hypotheses, but attempting to label them as your "ideas" or "opinions" will not protect their absurdity from being analyzed and called out.

I know exactly how hypothesis and theory work - I'm a physicist. They don't work by inventing BS explanations to support your preferred conclusion and then acting offended when it's pointed out that you are posting nonsense. They work by having your hypothesis tested by data and logic and, if you feel the critiques are wrong, by defending it with data and logic. You have made no effort at all to defend what you posted at all other than by claiming that it is a valid "opinion".

Omg... What is wrong with you. Did I once say my explanation is what caused it? No. I basically threw an idea on "WHAT MAY BE A CAUSE" not once did I say "IT WAS THE DEFINITE ANSWER" and here we go again with you calling it BS as apparently you got it into your thick head that my "SUGGESTION/THEORY" is me saying that's what actually happened 100%

IT WAS AN IDEA/THEORY!!!!!!

*note to admin*

Can you start an assessment with those that have an IQ lower then a pot noodle and not have them on here? Last thing we need is a bunch of Forrest gumps on the forum

Cheers

 

[Neon Euc]

Look at the video. It's shot with a wide angle lens. Cannot be a zoom (it's actually the opposite, it makes everything look closer). Your point could be valid in abstract, but completely wrong in this case.So, I'm sorry to say, you are wrong and the OP is right

It's not a matter of being open minded or not. It's a matter of optics, and as proven before, that drone was very, very close (~8m at the time of the freeze frame, closer when directly underneath)

Thank you... Now that's the way any ideas or theory's should be responded. Thanks for your input robca. Much appreciated [emoji4]

 

[With The Birds]

Thank you... Now that's the way any ideas or theory's should be responded. Thanks for your input robca. Much appreciated [emoji4]

Hey Neon you didn't thank me for saying it couldn't be like you reckoned it might have been- LOL. I went to a BBQ with a few of your Pommie mates here today is Aus (me Mate has his brother and sister in law over for a bit)- the sense of humour is pretty much bang on across the pond, plenty of sarcasm and piss-taking and nobody gets bent out of shape. It's. more fun when it's like that here in the threads.

 

[sar104]

Omg... What is wrong with you. Did I once say my explanation is what caused it? No. I basically threw an idea on "WHAT MAY BE A CAUSE" not once did I say "IT WAS THE DEFINITE ANSWER" and here we go again with you calling it BS as apparently you got it into your thick head that my "SUGGESTION/THEORY" is me saying that's what actually happened 100%

IT WAS AN IDEA/THEORY!!!!!!

*note to admin*

Can you start an assessment with those that have an IQ lower then a pot noodle and not have them on here? Last thing we need is a bunch of Forrest gumps on the forum

Cheers

The irony of your appeal to the admins is spectacular. But anyway, yes, you kept asserting that your "theory" was possible, even when it clearly wasn't, which is fully as untenable as claiming that it was what happened in this case:

"The point I was making is even if the helicopter is high up, the camera lens can zoom in and still make things look nearer then what it is.

Its like bonuculars. You look through them and you can see for a good hind read feet, and then a car goes past. Looks like a near miss, but in reality you were far away. That's all I am saying. Could easily be the case here."​

As was repeatedly pointed out to you, not just by me, that could not be the case here. But you weren't having any of that, and instead started behaving like a petulant child. I would suggest you just stop digging, but I suspect that's not going to happen.

 

[Seawolf]

Folks this is new technology and application. At one point there were no aircraft - now we have general, business and commercial aircraft - and regulations to support. UAS has a place in our economy and there ought to be ready accommodation. Today, too many idiots, cities banning flights, etc are killing what should be enabled. Why is no one calling for a ban of general aviation aircraft, or helicopters? - Because they are already well established. How many news reports do you hear of GA aircraft or helos crashing and killing all onboard - often. Why is there no call to ban those aircraft as accidents are actually killing people, endangering people on the ground. The difference is those that think they "own" the airspace want to make sure UAS gains no credible foothold. So they drum up worries of what could happen, put up signs saying drones are banned, encourage cities to ban operation and point to one off videos like this to whip up fears. If you're interested in protecting lives - start with the 375 people who lost their lives in 2015 flying general aviation aircraft or the 17 fatal helicopter accidents in 2016. None of which had anything to do with UAS.

 

[sar104]

Folks this is new technology and application. At one point there were no aircraft - now we have general, business and commercial aircraft - and regulations to support. UAS has a place in our economy and there ought to be ready accommodation. Today, too many idiots, cities banning flights, etc are killing what should be enabled. Why is no one calling for a ban of general aviation aircraft, or helicopters? - Because they are already well established. How many news reports do you hear of GA aircraft or helos crashing and killing all onboard - often. Why is there no call to ban those aircraft as accidents are actually killing people, endangering people on the ground. The difference is those that think they "own" the airspace want to make sure UAS gains no credible foothold. So they drum up worries of what could happen, put up signs saying drones are banned, encourage cities to ban operation and point to one off videos like this to whip up fears. If you're interested in protecting lives - start with the 375 people who lost their lives in 2015 flying general aviation aircraft or the 17 fatal helicopter accidents in 2016. None of which had anything to do with UAS.

As a general philosophy it's fine to compare manned and unmanned operations, but then you have to recognize the limitations of the comparison.

More people are killed and injured in manned flight because they were on the aircraft when those aircraft crashed. That represents a difference in level of consequence rather than probability of the event (crash).

Beyond that, there are vastly higher levels of training, certification and insurance required, even for a recreational manned aircraft pilot. You will not find the internet awash with videos of manned aircraft being flown with the complete disregard for safety and regulations that has become commonplace with recreational UAV use. That's probably partly due to those recreational UAV pilots having zero training, partly due to them believing that there are few enforceable rules governing the activity, and partly because they are mostly not putting their own safety at risk and so don't really care.

The comparison would be far more valid if all UAV pilots were required to have certification at least to the level of the current Part 107 sUAS license, and were to abide by the same rules. Presumably some combination of administrative regulation and technological control will prevent this from becoming a much more serious problem, because these devices are only going to get faster, more powerful, and longer range as the technology develops.