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

[Neon Euc]

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

 

[Neon Euc]

*can see for a good hundred feet* it should have said on above post

 

[sar104]

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

What you are saying is not in question. The problem is that what you are saying is pure nonsense, as even the most cursory examination of the video will demonstrate.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I like how the "graphics" make a P4P look 30% of the size of the helicopter cabin and just as high. The media making this look far worse than it was.

A straight on collision would likely not do anything to the helo. That's no excuse for the drone operator of course.

 

[Squirrel!]

I say the helicopter almost crashed into the drone, not the other way around.

 

[Neon Euc]

What you are saying is not in question. The problem is that what you are saying is pure nonsense, as even the most cursory examination of the video will demonstrate.

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

 

[iBatman]

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.

I imagine this will change one day in the future, and manned aircraft will have to yield to unmanned.

 

[sar104]

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

Please don't try to make your ignorance my problem. And please don't confuse open-mindedness with feeble-mindedness. Do you actually have anything useful to add to this discussion, or are you just going to resort to ad hominems to deflect from your inability to comprehend high-school trigonometry?

 

[cl998]

I had a close call about 2 months ago. I am estimating it came within 100-150 feet of a helicopter. My altitude was just under 300 feet and the helicopter was at the same altitude and moving very fast. I was in an area with small buildings and trees so it was hard to see where the helicopter was. When I heard the helicopter I only had a few seconds to figure out where it was and react. I tried to drop my altitude but it was too slow so I flew sideways at full speed to get out of the way.

This will be a problem as more people own UAV's. I was able to track down the helicopter pilot and he acknowledged that he was flying low (heavy) and in a hurry. I was not in restricted airspace and was operating well within the rules.

 

[Phil Tuggle]

The video certainly does sensationalize. Is it a problem that the drone was nearby? Certainly, and the Phantom pilot should have been more aware. Could catastrophe have struck the helicopter and its passengers? C'mon....the drone would have been obliterated, practically vaporized, even with those dense electric motors. I flew in very similar helicopters and can't tell you how many big things we impacted, with barely a chip on the aircraft on inspection. With this copter, even the engine inlets would have deflected parts.

Bottom line, OF COURSE it is a serious matter deserving of attention, but the reaction was over the top. Had this been a small Cessna or the inlet of a fixed wing turbine, then that would have been a terrible thing. All in all a good lesson that had over the top reaction.

 

[fberna]

I like how the "graphics" make a P4P look 30% of the size of the helicopter cabin and just as high. The media making this look far worse than it was.

A straight on collision would likely not do anything to the helo. That's no excuse for the drone operator of course.

Sorry but here you are completely wrong.

Any modern helicopter cruises at around 250 km/h and above. There is no way a windshield would survive a collision with a phantom at that speed. As a helicopter pilot I would say that there would be tangible chances to get very seriously hurt with consequences everyone can imagine.

A direct collision with the main blades would mean at least one blade replaced and a complete overhaul of the transmission -which will take most of the impact force-. We are well above the 100,000 usd mark.

A tail rotor would never survive a direct impact with a phantom. It would just disintegrate immediately. Depending upon the situation -location, high enough and enough space for an autorotation, weight, external load, etc- the result could span from a simple autorotation and a very expensive bill to the chopper falling from the sky.

You are entitled to your opinion as far as chances to get into collision. When it comes to consequences if you have no competence nor knowledge better keep your mouth shut than write sheer rubbish.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

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.

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.

 

[Neon Euc]

Please don't try to make your ignorance my problem. And please don't confuse open-mindedness with feeble-mindedness. Do you actually have anything useful to add to this discussion, or are you just going to resort to ad hominems to deflect from your inability to comprehend high-school trigonometry?

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

 

[Kelly1946]

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

 

[sar104]

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

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.

 

[sar104]

The video certainly does sensationalize. Is it a problem that the drone was nearby? Certainly, and the Phantom pilot should have been more aware. Could catastrophe have struck the helicopter and its passengers? C'mon....the drone would have been obliterated, practically vaporized, even with those dense electric motors. I flew in very similar helicopters and can't tell you how many big things we impacted, with barely a chip on the aircraft on inspection. With this copter, even the engine inlets would have deflected parts.

Bottom line, OF COURSE it is a serious matter deserving of attention, but the reaction was over the top. Had this been a small Cessna or the inlet of a fixed wing turbine, then that would have been a terrible thing. All in all a good lesson that had over the top reaction.

Sorry but here you are completely wrong.

Any modern helicopter cruises at around 250 km/h and above. There is no way a windshield would survive a collision with a phantom at that speed. As a helicopter pilot I would say that there would be tangible chances to get very seriously hurt with consequences everyone can imagine.

A direct collision with the main blades would mean at least one blade replaced and a complete overhaul of the transmission -which will take most of the impact force-. We are well above the 100,000 usd mark.

A tail rotor would never survive a direct impact with a phantom. It would just disintegrate immediately. Depending upon the situation -location, high enough and enough space for an autorotation, weight, external load, etc- the result could span from a simple autorotation and a very expensive bill to the chopper falling from the sky.

You are entitled to your opinion as far as chances to get into collision. When it comes to consequences if you have no competence nor knowledge better keep your mouth shut than write sheer rubbish.

It's interesting to see two completely contradictory views on the effect of impact. Having spent considerable time doing experimental reseach on impact dynamics, I definitely lean towards the view that a helicopter impact with a Phantom at 150 mph or so could cause catastrophic failure, certainly of the windshield and the tail rotor.

@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?

 

[wmralls]

I'd like to read the story and see the video!

How about a link?

Unless the copter flew into the drone at speed I would think a full sized copters rotor wash would blow a Phantom quadcopter out of the sky before IT could fly into the copter.

P. S.

When we, myself included use the term "drone" instead of quadcopter we are just feeding into the anti-drone media frenzy, we are flying hi-tech quadcopters not true military style drones. I haven't read an anti-quadcopter story but plenty of anti-drone stories. In the future I'm going to try to remember to refer to my Phantom 3A as a quadcopter and not a drone.

The military have drones and the Borg have drones, we do not!.....I hope there are no Borg drones posting here!?

I recognize your feeling that the use of the term "drone" may be somehow counter to the welfare of the hobby/sport/livelihood.
However, I do not believe that is the case. I believe this is a simple deflection borne of the perceived need for "political correctness" yet again. In all honesty, a quadcopter is a drone by any credible definition or reference one might care to cite. As in,

• an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight
  
  
• (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.

www.dictionary.com

Again, deflecting from the actual point of this article is not helpful.

What would be helpful is a serious discussion on the danger to the health and welfare and future of this activity, caused by operating UAV/UAS/drones/quadcopters irresponsibly.

This is not rocket surgery. I guarantee all of us that widespread pilot actions which ignore the FAA part 107 flight requirements will eventually cause a nation wide cease and desist of at least recreational activities if not commercial activities with drones as well. There is no bill of rights when it comes to drone operations. And, if someone can make a compelling case as to why city/county/state and national entities should sponsor general, recreational drone activity in the face of much pilot misconduct (and this forum is stuffed full of perfect examples - BVLOS - for example, then I would really like to see the post. There has not been any post to date that I would credit with a salient case made.

 

[wmralls]

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.

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 law makers. 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 propably act on the side of greatest caution because we can live without drones but never with human deaths.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

The key issue, in my mind, is VLOS of airspace where you are flying. Flying should also be within hearing distance of ultra lights, heliocopters, and sea planes. At my lake in NH, any of the above aircraft can fly at tree top level when approaching a lake. It's not enough to have VLOS of your drone. Your drone could be flying at 150' and within 200' radius of your location. If you have tall pine trees nearby, that shield you from neighboring airspace where an ultra light, heliocopter or sea plance can approach (i.e. you don't have VLOS of the air space in ALL directions), you are a hazard.

 

[John Decker]

This is not rocket surgery..

Nor, I'm guessing, is it brain science.