Another Drone Close Call

Saw that on FB a couple dats ago. The pilot put the image up as his Facebook profile background and of course removed it after people found out.


I don't buy that hes under 400 feet.
 
@overdrive148

How close to the structure does he need to be to allow 400' above it? Clearly he was over water in that pic, but he also seemed to be at or below the height of the buildings he was photographing.
 
Just another cowboy,flying his drone,without regard for anyone else.
 
Ravioli said:
@overdrive148

How close to the structure does he need to be to allow 400' above it? Clearly he was over water in that pic, but he also seemed to be at or below the height of the buildings he was photographing.
Click to expand...
The largest building appears to be 30 stories. Assuming 12 ft per story, about 320 ft plus equipment on roof, let's call it 400 ft. Given the angle of view, I'd guess over 400 ft AGL/MSL for this one.
 
There goes them assumptions.

The height of the buildings? unknown.
equipment height? unkown

Actual elevation (trusting google) is 33' MSL

The pertinent piece is the drone does seem to be more than 400' laterally from the structures, and would therefore be in violation if it was found to be higher than 430' MSL
 
If he’s hobbyist operating under the special rule for model aircraft under an approved set of guidelines, there is no 400 ft AGL rule in this case. A possible violation of giving way to manned aircraft though.
 
Ravioli said:
There goes them assumptions.

The height of the buildings? unknown.
equipment height? unkown

Actual elevation (trusting google) is 33' MSL

The pertinent piece is the drone does seem to be more than 400' laterally from the structures, and would therefore be in violation if it was found to be higher than 430' MSL
Click to expand...
Actually, detrrming the estimated height of building is based on standard commercial building practices. Residential homes are usually 10 ft per floor (custom homes don't count) and commercial structures are often more than 10 ft to permit 8 ft interior ceiling then additional depth for floor (often concrete) and above ceiling for utilities, fire control, etc.

So, by counting the floors, a reasonable estimate can be made. I added an additional 10 ft or so for the elevator motors and other equipment that is usually found on top of a commercial building.
 
luvflyin said:
Drone hits chopper. How bad is it likely to be. Don’t misunderstand this. I’m not saying big deal what’s everybody gettin all excited about. Just wondering how vulnerable you guys are
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on where you are hit. Some drone parts, such as the battery and motors, are rather solid. I'd rather not have those go through the windshield. Hitting other parts of the airframe? There's a good chance someone needs to inspect it and make sure it is "just a dent", and that costs money too. The dense, solid parts makes the potential damage greater than hitting a bird.
 
I spent a lot of time flying banner planes at 350' and about 400' off the shore line. I know the view well. He's positioned about right laterally but he looks like he might be 25' or 50' higher than where I used to tow. If he's got to stay no higher than 400' and no closer than 400' to people and buildings, I'd say he looks pretty legal there.

Again as a former banner pilot, I think the dumb one in this scenario is the helicopter pilot flying balls to the wall right in the banner lane. Those banner planes are going as slow as they can and I know from experience, even when you're talking to them on the radio and you know they're out there in front of you, if they're just 20' lower than you they can blend into the ground scrub and become nearly invisible until you're right on top of them. Almost zero relative movement will do that. Not so bad when they're going 46 knots and you're going 50. But can get bad real quick when they're going to 46 knots and you're going 120. If he's going to fly that speed, he should be 100' higher (or lower) and 200' further out over the water IMO.
 
luvflyin said:
What’s that thing hanging down under the nose?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing a camera or spotlight. Looks like things seen on police helicopters, thought the helicopter in the video doesn't look like a cop.

EDIT: could be a camera too.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Drone hits chopper. How bad is it likely to be. Don’t misunderstand this. I’m not saying big deal what’s everybody gettin all excited about. Just wondering how vulnerable you guys are
Click to expand...

At cruise flight, definite possibility of it going through the windscreen. Just do a search for helicopter bird strike and you’ll see plenty images of medium sized birds going through windscreens. Some of these drone reach the weights (1000 + grams) of medium sized birds and have particularly hard pieces with them.

Of course, depends on where it hits as well. Black Hawk hit a drone on the blades last year and did minimal damage. Same with bird strike on blades. You hear a loud pop, and the guts on the windscreen. No big deal.
There are a few critical areas though that can’t sustain a blow like that. A Marine Cobra took a Red Tailed Hawk to its rotor PC links in 2011 that caused the separation of the mast from the aircraft killing both pilots. Some drones all up GW is around the weight of a Red Tailed Hawk. If either one hits a crucial piece of a helicopter, bad things could happen. Rare but still possible.
 
The tailrotor wouldn't likely stand much impact.
 
luvflyin said:
What’s that thing hanging down under the nose?
Click to expand...

One of the vids said private helicopter but appears to be a state trooper. Generally they wear flight suits with helmets and mount a FLIR camera on the front.
 
It appears that he is on front of the Diplomat Hotel in Holloywood. It is 36 stories.
 
Also could be photoshopped. . . it's a little too exact.
 
Appears out of nowhere??? Unless he was on FPV and wasn’t positioned any where near his drone, he should’ve heard it coming.

And there’s that 400 ft again. It doesn’t apply for recreational Part 101 pilots. That's for commecial Part 107. Also, we’re talking about a helicopter here. They aren’t bound by fixed wing altitudes. They’re going to mix it up with drones below 400 ft AGL.
 
Velocity173 said:
...Unless he was on FPV and wasn’t positioned any where near his drone, he should’ve heard it coming...
Click to expand...
Which would be illegal in and of itself. And to me, this would be the only way you wouldn't know a loud helicopter is coming.
 
tawood said:
Which would be illegal in and of itself. And to me, this would be the only way you wouldn't know a loud helicopter is coming.
Click to expand...

If he had an observer and was still within visual line of sight he’d be legal on FPV. Odds of him complying with both of those would be slim.

Simple fact is, he’s in violation of both Part 107 and 101 right of way rules. That is unless one can determine from this vid that he gave way to the helicopter...doubtful.
 
Velocity173 said:
If he had an observer and was still within visual line of sight he’d be legal on FPV. Odds of him complying with both of those would be slim.

Simple fact is, he’s in violation of both Part 107 and 101 right of way rules. That is unless one can determine from this vid that he gave way to the helicopter...doubtful.
Click to expand...
I was including the "and wasn't positioned any where near his drone" part (meaning the drone was out of sight).
As both a pilot and a drone operator, I think that is the biggest problem with drones, as they can so easily, and quickly, be flown out of sight. I have a DJI Mavic (which is what I think shot this video), and it has a ridiculous range of something like over 4 miles. I tend to loose sight of the drone at 500 feet away...and I'm known for having very good eyesight.
 
Velocity173 said:
Appears out of nowhere??? Unless he was on FPV and wasn’t positioned any where near his drone, he should’ve heard it coming.
Click to expand...
Who says he didn't? Just because he heard it coming doesn't mean he knew (or realistically could been expected to know) exactly where it was coming from nor which way it was going. And remember, the helicopter was very fast moving. Assuming he heard it, which he probably did, he would have looked down the beach and at best seen a fast approaching dot on the horizon. From the beach, he'd have had no realistic way to determine his drone's relative position and altitude to the fast approaching dot.

What's he supposed to do that point other than what he did which is turn the drone to get the picture from the drone's perspective? If he just arbitrarily guessed and descended, They might have hit. If he started flying toward the beach, same thing. And its just as likely to have been the same thing if he had just moved further out without first knowing the relative position and track of the approaching traffic.

Its perfectly legal for a drone be flown where he was and how he was. Its perfectly legal for the helicopter to be flown where he was and how he was. Unlike drones, its also perfectly legal for the helicopter to fly 150ft higher. Knowing that its his butt and his passengers butts in the seat. And also knowing that striking a drone at 100kts plus wouldn't be good for you. And also knowing that below 400 agl puts you square in drone country as well as banner plane country, who in this scenario could have made safer decisions? Yet somehow its always the idiot drone pilots fault.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Who says he didn't? Just because he heard it coming doesn't mean he knew (or realistically could been expected to know) exactly where it was coming from nor which way it was going. And remember, the helicopter was very fast moving. Assuming he heard it, which he probably did, he would have looked down the beach and at best seen a fast approaching dot on the horizon. From the beach, he'd have had no realistic way to determine his drone's relative position and altitude to the fast approaching dot.

What's he supposed to do that point other than what he did which is turn the drone to get the picture from the drone's perspective? If he just arbitrarily guessed and descended, They might have hit. If he started flying toward the beach, same thing. And its just as likely to have been the same thing if he had just moved further out without first knowing the relative position and track of the approaching traffic.

Its perfectly legal for a drone be flown where he was and how he was. Its perfectly legal for the helicopter to be flown where he was and how he was. Unlike drones, its also perfectly legal for the helicopter to fly 150ft higher. Knowing that its his butt and his passengers butts in the seat. And also knowing that striking a drone at 100kts plus wouldn't be good for you. And also knowing that below 400 agl puts you square in drone country as well as banner plane country, who in this scenario could have made safer decisions? Yet somehow its always the idiot drone pilots fault.
Click to expand...

If he kept the drone within VLOS, then he should have easily been able to avoid the helicopter. The aircraft didn’t just jump from behind the buildings. It’s cruising over the water and paralleling the beach. Also, It’s not like some small Cessna snuck up on him. A 407 at cruise puts out a large noise signature.

Yes, it’s perfectly legal for both to be where they were. Just like if the helicopter was at 500 ft, it would be perfectly legal for both to be there as well. Fact is, below 400 AGL or above 400 AGL doesn’t matter. The UAS ALWAYS has to give way to manned aircraft. Complain all you want that the helicopter shouldn’t be there, the rules support manned flight over unmanned flight. If a drone operator can’t follow the rules, then they need to seek another hobby.
 
How much heavier are these drones than a bird? Flying craft have been hitting birds since to dawn of flying craft. I bet the first bird strike happened to Lilienthal.
 
Velocity173 said:
...Yes, it’s perfectly legal for both to be where they were. Just like if the helicopter was at 500 ft, it would be perfectly legal for both to be there as well. Fact is, below 400 AGL or above 400 AGL doesn’t matter. The UAS ALWAYS has to give way to manned aircraft. Complain all you want that the helicopter shouldn’t be there, the rules support manned flight over unmanned flight. If a drone operator can’t follow the rules, then they need to seek another hobby.
Click to expand...

It became "perfectly illegal" for the drone operator once the helicopter approached.
 
steingar said:
How much heavier are these drones than a bird? Flying craft have been hitting birds since to dawn of flying craft. I bet the first bird strike happened to Lilienthal.
Click to expand...

Well the one in question weighs about 1.6 lbs. I doubt it’ll go through the windscreen but there is no threshold established for this particular aircraft under Part 27 (7,000 lbs or less) to prevent it. I’ve seen cracks in plexi from birds about that weight though.

I think the larger threat is the damage that occurs from the hard pieces and not the weight. Take the Black Hawk strike last year. The Nickel abrasion strip was damaged along with the gunner / crew chiefs aluminum window. If it were a bird of similar weight, no way there’d be any damage. If this 407 took the drone to the main rotor blades, you can bet it’ll damage them (costly). If it takes it to the tail rotor blades, you can bet it’ll damage them. And in the later, if the impact dislodges the tip weights from the glue, that tail rotor is coming off. Odds of getting in the engine would be slim though.
 
The drone looks stationary to me, and if it's above 400', it isn't by much. If you expect the stationary drone to yield ROW, which way would you expect him to move?

Yeah it's legal and fun to buzz the beach in a helicopter, but you better keep your eyes open and outside. The fact that this was brought to the FAA's attention by the drone video and not the helicopter pilot tells me that either 1) the helicopter never even saw the drone, or 2) the helicopter pilot knew he was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
If he kept the drone within VLOS, then he should have easily been able to avoid the helicopter. The aircraft didn’t just jump from behind the buildings. It’s cruising over the water and paralleling the beach.
Click to expand...
How so? If I'm standing on the beach and watching my drone which is over the water directly in front of me, I would need to turn my head to see approaching the helicopter 2 miles down the beach. Once I turn my head, I can no longer see my drone. I can see one or the other but not both at the same time. Therefore it would be extremely difficult to gauge which action if any I'd need to take to avoid the approaching craft. The issue gets even worse if I'm not standing directly in front of the drone but instead standing somewhere south of the drone. At that point I'd have to look behind me to see the approaching craft. Again, no way to see both the drone and approaching craft at the same time. If you can't see them both at the same time, its difficult to know which way to move so as to be out of their path. You can guess. But you if guess you can guess wrong and make what was a close call into something worse. Standing further North up the beach would have been a better vantage point to see the relative of both at the same time. Unless and until something approaches from the North.

Yes, it’s perfectly legal for both to be where they were. Just like if the helicopter was at 500 ft, it would be perfectly legal for both to be there as well. Fact is, below 400 AGL or above 400 AGL doesn’t matter. The UAS ALWAYS has to give way to manned aircraft. Complain all you want that the helicopter shouldn’t be there, the rules support manned flight over unmanned flight. If a drone operator can’t follow the rules, then they need to seek another hobby.
Click to expand...
Never said the helicopter shouldn't be there. Never even implied that. Being where he was and going the speed he was going was a poor choice in my opinion. Flying slower if you're gong to be down that low is a better choice in my opinion.

But you don't need to take my opinion for it, you can use the opinion of the USAF instead. When I was a kid they had published low altitude training route that ran along the shoreline of the bay near my house. They would routinely fly down low, in tight and fast as all get out down the beach along this route. That particular route put them more or less smack dab in the same position that the banner planes tended to fly. They knew this but choose to do it anyway. What could possibly go wrong right? One day they found out what could go wrong when one of their jets flew right up the tail of a banner plane. The USAF guy bailed and survived IIRC, the banner pilot did not have that option and died. Never knew what hit him. The AF realized the risk they were taking by flying at the altitude they were and position relative to the beach they were and the speed they were and as result they moved the published training route a little further out over the water. There's being right and there's being safe. Sometimes its better to be safe than right.
 
Velocity173 said:
And since I’m so tired about the public’s confusion with the 400 ft rule, here is the gist on it. Ironically a forum about the type of UAS in question.

https://mavicpilots.com/threads/400-feet-law-or-guidline.33584/
Click to expand...
I only mentioned the 400ft thing because that's where DJI sets the limit by default. Yep, you can change that, but not everyone does that. And even when they do, flying along a beach line like this drone was, the best shots are at 400 or below. Again, doesn't mean that was the focus of this drone pilot, but stands to reason along the beach like that, most drones are going to be down low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top