Helicopter crashes after evading drone

Brad Z

Brad Z

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
7,042
Location
Alexandria VA
Display Name
Display name:
Brad Z
This alert just came in. Be safe out there...

SC/GENERAL AVIATION-UAS INCIDENT/1400E/N337H, ROBINSON R22, CHARLESTON, SC - CHARLESTON, SC, CRASH LANDED AFTER STRIKING A TREE WHILE PERFORMING EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A UAS APPROXIMATELY AT UNKN ALTITUDE 7 SE CHARLESTON (VCNTY SOUTHERN TIP OF DANIEL ISLAND). 2 POB. NO INJURIES REPORTED.
 
I don't buy it.

More believable - someone crashed into a tree with their helicopter - and made up the drone story as an excuse. They should learn how to tell better stories.

The incident occurred at a unknown altitude? Yeah that makes a lot of ****ing sense. The helicopter would have to be below the trees for this story to have a chance of adding up. They'd also need to be within a few feet of those trees to claim that a muscle memory reaction caused them to decide to eat a tree versus a drone.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I don't buy it.

More believable - someone crashed into a tree with their helicopter - and made up the drone story as an excuse. They should learn how to tell better stories.

The incident occurred at a unknown altitude? Yeah that makes a lot of ****ing sense. The helicopter would have to be below the trees for this story to have a chance of adding up. They'd also need to be within a few feet of those trees to claim that a muscle memory reaction caused them to decide to eat a tree versus a drone.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought too, but who knows? There's not enough information to say at this point.
 
jesse said:
I don't buy it.

More believable - someone crashed into a tree with their helicopter - and made up the drone story as an excuse. They should learn how to tell better stories.

The incident occurred at a unknown altitude? Yeah that makes a lot of ****ing sense. The helicopter would have to be below the trees for this story to have a chance of adding up. They'd also need to be within a few feet of those trees to claim that a muscle memory reaction caused them to decide to eat a tree versus a drone.
Click to expand...
Now Jesse, this is America in the touchy-feely age. To doubt anyone's story (regardless of the repercussions) offends them and causes a hostile environment around them. And that must be avoided.
 
jesse said:
I don't buy it.

More believable - someone crashed into a tree with their helicopter - and made up the drone story as an excuse. They should learn how to tell better stories.

The incident occurred at a unknown altitude? Yeah that makes a lot of ****ing sense. The helicopter would have to be below the trees for this story to have a chance of adding up. They'd also need to be within a few feet of those trees to claim that a muscle memory reaction caused them to decide to eat a tree versus a drone.
Click to expand...

THAT

Like the airliner that "hit the drone" and later turned out he nailed something during taxi.

It's like when people blame their dog when they fart.
 
Last edited:
It’s like when your driving and you hit something ,you blame a stray dog ran in front of you. We’ll never know.
 
mscard88 said:
Regulate the damn things. But I guess Congress won't allow that.
Click to expand...

They are regulated. See Part 107 and the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the case of a low-flying aircraft, the drone operator is required to see and avoid. What further regulations do you have in mind?
 
29169173-6A1F-4931-A0DE-8DA59C19B3A3.jpeg
 
F01LA said:
They are regulated. See Part 107 and the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the case of a low-flying aircraft, the drone operator is required to see and avoid. What further regulations do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
We’re all well aware of Part 107. Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean a thing to people who choose to operate their drone foolishly.

I’m not usually in favor of higher regulation, but in the case of drones, I certainly am.
 
There will likely be more regulation but I don’t think it’s gonna do a damn thing. Sure you can limit consumer stuff like DJI...but anyone involved with the hobby knows that most the industry is open source...I could fly any one of my FPV drones miles high if I wanted to (not to say I would). It’s open source software. There is no GPS on these things to prevent them from entering certain airspace, etc. Simply a flight controller, receiver and video transmitter. There ain’t much too em.

I’m avtually building a long range rig right now that should be able to do 4-5 miles with no ground station.
 
F01LA said:
They are regulated. See Part 107 and the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the case of a low-flying aircraft, the drone operator is required to see and avoid. What further regulations do you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Ryanb said:
We’re all well aware of Part 107. Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean a thing to people who choose to operate their drone foolishly.

I’m not usually in favor of higher regulation, but in the case of drones, I certainly am.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ryan, whatever it takes.
 
lol regulation, yeah that's just a feel good joke to make the mouth breathers feel safe.

Again, remeber not one person has EVER been killed by a drone, well minus a US military drone, so lest we can't our collective panties in a bunch.


The real answer is education.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
lol regulation, yeah that's just a feel good joke to make the mouth breathers feel safe.

Again, remeber not one person has EVER been filled by a drone, well minus a US military drone, so lest we can't our collective panties in a bunch.


The real answer is educstion.
Click to expand...

Yeah educstion.... :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
James331 said:
lol regulation, yeah that's just a feel good joke to make the mouth breathers feel safe.

Again, remeber not one person has EVER been filled by a drone, well minus a US military drone, so lest we can't our collective panties in a bunch.


The real answer is educstion.
Click to expand...

I think we need to put more regulation on bush flying and float planes...think about all the ground erosion those guys are creating from those big bush wheels...and they fly so lowwww!!! and the shore erosion from that huge wake you make when you land a float plane. Think of the kids..
 
James331 said:
lol regulation, yeah that's just a feel good joke to make the mouth breathers feel safe.

Again, remeber not one person has EVER been filled by a drone, well minus a US military drone, so lest we can't our collective panties in a bunch.


The real answer is educstion.
Click to expand...
I knew you were going to say that, and I typically agree with you on the regulation chit chat.

In this case, the best example that I’ve seen recently was the drone flying near an airliner inbound to LAS and I only believe that the issue will get worse.

Allowing the general public to have access to drones in the first place was a no-no because we know how mindful everyone is.. :rolleyes:
 
F01LA said:
All right, but what regulations do you propose?
Click to expand...

Whatever, I really have no idea, but it'll happen, like the drone Ryan mention in Vegas last week. Probably too late as "the cat is out of the bag" already, but stiff penalties perhaps for one.
 
Ryanb said:
I knew you were going to say that, and I typically agree with you on the regulation chit chat.

In this case, the best example that I’ve seen recently was the drone flying near an airliner inbound to LAS and I only believe that the issue will get worse.

Allowing the general public to have access to drones in the first place was a no-no because we know how mindful everyone is.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The genie is out of the bottle, has been for over half a century, since we called them RC airplanes, the tech is out there and it ain't going away.


Again most of it is just media hype, and your standard issue government "think of the children" marketing.

Think-of-the-Children.jpg


Again, more American citizens have been targeted and killed by the federal governments drones than civilian sUAS, as in a huge margin since not a single person has been killed by a sUAS, and I don't hear the media or the FAA, or these forums warning and worrying about the federal government killing you with a drone strike, even though based on math it's waaaay more likely.

Of course we all know you're a zillion times more likely to be killed by your fatty gut, poor diet, or bad breeding than all of the above combined. Maybe you should ask the government to make it illegal for fat people to eat more than XX calories per day, food rationing for the fatties would save way more lives than "drone regulation"





I got 99 problems, but a drone ain't one.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Whatever, I really have no idea, but it'll happen, like the drone Ryan mention in Vegas last week. Probably too late as "the cat is out of the bag" already, but stiff penalties perhaps for one.
Click to expand...

I could go for stiff penalties. Let's enforce the rules as they are, to start.
 
Ryanb said:
I knew you were going to say that, and I typically agree with you on the regulation chit chat.

In this case, the best example that I’ve seen recently was the drone flying near an airliner inbound to LAS and I only believe that the issue will get worse.

Allowing the general public to have access to drones in the first place was a no-no because we know how mindful everyone is.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with ya on the access to drones part. If your going to make drones illegal you need to make RC illegal. People have been flying long range RC fixed wing for many years longer than the drones. And RC fixed wing poses the same problem it just isn’t as prevalent because drones are the new “thing”. Although fixed wing FPV is becoming more and more popular as well.

Technology is ever changing and the world will have to adapt as things evolve. It’s that simple
 
Last edited:
CC268 said:
I have to disagree with ya on the access to drones part. If your going to make drones illegal you need to make RC illegal. People have been flying long range RC fixed wing for many years longer than the drones. And RC fixed wing poses the same problem it just isn’t as prevalent. Although fixed wing FPV is becoming more and more popular as well. There are guys at my field flying RC turbine jets that do 250

Technology is ever changing and be world will have to adapt as things evolve. It’s that simple
Click to expand...
The only thing that I would argue, is that RC airplanes don’t exactly have the capabilities that some of the drones have. There are some that have a higher range or power level than the smaller ones, but those are going to be flown by more experienced RCer’s who would more than likely understand the rule set and boundaries more so than a novice would. RC’s are also more commonly flown within line of sight, whereas a lot of drones are not or have the ability to be flown out of sight. I also believe that line of sight restricts one from flying higher than mandated, which is why RC’s are less of an issue to aircraft.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as my RC experience is limited.
 
Ryanb said:
The only thing that I would argue, is that RC airplanes don’t exactly have the capabilities that some of the drones have. There are some that have a higher range or power level than the smaller ones, but those are going to be flown by more experienced RCer’s who would more than likely understand the rule set and boundaries more so than a novice would. RC’s are also more commonly flown within line of sight, whereas a lot of drones are not or have the ability to be flown out of sight. I also believe that line of sight restricts one from flying higher than mandated, which is why RC’s are less of an issue to aircraft.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as my RC experience is limited.
Click to expand...

I built and flew gas RCs as a kid, I had ZERO idea of airspace or any of that, I did have common sense and wouldn't have flown next to a full scale plane, my RCs, and most of them, were also much larger and faster than the average quad copter.
 
Ryanb said:
I knew you were going to say that, and I typically agree with you on the regulation chit chat.

In this case, the best example that I’ve seen recently was the drone flying near an airliner inbound to LAS and I only believe that the issue will get worse.

Allowing the general public to have access to drones in the first place was a no-no because we know how mindful everyone is.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Freedom is expensive. I don’t want more regulations. It won’t help. Any use of a drone that could endanger someone is already regulated. More restrictions will only be followed by people that follow the rules and those people are already following the rules. Just because you might be the person that hits the drone operated by a rule breaker doesn’t mean current drone owners that follow rules should be punished just to make you feel better or safer. Fact is more regulation will not reduce the risk.
 
I’m just sitting here lmao...

So many people want the Feds to stay out of it and not be proactive, but than when something happens the same people say “see, they don’t do anything”.
 
Kritchlow said:
I’m just sitting here lmao...

So many people want the Feds to stay out of it and not be proactive, but than when something happens the same people say “see, they don’t do anything”.
Click to expand...


On the few occasions I've needed the governments' help (law enforcement, aviation, etc) they were ether too slow or too ineffective to be of any real use.

However minding my own business, the government has been plenty a expense and pain in the arse over the years.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top