Another Drone Incident

[Garf]

www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Near-Collision-Between-Drone-And-Helicopter-Rattles-Pilots-267400371.html

[HiTemp]

Sounds to me like a helo pilot trying to make a case for no drones in his skies and also a news channel trying to make a lot of hay out of a drone being in the air when a helo came by.

I don't see any "near collision" aspect to it at all. Where are the evasive maneuvers on the part of the helo to "avoid the collision?" What I see in this story is a drone pilot - who also holds a commercial ticket - flying his drone legally and seemingly safely when a helo came into his view. He can't be expected to know a helo is out there NOT in his view, can he? When he saw it, he reported that he descended and brought the drone back to his location and landed it. What else was he supposed to do??? Then the helo follows the drone? Why not alter course for separation ergo safety if this was such a close call?

Also, the fact that the drone pilot contacted the FAA seems to suggest we aren't dealing with some bubba with a Go-Pro strapped to a plastic trash can lid with motors and batts glued on it. The facts of the events seem to suggest he was launching for the same reason the helo was... to get some pictures of the local event.

The helo pilot is also being way too melodramatic saying "if the drone took my tail rotor off..." If that drone took out his tail rotor than we have a bigger problem than drones; we have a safety issue with helicopters and any that can't pass the "tail rotor/chop a plastic drone like a Slice-o-Matic" test need to be grounded until they can figure out an upgrade. Bad enough these guys whine about astronomy clubs using low-powered green lasers to help newbies locate Messier objects and act like they're terrorists out there with a Sidewinder waiting for an aircraft to come by so they can harass it. Time for the pilots to man up and realize whether they like it or not there's just one other thing in the skies they need to be watching for.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

The helicopter actually tried to chase down the drone according to the drone pilot, I don't think he was trying to avoid collision at all.

Its coming they will try and ban RC aircraft period regardless of the AMAs lobbying. Only the govt will have the authority to run a drone, a I suspect you try and chase one of theirs down you will get your ticket pulled.

[HiTemp]

That's probably not a very wise thing for the government to do because if everyone knows the only drones in the sky belong to the government or their minions, those inclined to not care for that kind of intrusion will have an open season on little hovering things won't they? No chance of shooting down a friendly.

I'm now concerned about possible helicopter crashes in populated areas in the event of accidental bird strikes to the rear rotor blade. If a little plastic drone can down a helicopter, surely a bird could and we have some big birds down here (pelicans for example). So I think we should ban helicopters from overflying homes and population centers until the FAA has a chance to have a few multi-million-dollar studies done, hold hearings, and figure out how to make those choppers safe enough to be overhead. We can't have any landing in any kind of populated area either since the possibility exists that tail meat slicer might accidentally come into contact with a stray branch swaying in the downdraft thus causing a complete loss of control and subsequent crash, fire, personal and property damage. They're just WAY to unsafe to be flying around. Drones seem far more survivable in the event of a complete loss of control.

Maybe all of them need a mesh enclosure kind of like airboats use around their meat slicers. The increase in drag and loss of aerodynamics is a small price to pay for legal use of these assault blades. We should do it for the children.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I don't know if wisdom or common sense are even applicable to the govt.

And I just saw the AMA email about the proposed rule changes, sounds a lot like I was saying they would do - www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/AMAInterpretiveRuleResponse.aspx

[HiTemp]

The AMA has for many years portrayed themselves to be the ONLY organization on top of this kind of situation. Staying abreast of all rules, meeting with government and enforcing agency officials to work this kind of stuff out. IF that is true, how in the hell did they end up so blindsided by all of this? Just my opinion but it sort of smells to me a little of "don't let a good crisis go to waste," especially when there are members to be scared and dues to collect. The way I see it is either the organization produces and deserves the dues of the members or it doesn't... not that they get to advertise themselves as the only voice regulators will listen to, collect the money, then MAYBE or MAYBE NOT get any results.

Would anyone have faith in the NRA if they were "suddenly surprised" by proposed regulations and failed to win any legislative tugs-of-war?

One problem I see is they are approaching this as impeding mainly the commerce of hobby companies rather than a matter of individual rights on the part of people who join an organization, have liability coverage, and take the time and care to fly safely and - at some expense - go to great lengths to ensure their equipment is operated safely. Frequency control is one such example; restricting metal in aircraft is another; club safety rules and their strict enforcement is yet another. All of these things are done voluntarily by people who could, if they chose, just find an open area and fly wherever. Instead they PAY to join a club, they pay or participate in buying/leasing/maintaining/keeping up a place designated as a place to fly models under the auspices of club (and usually AMA) rules. If anyone follows those rules they CAN'T interfere with an aircraft unless the aircraft isn't where it's supposed to be, and even in those cases every club I've ever flown at would insist on everything landing ASAP should a real aircraft approach even if that required augering on purpose. You play, you pay, that sort of philosophy.

Now, because we have technology like Google glasses and silent hovering camera platforms, the fruit is ripe and low-hanging for some asshat to use said platform as a crude Maverick missile, flying it right to the target by means of FPV guidance system. So instead of two nitwits on security cameras leaving a pressure cooker at the scene of a Boston Marathon bombing, we'll someday have surveillance video showing only the last couple seconds of a drone entering the frame and then exploding. And it might not be a Boston Marathon, but a government agency office selectively targeted. I think that's what this is really all about. If simple model aircraft really posed a widespread danger to civil aircraft, then we've just handed the football over to terrorists who might as well stop making shoe and underwear bombs and just go pick up a delivery system from the LHS.

It boils down to, to borrow a line from one of the comedians, "hockey sticks cause injuries but we don't stop making those." Regulators need to stop this "ban everything" approach all in the name of safety. What's next, kill all birds because they might pose a danger to aircraft? You live 4 miles from the airport so no, you can't legally own a canary.

If some yahoo uses a drone in a reckless manner or as a terrorist tool, punish THEM not everyone else. If people faced 20 or 30 years in jail for screwing around in such an unsafe way that a REAL (not imagines, not hypothetical) aircraft is endangered, then hammer them. Liability for the damage and long years without freedom. Like Darwinian theory, those inclined to be idiots will soon separate themselves from the rest of the gene pool and the rest of us can go on flying.

[zrct02]

HiTemp,
You're thinking logically. That has nothing to do with government. None of this really has to do with safety. It's all about control and power over others.

[Garf]

Check this thing out.

www.youtube.com/embed/SNPJMk2fgJU

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Figures it would be that guy, he does a bunch of videos about guns, some of it is CGI and clever edits like this is. That is probably a mockup gun for looks since its just a barrel with no action.

But it wouldn't surprise me if someone is trying to make something like that work. Have to be a little larger is all.

[HiTemp]

Seems to me it would have to be quite a bit larger as these quads usually weigh in at around half to three-quarters of a pound and can only lift a fraction of that weight. Even a pistol with a fully loaded mag would be a chore for some of them to lift and fly stable with. Something like that would have to be home built, not that it would be impossible but it's an increment thing. Lift more weight becomes bigger motors which becomes bigger batteries, which becomes bigger airframe/rotors. Seems like there would be quite a string of traceable transactions for the parts if suddenly some local turned up dead, shot by a drone. Seems like the suspect list would be fairly small and it would be easy to sort out the owners of stock quads from those doing a lot of tinkering on them.

Not impossible to do I suppose but difficult to conceal obtaining all the parts and supplies needed to do the job. Guess that wouldn't concern a terrorist much.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Yeah, but there are far more efficient, less technical and cheaper ways to kill people that are more scary. Their drones are the biologic kind.

[HiTemp]

See, that's the thing. Who's going to volunteer to fly a drone packed with some deadly bio agent only 1/4 mile or less from their location that isn't also willing to drive it right to ground zero in a Chevy? Why risk hitting a tree branch or a building awning or a guy wire when you could drive it or walk it right to where it needed to be? Perhaps the only scenario I could envision would be trying to close on a target that was defended, such as a public figure giving a speech or something like that where you couldn't just walk up close or drive to the podium. But then again, targets defended will likely have a means to clear a quad copter out of the skies via jamming or copper-jacketed course adjusters, at least enough to get the protected person out of there and clear of the threat. Hard to sneak up on something with a weed-whacker going full tilt boogey. Seems like kind of a dead give away.

Where I see a market is in the area of drone defense. Perhaps something like a drone with really powerful engines and a simple clamping or cutting arm that would fly after and close on any drone and either seize it right out of the air or cut a rotor/blade/part off the thing rendering it unstable. Or simple birdshot out the business end of a 12-gauge. In fact I saw a news video not too long ago about some dude who was trying to start a lemon farm on his property but the other local residents didn't like the idea. One of them, supposedly, overflew his property with a drone and he shot it down. There was speculation it was his own drone and he only did it to get his lemon farm project in the news as the victim, but no one is really sure. Point it, one shot and down came the drone.

I keep waiting for one of them to show up around here. Probably some realtor trying to take aerial photos of a property, which seems to be the big rage lately. I'm curious to know if some of these folks around here would actually enforce a no-fly zone over their property as many have talked about doing.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Actually probably just a 2.4ghz jammer would do the trick.

[HiTemp]

Now this is interesting.

Drone Crashes in Yard

I don't know what I would have done if one of these ended up in my yard, but putting my phone number to the lens or calling the PD would definitely be two things I wouldn't do. First thing I would have done is looked for the batteries and disconnect them, then see if I could locate a GPS pack and toss it in a dumpster somewhere away from here. I'd give it back if they came looking for it, but I sure wouldn't help them find it. I'd also want to know WTH they are doing flying military ops over my neighborhood. If it's for security of the base, what about my hood? Okay for terrorists to be there but not on the base???

I'd definitely want to have a good look inside and see what they're flying around with in terms of surveillance gear. Is it cameras, network equipment, other sensing equipment? Inquiring minds would want to know.

Might be a lot of fun to find out what defense attorneys are representing drug kingpins in the federal courts and "crash" (throw throw a window) the drone into their building. When they find it in the morning or after responding to the burglar alarm, they'd find it covered in DEA stickers. I'm sure the DEA could find the rightful owner.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Oh yeah, I would have owned a military grade drone at that point.

[HiTemp]

You know, I'd have bought one of those quads a long time ago if they'd produce ones with stouter props that could trim the edges of my lawn. Near as I can figure it would take about 188 inverted touch-n-gos to do the areas I weed whack regularly.