Slashdot Mirror

The original article states the chopper was "struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood". That would be a "congested area, in FAA speak.

91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

The chopper should have been at least 1,000 feet above the highest structure, so probably at least 1,100 feet. Had it been at a proper altitude, it would have experienced no danger from the drone.

Chopper pilots, particularly military ones violate this rule all the time. Go to a beach near a base and they will be flying up and down practicing, I mean sight seeing very low causing a huge racket and generally annoying folks. There's really no punishment unless enough people complain, which they rarely do. Now that drones are on the rise, they have a real, dangerous obstacle. But rather than follow the rules and be safe, they want to blame the drones.

Fine the chopper pilot and revoke his license for a while.

Student pilot here, you're wrong. I fly for a hobby and will never earn a living doing it so I have no fear of lost income, but drones are scary because they could kill me. The thought of a quadcopter popping up in front of my flight path on short final is scary indeed - there's already plenty to think about without worrying about that.

Like anything, flying is a calculated risk and I accept the odds, the recent proliferation of cheap drones just makes it a bit riskier. It's not so scary that I'm going to stop, but I would like some kind of formalized rule to mitigate it. Nobody wants draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing, but Joe Sixpack oughtn't try to take a close-up video of my landing without discussing it with me beforehand (link).

OP is correct, there is no good solution apparent.

It is your responsibility to know the latest TFRs before you fly anything. Using your flying RC toy during an emergency situation (riot, crime in progress, fire, natural disaster, et al.) is illegal.

Define a few feet please.

The FAA has this definition which seems especially relevant in this discussion.

And do pilots also report to the FAA everytime they pass "within a few feet" of a bird?

It's quite common for pilots to radio their controller when they encounter a hazard. That's how your pilot knows to turn on the "fasten seatbelt" light when you're approaching turbulence; the same goes for flocks of birds or unidentified aircraft. Even so, it's not really fair to compare birds drones, for the same reason that deer don't get jaywalking tickets.

I can say through personal experience that just seeing other aircraft / birds takes a huge amount of my attention, even when the other gliders have 15-18 meter wingspans. Drones are much smaller than manned aircraft and they tend to move very slowly, making them even harder to see. The problem of seeing other gliders is a big enough issue where someone developed a technology called FLARM to reduce the number of collisions by notifying pilots of other gliders within ~4km; it has already saved many lives despite being only 10 years old.

So when I'm flying, I spend a large amount of my time looking for other aircraft. My eyes have much better resolution and FoV than a drone's camera, and I can swing my head around to look from side to side, and up & down - this gives me a better capability to look for hazards. Birds also tend to have good eyes & ears. There is a very good incentive for us to be vigilant: our lives are at stake.

On the other hand, drone pilots only have a camera, hooked up to a low-resolution video screen, which they would need to aim all around in order to scan for other aircraft. The problem is magnified by the fact that have a poor incentive to look for collision hazards: they have a few hundred dollars at stake, and they're probably already using the same camera to look at something on the ground.

The FAA has been hell bent on gaining government control over drones and they will make up any excuse they can, the scarier the better.

Sorry, I just don't buy the regulatory overreach argument in this case. My life could be put in jeopardy by someone playing with their new toy while I'm already flying low and slow on final approach; the last thing I need is another distraction when I'll be touching down (one way or another) within 15 seconds.

I would wager that most of the people writing the regulations are pilots of some capacity, and those who aren't certainly have ready access to many extremely experienced pilots; these people are just trying to protect the lives of millions of airline passengers, flight crew, and pilots.

Airplane mode conforms with FAA standards for flight, putting a device to sleep and stowing them conforms with FAA regulations.

"Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part."

If it's sleeping and stowed it's no in operation.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1355
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane_mode
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-306-FAR.shtml

Oh and jackass is one word, not two.

Actually, cropdusters don't have to follow the normal traffic pattern, per FAR 137.45. If they don't, however, they're required to give way to aircraft that do.

There's a cropdusting operation at my home airport, and they're quite good about staying out of everyone else's way.

I was looking while posting and found it after I'd mostly given up. Here is FAR 91.119:
"(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. "

So I was double the actual requirement for both remote and congested areas.

Note if you have engine failure that requires a landing on or within 1000 feet of a building, you are automatically in violation of FAR 91.119 part A and will get busted. This has been interpreted to mean that it's functionally illegal to fly small airplanes over large cities, since you can't fly high enough to glide to a safe, legal landing.

I hate to be pedantic, but a range of around 430 miles seems much more realistic for a 172 on 42 gallons. I don't have a 172 POH here but if you really pull the throttle back to get extra range, chances are it will be faster and cheaper to simply drive unless you have a heck of a tail wind.

Feel free to cross check what I'm saying at this website.

Great, another wiseass on Slashdot that has overstepped his/her knowledge area and decided to act like a tool. Here we go.

"There are reasons that planes need to be from 3 to 6 miles apart when flying the same route."

Bullshit. Please get a copy of the 2006 FAR/AIM. It'll outline exactly how far you need to be from other aircraft. I'll even give you a hint: 91.111. Read before you make yourself look like a tool. Christ, I'm pretty fed up with your debauchery, so I'll even give you a link: http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-111-FAR.s html

I sure don't see any distances in there, do you? Nope. Nice try, though.

"My response to your ignorance is for you to go out and learn some basic physics and fluid dynamics. Despite your Jetsons/Futurama view of the world, flying vehicles cannot fly close behind each other without a lot of danger (you'll learn about that when you study the fluid dynamics)."

Christ, I don't even know where any of this stupid Jetsons shit came into play (I sure as hell didn't mention anything about flying cars in my previous post). Anyway, my response to your ignorance is that I'm a commercial pilot. So, I don't know why you're preaching to the choir. By the way, here's what you're really looking for: wake turbulence (which is caused by wingtip vortices). What do I win?

Also, just a little tip, next time you want to cite something, please try not to make it from 1988. Aviation has changed quite a bit from 1988. Despite your Stoneage view of the flying world, the fact that you even tried to use something that old to base your argument on just goes to show what an uninformed jackass you really are.

Cheers. By the way, I'm going to become a very religious man from this point on. I'm going to start praying that I never have the misfortune of seeing you in the skies.

I have done a weather balloon project myself. Sounds like what you wish to do is a zero pressure balloon. You will need to read FAR-101 for regulations regarding free unmanned balloons.

My friend Bill Brown (WB8ELK) has flown more than 200 balloons and has had great success of long term flights with balloons that simply have a pinholes poked in them. One he launched in Alabama a few years ago flew all night and was last heard off the coast of Nova Scotia.

Because they're flying a tethered balloon in US airspace above the maximum altitude allowed without having to alert air traffic in the area.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/101-index.shtml

They have to get a waiver to operate outside the limits set by FAR 101. It's a fairly automatic process. Most rocketry clubs do it regularly. By doing this they get clearance and (somewhat) priority for the airspace, and a NOTAM (Notice To Airmen) is posted at air traffic control centers so anyone heading that way will be informed.

According to the LiftPort blog, they've seen you coming:

September 18th, 2005
Welcome Slashdot readers.

You're welcome to rummage around and see what we're up to.

While you are here, sign up for our monthly announcement list. Toss barbed questions at space elevator enthusiasts at the Liftport Forums. Read our out-dated FAQ. Read Dr. Edwards NIAC study and free yourself from /. generated assumptions in the Phase II Study.

Cessna 152 Specs:
Vne (never exceed) 145 knots = 166.86302 mph
Vno (normal operating) 105 knots = 120.831842 mph

The Cessna 152 is representative of a basic entry level aircraft that travels (cruise/normal operation) at about 51% of the Bullet Train's reported speed on a calm day.

232 mph = 201.602488 knots

So an airplane needs to break 201 knots to be considered "faster than the Bullet plane".

This plane is far from being "entry" level... but comes close to the same speed. It only has space for four passengers. It is a single engine plane.

This plane is two engine and fast, but I'm not sure how many passengers it can carry.

The GeeBee R-2 is an exceptionaly fast prop aircraft. 296mph flat-out top speed.

The P-51 Mustang is well known as a fast prop aircraft. I don't know if many modern props are made to go this fast today.

I just wanted to follow up the pp and talk about the speeds of planes. The speed of this train is attainable to the more serious (and speed minded) of private aviators. Most private aviators are more motivated by fun or ease of use.

For some "fun" is fast. For others it is being able to pack the whole family down to a grass-strip by the beach. For others it is neat tricks or an open cockpit. Depends on the pilot.

In the US a private pilot can pretty much exclusively choose his own spots to land as long as his plane can land at the smaller strips. Almost every town (even if you don't know it) has either a Municipal airport or a small grass strip. You'd be suprised at the size of a plane (that Mooney for instance, it may be able to) that can land at some of these places. This is the advantage in either smaller or slower aircraft (or at least aircraft that can slow for a slower landing).

Take a favorite of mine The Piper Cub for example. One of these can land on what amounts to a postage stamp, getting in and out of tight bush locations. Also reliable and solid. They have a short range and slow speed, but high utility out in the middle of nowhere. They're also very docile.

In any case... planes are for the win! I'm not too sure about trains. You certainly can't hire one for yourself easily or buy one.

PARACHUTES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FLEXED AND PACKED RECENTLY ARE LIKELY NOT TO OPEN!