Slashdot Mirror
Civilian Drone Crashes Into a US Army Helicopter (nypost.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Post:
It was nearly Black Hawk down over Staten Island -- when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone over a residential neighborhood, authorities said Friday. The UA60 helicopter was flying 500 feet over Midland Beach alongside another Black Hawk, when the drone struck the chopper at around 8:15 p.m. Thursday, causing damage to its rotor blades. The uninjured pilot was able to land safely at nearby Linden Airport in New Jersey... "Our aircraft was not targeted, this was a civilian drone," said Army Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, the spokesman for the 82nd Airborne... "One blade was damaged [and] dented in two spots and requires replacement and there is a dented window"... The NYPD and the military are investigating -- but no arrests have been made.
The same day a federal judge struck down an ordinance banning drone flights over private property that had been passed by the city of Newton, Massachusetts. But local law enforcement warned that "an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities," while the Post reports that drones have also crashed into a power plant and into the 40th floor of the Empire State Building.
"In February, a GoPro drone crashed through a Manhattan woman's 27th floor window and landed just feet away from her as she sat in her living room."
The same day a federal judge struck down an ordinance banning drone flights over private property that had been passed by the city of Newton, Massachusetts. But local law enforcement warned that "an out of control helicopter could have crashed into residential homes causing numerous injuries and even fatalities," while the Post reports that drones have also crashed into a power plant and into the 40th floor of the Empire State Building.
"In February, a GoPro drone crashed through a Manhattan woman's 27th floor window and landed just feet away from her as she sat in her living room."
Send the drone pilot the bill.
Legal considerations aside: When I read "... over a residential neighborhood...", I would certainly not expect army choppers to fly there (at low altitude) - especially since they are probably producing much more noise than civilian drones.
Why is the US military flying at 500 ft over a residential area? Drones are legal to 400 ft and Helicopters are supposed to keep a floor of 800 ft, granted that is waived for the military, 500 ft is really low (no auto rotation) and not entirely safe for those below.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Maybe don't fly multiple helicopters 500 feet over a residential neighborhood after dark?
You think that's bad? You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I think civilian drone operators needs to be responsible. but the land, the air, everything in the US belongs to the people, not the military. If the military is going to operate, they need to be diligent and responsible, not jacking off while they are on duty.
I am afraid that this is going to be an excuse to limit our rights. What is going to be next? Are streets going to be closed because military drivers can't be responsible enough to not look at pictures of naked female military personal posed online while driving?
Again, the drone operator bears some responsibility, but if our helicopters can theoretically evade RPGs, what the hell was the helicopter pilot doing?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It's entirely possible this was an improved stealth variant that they were testing to explicitly find out if anyone noticed the noise. Which means they very well may have been flying below 500 ft.
They were probably flying over the water. The only time I've seen helicopters flying that low in NYC is when they were picking someone up in town, or flying over the water.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I'm certain this was Chopper Dave.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The droning community needs to do a much better job of policing itself or we are going to lose our nice things.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
My understanding is that the helicopters were patrolling for the safety of the United Nations general assembly. The neighborhood is along the shore of Staten Island and the helicopters were following the shoreline. It's reasonable for helicopters to patrol the waterways around New York City for suspicious activity. I suspect there are plenty of other helicopters flown in the area by the Coast Guard and the Port Authority. I suspect they were flying low to get a better view of anyone out on the water. I don't view this as unreasonable behavior at all. They were flying at 500 feet, which is above where recreational drones are allowed to operate. The ceiling for those is 400 feet, so there should never have been a recreational drone at that height.
The chopper was low but seemed to be at at its legal flight altitude. Honestly, I'm don't see a need for your average consumer to fly more than 400 feet above the ground. Anything that flies higher should be required to be licensed and carry tracking transponders like any other aircraft.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
How ELSE are they going to fly a drone into it on the same day a Mass court overruled an attempt at restricting them so that they can use the event as an argument for increased drone restrictions?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
For your drone-watching pleasure
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Defeat the US military with clouds of cheap civilian drones.
There is absolutely no reason for commercial or military helicopters to fly above private property or beaches at 500 ft. Instead of focusing on drones, we should to raise the lower limit for commercial and military flights to, say, 1000 ft, except near airports.
Hard to get a gun but very easy for the gov't to take it from you if you step out of line. From a fellow Canadian. Face it, we live in a Nanny State.
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.
Where in San Antonio do you live?
If you think helicopters have magic fairy dust to evade RPG's they don't see coming, I've got a bridge in Mogadishu to sell to you for a few pounds of khat.
The droning community needs to do a much better job of policing itself or we are going to lose our nice things.
Yes, because one air collision accident in the entire history of aviation & drones proves that the firgen world is about to end.
Seriously, golf balls are more of a danger. Don't get all hysterical because of one accident (ever).
Germany.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Miniature chopper does major damage to military chopper.
The military is flying things that can't withstand the equivalent of a rock being thrown at it, you'd think they're a bit more robust for flying in military action.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Got a reference on that ceiling requirement?
All I've seen is a "safety guideline" that suggests model aircraft be flown under 500'. No absolute ceiling was provided: https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin...
My understanding is that the helicopters were patrolling for the safety of the United Nations general assembly.
Wouldn't that be a job for a police chopper rather than an army chopper?
Well, the US Army/Army Reserve operates aviation units in Long Island and New Jersey. They're supposed to fly around Staten Island because it makes you nervous?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Due to President Trump spending (yet another) weekend at his golf course in Bedminster NJ, there was a 30NM temporary flight restriction from 0-18,000FT: here from Friday night through ~5PM Sunday. Staten Island is wholly included.
The drone pilot should have gotten a flight briefing. The standard restriction for VIP TFRs, which this one shares, is:
C. The following operations are not authorized within this TFR: flight training, practice instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, seaplane operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, banner towing operations, sightseeing operations, maintenance test flights, model aircraft operations, model rocketry, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and utility and pipeline survey operations.
My emphasis. That's why the Blackhawk was around, by the way - obviously it's allowed in the flight restriction in support of the Secret Service. All non-military aircraft have to be outside the 10NM inner ring, on a flight plan talking to ATC and with a transponder code uniquely identifying them on radar, and even then there's a ton of restrictions over permissible activites - basically you can leave directly, or enter and land directly, or you can maybe get permission to fly though.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The Blackhawk was around because the President is spending the weekend ~20 miles away.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
FAA rule 107 provides the 400' ceiling requirement and a lot of other regulations covering both commercial and non-commercial drone flight.
Then why do we have a National Guard?
Germany.
I'm not familiar with that part of town. :). I sympathize with your noise issue, San Antonio hosts a C130 training squadron.
You'll see a lot of people talking about rule 107 saying 400 feet, but they tend to omit that it's 400 feet above the ground OR WITHIN 400 feet of a structure. So it depends very much on the area where this happened...but as a residential area, it's very possible there was no height violation.
Although I support the drone operator in this, it may be the time of day that kills him. You can't fly drones after dark according to the same rule set.
The relevant pages are:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
Says it all really
Nope. The helicopter isn't required to yield to a drone. However, FAA rules do require that drones yield to manned aircraft. The drone clearly failed to avoid the manned helicopter. The pilot of the helicopter might not have even been able to see the drone prior to the collision due to the small size of the drone. That's why the operator of the drone is given the responsibility to see and avoid manned aircraft and why the FAA has a line-of-sight requirement for drones. Rearranging the headline would imply that the helicopter was operating recklessly when, in fact, it was the drone that was being flown recklessly. The parent post shouldn't be modded up as insightful.
You should see the military CARGO PLANE that flies over my house every couple of weeks at approximately that altitude.
Military cargo planes don't fly below 500ft for fun. Also, you mentioning that you live in Germany, tells me that you most likely moved near an existing airport because no new military airports have been built in a while.
So one of two things is true: either you willingly moved close to a military airport, or you are 95 and are the victim of a military airfield being built next to your house.
I think the chances that you knowingly moved next to an existing military airport are higher than you being 95 and on Slashdot. So, by the power of deduction, I conclude that you moved next to an airport and now complain about those pesky aircraft flying over your home.
You, good sir, are a hypocrite.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Drones are required to give way to manned aircraft. Even if it was legal for the drone to operate at that height, it was still required to give way and not interfere with the helicopter, because the helicopter was manned.
The only reasons an army helicopter should be ~500ft in a residential neighborhood is:
* it's engaged in combat in said neighborhood (during war)
* it's engaged in recon-Ops in said neighborhood (during war)
* it's landing in said neighborhood (emergency landing)
just another Whiskey Tango Foxtrot OP AFAICT.
In all likelihood, the near-near-miss probably actually happened > 500ft, but the pilot had to cover his/her ass. Someone should do a FOIA request for the flight plan to get the cruising altitude and flight path.
What you're asking is unreasonable. At 500 feet in a residential neighborhood it's impossible to see *where* the helicopter is coming from to begin with. 500 ft is a minimum altitude for all aviation and it's far more likely the choppers were much lower than that limit at the time of the incident.
I am waiting for the indictment of the drone footage showing the military craft @ 500 AGL.
You're technically right. I think everyone here got fixated on the drone height thing for some reason, and really it's the least of it. Possibly because it was the only apples to apples comparison that could be done with the law for manned helicopters.
Yes, according to the article and the law, the drone operator engaged in a whole heap of technical violations. Time of day, proximity to airport?, maaaybe height, NY regulations, not giving way, (although that would depend on how fast these helicopters were going).
But you know what I say? According to common sense, drones are quiet and the helicopter operators were being colossal dicks. 8pm at 500 feet over a beach community? Diiiiiiiickss.
So a $500 drone can take out a $60 million helicopter? Sounds like the best way to defeat helicopter gun ships is to just surround them with huge swarms of cheap drones... they can't shoot them all!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So how are they suppose to train? To prepare and stage operations? Entirely outside the US?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The UN general assembly probably has some black people in it and they were worried the cops might kill some of them. Might create a bit of an incident, that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The nearest military airport (a base with a statue of a jet outside, anyway) I can think of is approximately 20 km away; it's a bit early to be going down that low, I'd think.
I live rurally, however, so I certainly can't rule out that the area is used for training exercises. I imagine it is kinda difficult to fence off an area large enough to do proper training with cargo planes.
Also, if I had to know that a military base 20 km away would result in huge ass planes flying overhead so low the noise actually makes glass rattle a bit, I apologize. No one ever told me about that.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
It only 'brought it down' in the sense that the pilot decided to head to the nearest airport and land to inspect the damage done. Kinda like how a small rock hitting your passenger side window stops your car.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
> 500 ft just makes it WORSE for the drone operator. Check your math.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Or the helicopter was below 500 ft. It's interesting that they used such an exact number. What the hell is a military helicopter doing flying that low near a residential neighborhood anyway?
When someone says "good sir" that way, it's a polite way of saying "asshole." The second "asshole" was redundant, just in case you didn't understand the first one. :)
Has it started already? First, it was the power plant, then the 40th floor of the Empire State Building, and later it was a Manhattan woman's 27th floor window. I am just wondering if these are practice runs and just a precursor to to what will really happen when Skynet finally has had enough of our pesky human existence.
There are proving grounds where this stuff can be done without endangering civilians.
It is not the first drone-aircraft collision and it will not be the last. There a five identified in this report (one fatal): https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/...
There has since been one reported potential collision in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
In any case, it does not require a collision for an unmanned aircraft to be a safety threat that needs to be mitigated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nobody wants to wait until irresponsible use of unregulated aircraft brings down a high capacity aircraft on final before investigating options.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
FAA rule 107 (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516) pertains to non-hobbyist drone flight: "The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations – Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (PDF) – cover a broad spectrum of commercial uses for drones weighing less than 55 pounds."
Odd. Maybe I'm blind, but in that first link you're quoting, there's a link to the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (P.L. 112-95, Section 336) (https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_arctic/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf)
The only reference I see to 400 feet in that document is 334.c.2.C, which address government public safety agencies operating UACs:
(C) allow a government public safety agency to operate
unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated—
(i) within the line of sight of the operator;
(ii) less than 400 feet above the ground;
(iii) during daylight conditions;
(iv) within Class G airspace; and
(v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport,
heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location
with aviation activities.
The closest I can see is 336.a.2: ... which then fails to define which "community based set of safety guidelines" should be followed.
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
Not that it matters all that much in this case, since 336.a.4 clearly states that the UAC operator must not interfere with manned aircraft, which this drone operator clearly did.
All I'm saying is that the "must not operatie above 400' AGL" rule being bandied about frequently doesn't exist in my eyes.
Why would the US Army be the ones who are responsible for doing that? Answer: They aren't.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Patrolling the shoreline for a united nations event?
Two Blackhawks with the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina were in the city on duty for the United Nations General Assembly, WCBS 880’s Alex Silverman reported.
The Army said the choppers were flying low along the east shore of Staten Island when a drone slammed into the side of one of them.
How dare they do their jobs where and when they're supposed to!
I always assume that most of the money the military spends is bribes and kickbacks, which is why I never fell for things like Nigerian scams and flipping.
I do think we have radar and software to avoid collisions, or at least we would if generals were not busy banging journalists.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
* It's providing security for a United Nations General Assembly
THAT is the real question... why in the hell is a military bird flying only 500ft above a residential in what is most assuredly not a combat zone
You mean the assembly located twenty miles to the northeast needed two black hawks to be in that area at 500 feet? Yes, how dare they.
The National Guard is a branch of the Army and Air Force.
Either way, it's all part of the Department of Defense
So they can use their eyes to look at the water they're patrolling?
Rotor blades are expensive, stressed and delicate.
They, at very least, need inspection and repair. That isn't just some dude running his hand over them and slapping on some bondo.
It landed, per protocol for any blade impact. Would have been the same if the pilot had caught some branches.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"500 ft. AGL is the minimum for civilian manned aircraft over land"
I guarantee you the fucking local police don't even follow this shit (I see Riverside PD at fucking 150 feet AGL and that ain't for takeoff or landing, they're circling at that altitude.) What makes you think the military would be any smarter?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It's hard enough getting a gun in Canada, even air rifles are crippled here. Now my quadcopters will be treated as a terrorist weapon?
It is not hard to get a gun in Canada, you take a safety course, pass the test to get your license, and go buy a gun.
Now if you personally think it is hard, then I'm inclined to wonder why and think maybe the system is working as it should.
Yeah the TFR is pretty painful. I'm a fixed-wing pilot based out of one of the airports in the outer ring. I'm working on my instrument rating, so I'd be on a flight plan, but since flight training is a prohibited activity we have two options -
1) fly to a nearby airport outside the ring on a visual flight plan (with me as pilot-in-command so it's not technically flight training yet) then start our instrument flight plan (since I can't be PIC under instrument rules until I'm rated, and I can't not be PIC since that'd be flight training), do our thing, come back, land, and go back visually.
2) Do the whole flight as instrument rules, under my instructor's authority, and pretend I'm just some guy - not a student - until we leave the outer ring, at which point he'll start training me
Neither is very good. From the rules the first is better, though it's not clear to me it'll actually make much difference. The FAA's busted an instructor who was present in the plane - in the back seat sleeping - while his fully-rated buddy was up front flying them back from dinner and broke a rule. The FAA seems to believe that any time an instructor's in the airplane he is - or should be - providing instruction. If everything's fine it's not an issue, but if there's a problem don't see how (1) keeps the instructor safe... though if the FAA's decided there's a problem it hardly matters what the text of the rules say, they have broad statutory privilege to interpret their own rules.
The school contacted the Secret Service, and to their credit they basically said "yeah we don't care what you do as long as you're not maneuvering near by and you're talking to ATC and have a transponder code". But the FAA has their blanket restrictions and you have to comply.
They've been reasonably accommodating... the Hudson River VFR corridor has been exempted from the TFR, which is nice (though it makes it even more dangerous than usual) and there's several cutouts for airports near the edge, and a special corridor for Morristown flights. It's much worse down in Florida at Mar-a-Lago because of the heavy flight training operations down there.
I'm no fan of Trump, but in fairness he - and any president - gets little say over their protection. Though I will say it would be nice if he stayed in either of the two mansions we're paying for for him a little more frequently.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
You mean the UN HQ, right on the edge of the East River? Yeah, how dare they patrol the waters leading to the East River.
According to Google, it's only 15 miles by car. Would be less by water. Staten Island to the UN HQ is less than 10 miles by water.
Yeah, I meant < ... which is what I had before manually mistyping the html esape code .... slashdot- only the ads are updated
Why do you need to replace a blade and window? Surely a militarised helicopter should be able to withstand a knock like this. Otherwise a large bird would put this out of action, as would any munitions strike.
That depends. My local airport has residential neighbourhoods right up to the fence surrounding the airport. Those residential neighbourhoods grew up AFTER the airport was built. Bottom line is that it's entirely possible the helicopter being at 500 ft is perfectly reasonable for that locale. The article doesn't provide details for either side of the argument.
linquendum tondere
Midland beach is the name of a neighborhood. It has a beach, but regardless, it's 20 by car, 13-15 as the quadropter flies (I'm eyeballing this.) It's somewhat moot though. It's way past several choke points that look like better candidates for scrutiny. The patrol was too low, too late at night, and outside of a useful area. Look at the topography of the area; it's pure sillyness. Even if they wanted to be that far out, maybe it's smarter to patrol waterways, with....I dunno...boats?
If you can damage a multi-million US$ military helicopter with a 200 US$ drone, then it is time to change paradigm.
when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone
If it flies then it's not an "Army chopper". I saw Echo Company's XO ride a "chopper" regularly, it had two wheels, a noisy muffler, and "Fuck You" laser cut in the chain guard. I'm surprised the base commander didn't chew his ass for having a vulgarity on the bike. I guess since he wore his helmet and a reflective vest when riding the Colonel didn't give a damn.
If it's got a big propeller on the top, and flies, then it's a "helo". Even then it's rare to hear anyone call a helicopter a "helo". It might be a "Huey", a "Blackhawk", "Apache", or "my ride out of here". It's not a "chopper".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I am willing to entertain you, what more would you suggest past what is currently done?
Anecdotally I agree. I spent some time vacationing in SE Florida and noticed there were many helicopters flying too low and close to buildings. I believe these regulations are regularly disregarded.
That's funny, the first document you claimed said there have been 5 collisions, one fatal ACTUALLY says "To date, there have been no reported collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft in Australia."
Your second link was followed up with THE “drone strike” that sent a shiver through the aviation safety industry this month was in fact a bat strike, investigators have revealed.
The video link had this in int's summary:
i guess 30 metres is a near miss, looks more like 50-100 to me, and if thats a near miss than i guess the virgin jet also nearly crashed into the trees on the approach.
It's reasonable for helicopters to patrol the waterways around New York City for suspicious activity.
Not military craft on US soil during peace time. And not at low altitude.
This is still civilian airspace. The drone operator may have been patrolling his property when the military aircraft ran into him. Did the helicopters request clearance from neighborhood watch? I'm sure we'll never find out.
They should just be happy that me and my dad didn't scramble our ducted fan fighter jets. We'll be patrolling more frequently from now on.
In the US, it's ALL civilian airspace.
The FAA has a charter to regulate airspace for safety, availability, etc. General shit, and that's it.
The TFR's (and many of the permanent no fly zones) the FAA issues are outside their charter and illegal.
"in Austrailia."
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's entirely possible this was an improved stealth variant that they were testing to explicitly find out if anyone noticed the noise. Which means they very well may have been flying below 500 ft.
That's pretty unlikely. I used to work at an airfield that had one (or more) of those in a hanger and they closed the doors any time anyone wandered anywhere near it. There's absolutely no reason to do something like that over Staten Island. This airfield was in a relatively populated area and, from experience of "watching" it fly around, I can tell you that you can hear it from several thousand feet away. You just can't very easily tell where it is or which direction it was heading. The only reason I could remotely track the aircraft was due to the anti-collision lights that they are required to use at that facility.
When I was 16, I was driving through the Mojave though, and did have a B2 bomber fly over my vehicle on a very deserted road. That thing was pretty quiet, and I would have never known it was overhead had it not been about 8am. It did a very low pass between two mountains and I could not hear it until it flew past my vehicle. About 2 minutes later some F16s came screaming through the pass. I assume that they were doing some tests on its radar cross-section. They were flying toward Groom Lake from Edwards AFB. This was before the US government officially acknowledged the B2, so it was quite a treat to see.
How does moving into a home near a military airport require you to enjoy noisy airplanes flying low over your new home?
I wouldn't say you are required to enjoy them but you are required to acknowledge that as a condition of buying the home. The prices of homes reflect things like their proximity to airports, train tracks, schools, churches, highways, hospitals, and so much more. If you want a house that doesn't have cargo planes flying low overhead then you'd have to choose a different house, and likely pay more for it.
I'm reminded of a bunch of people that complained of a navy base near them that would shoot off a ceremonial canon everyday. They've been doing this for something like 150 years. So, some people buy a retirement home near this base and complain about the noise. Well maybe they should have considered that before buying the property.
You say it happens every couple weeks? It's probably pilots getting their training. How bad can this be? Seems like a pretty minor thing to complain about.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
According to this article:
Nikki Leynor, Senior Vice President of Remarkable Media, the imagineering company who constructed the unique ship, told IGN the machine was made out of 'a truss skeleton and a custom built network of LEDs for this event,' and would be disassembled following the flight.
The colorful LED lights were attached to spaceship, which was said to be roughly 50 feet in length and assisted by a Black Hawk helicopter.
I wonder if this drone strike occurred during a practice run?
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Well, no because foreigners in foreign countries most often do not want drunk US military personal rampaging all over the place. Military training should not take place over residential neighbourhoods outside of times of real war, not fake for profit wars. So rural locations, national parks and forest and out to sea and of course specifically established military reserves, this should be obvious. Plus civilian law should take precedence over military law, including on military bases, especially foreign military. Also military spending should be massively cut and that money spent far more soundly on turning of control law enforcers into smart police officers with university degrees and more of them (they could serve are extremely skilled military personal in times of real wars, instead of paying for soldiers in peace time, pay for more 'peace' officers, the police and whole lot fucking more sensible). Then cut military spending ever further to have the best possible infrastructure from roads to broadband and education to medical services (all far better spent on that, than on the military). Then further cut military spending just fucking because.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
GET TO DA HELO!
That doesn't quite work as well...
Sorry, they are just keeping tabs on the unconvicted criminals living in the community.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
US soil during peace time
When was the last time the US experienced "piece time"?
Then the military craft was in violation and responsible for the crash, due to flying below minimum altitude....
Depends whether they're seeking to prevent military or criminal action.
An assault on the UN would almost certainly be inherently military in nature.
probably assigned that flight level by ATC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Because they can? Because that is perfectly legal? Any helicopter can fly 500ft above a residential area. But I guess you would have blamed the owner of a civil helicopter like an S300 or an R22 also, even if their lightweight helicopters had been damaged to the point of killing someone. Just so long as rich children (of all ages) can fly their toys (laws meant to keep people safe be damned) wherever they want. Frankly, irresponsible shit like this is how we are going to get even more draconian laws shoved down our throats.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the Army Clause of the Constitution...
love is just extroverted narcissism
Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
"In Australia", what?
Why a military copter was flying at 500 ft over a residential zone? THIS IS THE QUESTION WE SHOULD BE ASKING!!!!
16% approximately....
https://media.nationalprioriti...
Literally the last two words of what you quoted. I was pointing it out because it entirely invalidates whatever point you might have been trying to make as we are discussing an event which occurred in New York which, last I checked, hasn't been invaded and taken over by the Aussies just yet. In fact, I'm fairly certain there is little danger of that happening.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
World-wide, there have been five known collisions. Three of these resulted in no damage beyond scratches. However, one collision with a sport bi-plane in the United States of America (USA) in 2010 resulted in a crushed wing. Fortunately, the aircraft landed safely. Less fortunately, a Grob G 109B motor glider had a wing broken by an RPAS collision in 1997 in Germany, resulting in fatal injury to the two people on board.
Maybe you should have read more than the first 2 paragraphs of the findings?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Rotor blades are expensive, stressed and delicate.
Things must have changed since the UH-1 ("Huey") helicopter days of Vietnam. It was SOP for pilots to cut down saplings and small trees with the Huey's rotors as needed to reach tight LZs. (See, e.g., Robert Mason's Chickenhawk , or almost any former pilot of the age.)
Is it really true that one can force a multi-million-dollar military helicopter to the ground by hitting it with a consumer drone, which is largely plastic and Styrofoam?
How do they know it was a civilian drone? Did they recover the wreckage?
I'm a civilian helicopter pilot, and the regulations allow us to operate below 500 feet. Single engine helicopters have some restrictions when flying at those altitudes (basically that if we have an engine failure we can land without endangering any of the people or their property on the ground). Twin engine helicopters (like the Blackhawk in this article) do not even have that restriction.
When we have to operate at low altitudes (there are plenty of missions that require it) we try minimize the annoyance factor for the people on the ground. Along a coastline, a common way is to fly slightly over the water - in the article summary it claims this happened over Midland Beach, so it's possible that the crew was trying to minimize noise.
from Friday night through ~5PM Sunday
Perhaps, but TFA says that the collision occurred on Thursday night.
You are correct that 91.119 prescribes the minimum altitudes for aircraft, and that the requirement is that a helicopter must not cause a hazard to persons or property when flown below the minimums that would apply to fixed wing aircraft.
In practice the way this is interpreted by the FAA for a twin engine helicopter (like a Blackhawk) is that as long as the operation itself doesn't provide a direct hazard (say, by the downwash of the helicopter damaging stuff on the ground) and the aircraft can fly away if one of the engines should fail, the operation would typically be approved.
When the operator determines whether the operation can be conducted without hazard, they would not be considering things like "what if the pilot has a heart attack" or "what if the aircraft suddenly explodes and heavy pieces should fall onto the people below".
Certainly I have seen the Massachusetts State Police hovering over crowds on the Boston Commons at altitudes as low as 50 feet. When you have two engines, the FAA is pretty forgiving about what you do with the aircraft (even though I personally would not operate directly over the public at such low altitudes).
I believe it's only a matter of time before a helicopter is brought down by a collision with a drone. I believe it's reasonable for the FAA to require ADSB participation by drones, and that drones have some kind of "land now" feature when a manned aircraft is approaching...
The blades can take quite a bit of punishment and keep flying. Military helicopter blades are typically able to take several hits from fairly large ordinance (50 cal?) and keep flying. And yeah, you can hit smaller tree branches and not get knocked out of the air.
However, once you land the mechanic is going to compare the damage to the blade against some tables in the maintenance manuals and if the damage exceeds what is allowed (which is typically just some very very small dings) the blade would be replaced.
In Vietnam pilots did sometimes intentionally hit bamboo and small trees/branches if that meant they didn't have to leave a wounded soldier behind to die. But you can expect that in those cases they probably scrapped the blades once he got back to base.
Each blade on the helicopter I fly costs $40,000 so it's an expensive thing to replace.
So it was a hearsay report. Following the link, the collision was with a conventional radio controlled airplane weighing 10 Kg and with a 2.4 meter wingspan. It took place before there were any of the craft we commonly call drones in existence. It was a really BIG model airplane.
What kind of failures are you worried about? If you're worried about engine failures, the helicopters that are operating over your house are twin engine. If they have an engine failure they're going to fly back to an airport and land.
The number of failures other than complete engine failure that results in the crashing of a helicopter is vanishingly small. If you are really worried about the risk of something so improbable, you should first consider banning all cars, no electricity in your house, etc. etc. The general public has a misconception about the actual risk - probably partly because of how Hollywood portrays helicopters - they always seem to be spinning out of control etc. in the movies. News flash: they don't do that in real life.
Personally, I've been Mr. Nosebleed at every helicopter company I've worked at - I try to fly high mostly because of noise reasons - trying to minimize noise for people on the ground. Still, in places like New York, there is often airspace above me that limits how high I can go, so even if I wish I could be at 2,000 feet I may be held lower by ATC.
Which of the 5 mentioned in the report was that? And do you really think a 2.25kg drone will do any less damage when 2.25kg ducks, which are much softer, have been known to take down planes?
Was your point really "well, it hasn't happened in Austrailia, so it must not be a big deal"? And 5lb is still quite small for a drone capable of stable flight at altitudes over 100 feet or so; 20lb (that is, ~10kg) drones fare much better than their lighter "toy" counterparts at higher altitudes where there are likely to be stronger winds. You'd me amazed what a difference 10 feet or 1lb can make in a craft's ability to maintain stable flight.
Or are you trying to say a 10kg drone won't do the same damage as a 10kg model plane? I mean, it's either that or a 2.5kg drone will do less damage than a 2.5kg duck; and I'm pretty sure both hypothesis are wrong.
Or do you think all drones weigh under 1lb like the shit they sell at Brookstone or your local drug store? Buddy, there are some absolutely massive hobbyist drones out there. This one is almost 23kg, and it took me 30 seconds to find it on Google. Something like that could fly at or above 400ft with ease and pose a very real threat to manned aircraft; something like this, not so much on either front.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
THAT is the real question... why in the hell is a military bird flying only 500ft above a residential in what is most assuredly not a combat zone
If you read TFA (I know, I know), you would have seen that they are providing additional security for the United Nations General Assembly. Perhaps they were patroling the coastline.
Also, helicopters are supposed to be above 500 ft and drones below 400 ft, so the drone was 20% above its maximum operating altitude, if you believe the report.
Also, it's pretty hard to miss hearing a Blackhawk approaching you at an altitude of 500 ft. They often fly over my house and are quite loud, especially when flying as a pair, even if they are coming at you. If you were actually operating a drone or other RC aircraft and were not observant enough to to keep track of the TWO super loud helicopters flying by your airspace, then you probably are not qualified to be operating a drone at that altitude.
I live along the river, there is a Naval Base on the Ocean and one up river. Coast Guard and Navy helicopters often travel between the two bases, moving stuff, patrolling, whatever. They often (many times per day) fly less than 300 feet above my house (I live near a bend in the river). When you are outside, you cannot hear the person next to you talk.
But it is all good. They pass very quickly and they give me a sense of security.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
No, my point is that the poster posted a bunch of innuendo and tried to make it look like we had a credible report of a drone causing a fatality from Australia when what we actually had was a not so near miss, a bat strike, and Australia reporting that Germany reported that a very large conventional RC airplane once caused a motor glider fatality back in 1999.
Most drones are somewhat lighter than the one you found which is designed for spraying crops. Certainly it will be flying slower than a fixed wing r/c plane and so will have a lot less kinetic energy which, yes, means it's likely to do less damage than a fixed wing craft of the same weight. Also easier to avoid by a poorly maneuverable motor glider. But I note that few people are flying $8K crop spraying drones and that crop spraying is an odd hobby.
No, my point is that the poster posted a bunch of innuendo and tried to make it look like we had a credible report of a drone causing a fatality from Australia when what we actually had was a not so near miss, a bat strike, and Australia reporting that Germany reported that a very large conventional RC airplane once caused a motor glider fatality back in 1999.
Actually, the claim was never made that it happened in Australia. Furthermore, where it happened doesn't really much matter; a 10kg object would have taken down that manned aircraft anywhere in the world. In fact, as that glider was open-cockpit, a drone weighing a few ounces could have potentially brought it down by knocking the pilot unconscious.
Keep in mind that we're not discussing planes vs drones; we're discussing manned aircraft vs unmanned aircraft.
Also, guys, over here! I've spotted the irresponsible douchenugget who's giving all model aircraft operators a bad name!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Over there the Helo can shoot. Do you want helo's shooting here? Just think of all the fun you could have with un-intended victims from flying drones around being hit by 50 cal rounds.
Thank you.
You seem a knowledgeable person. How would the helicopter pilot know -- cruising at night at, I assume, 150 kt -- that he hit a civilian drone, instead of almost anything else (bird, bat, escaped weather balloon payload, some jetsam dropped by another aircraft, [insert your random rare event here], etc.)?
It's a good question. Generally, when you hit a bird (or other living thing) there will be some feathers or blood left on the aircraft. A child's balloon won't make the kind of sound & impact that a drone will. Otherwise, there really isn't much else to run into out there.
We believe we had a drone strike on one of our helicopters for similar reasons: crew heard a bang and landed. The aircraft was dented on the SIDE, and there was no blood or feathers. Given that the helicopter was moving forward but got hit from the side (hard enough to dent an aluminum panel ) and there was no blood or feathers, we figure it was probably a drone or radio controlled aircraft of some kind... there just isn't a lot of other stuff to hit in flight that will go bang!
The TFR's (and many of the permanent no fly zones) the FAA issues are outside their charter and illegal.
They can cut up the airspace in whatever ridiculous way they choose, but, more importantly, they can pull my ticket without good cause, and I can get it back only if I dump a load of cash on a lawyer. I'll stay out of their way, plenty of nice air in the other direction.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Thank you for your armchair commentary of how the department of defense should operate. You must be much better at this than them, after all, your condescension and confidence in your ignorance are right up there.
We were discussing drones. And I said innuendo, not a flat out claim. It was after all part of a package deal with more innuendo that turned out to be a bat and a video that turned out to be not all that near.
The crash in Germany was certainly unfortunate, but was not a drone, was the only incident I have seen of anything vaguely drone like being involved in a serious incident. 1 world wide and not even in this century isn't half bad. Consider, clamshell packaging results in 6K visits to the ER annually in the U.S. alone. Admittedly, no fatalities so far.
Injuries from clamshell packaging are the result of idiots opening said packaging in idiotic ways and results only in injury to themselves. An collision between two aircraft is the result of idiots flying where they shouldn't and results in injury to others.
Please, don't be the inconsiderate prick that can't see how one idiot injuring someone else is worse than thousands of idiots injuring themselves. You can prevent self-injury by not being an idiot, but that doesn't save you from idiots (and you can't make someone else not be an idiot). If this were a story about idiots crashing their drones into their own heads, nobody would be calling them out for airspace violations; instead, we'd be calling them idiots, because that's what they are.
Mind you, everyone screaming that we need more regulation of airspace is an idiot, as well. Airspace is plenty-well regulated, but we do need better enforcement of those regulations. When people stop getting away with violations, we'll see fewer of them.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You might be surprised at how many National Guard "training missions" include communicating what they can see to local law enforcement. As long as they don't actually do anything it doesn't invoke Posse Comitatus.
Most part time soldiers or even active duty actually like the idea of helping search for lost people and don't object to reporting drug gardens or hot spots on infrared that could be a meth lab.
And strictly military training missions... the purpose of a helicopter is to be able to fly low and slow. Part the training involves a lot of touch and go practice and navigation drills through and landing in various terrains. To quote my cousin, the USMC chopper pilot, "If you didn't get the wheels muddy, you didn't train." He also says it is polite to the Crew Chief to drag the wheels through a body of water to rinse them off before returning to base too.
I'll wager the closest airport had that helicopter on radar and knew what they were doing. A drone coming up that doesn't register on radar worth a crud; wild card. And, if the drone pilot had been operating legally, he would have gotten the drone out of the way when the chopper approached.
NRRPT/RCT
Or the military had an approved flight path for low flight under visual flight rules.
Do you think the local TV station chopper stays above 500 feet? Or police and rescue helicopters for that matter.
You just don't go below 500 feet until in touch with a controlling tower.
NRRPT/RCT
Oh. That would be this TFR (7/8422) instead, from 3:30pm Thursday through 5:30PM Friday. The other was 7/8426.
(There's been a lot of TFRs.)
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
To be honest it's a big inconvenience wherever the president goes. Obama's 2-week vacation in Martha's Vineyard always coincided with my yearly week on Cape Cod and the outer ring put a big wall through that airspace as well. The difference IMO is that Obama mostly was at the WH (or Camp David, both of which have permanent - and charted - flight-pain zones) and his yearly vacation, with the occasional excursions typical of any president - whereas it's a rare weekend Trump isn't at one or the other golf course. His presence will directly put several small businesses out of business - flight schools, FBOs, and maintenance shops - at airports in Florida, specifically KLNA, which has had multiple closures and businesses moving away since it's within the 10NM no-fly zone where basically nothing but air ambulance and military flights are permitted even with a flight plan.
I don't think it's even on Trump's radar (so to speak) though. While they were both still candidates, the AOPA sent them questionnaires about their view of general aviation - HRC answered with the standard "economic engine, best in the world, keep it going safely, fund the FAA" thing some staffer prepared, but Trump didn't even bother to respond.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The regulators and legislators are currently investigating a range of options in the legal space; this will continue. What seems to be missing at the moment is practical (means of) enforcement of the current regulations. Legalising/deploying UAV identify-and-disable systems (several on the market) in sensitive areas is expensive but may be necessary if those with toys cannot fly responsibly.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
It's really just a matter of comparing an event less common than death by lightning strike with a somewhat unlikely seeming but far more common injury.
I'm basically just tired of people (including the FAA) trolling to make drones (particularly toy and hobby) sound more dangerous than reality suggests. Suddenly everything that goes thud MUST be a drone and flying a mile above a drone's absolute maximum operating altitude is suddenly a "near miss". Helo flies lower than is advisable hits a drone flying higher than is advisable then lands safely. Drone is obliterated. Clearly the drone is at fault?
luckily the FAA mandated drone registration so it is easy to find the pilot, right?
Helo flies lower than is advisable hits a drone flying higher than is advisable then lands safely. Drone is obliterated. Clearly the drone is at fault?
No, but the operator of the drone is.
Injury or death does not absolve one of fault. If you step in front of a speeding car and get hurt or killed, you're still at fault for having stepped in front of the car.
Of course, the driver of the car is also at fault, as they were speeding. But, someone else being in the wrong too does not absolve you of responsbility; it's called shared responsibility. If the helo pilot was flying where he shouldn't have been, he is at fault; if the drone pilot was flying where he shouldn't have been, he is also at fault. If either of them had not fucked up, the incident would have been avoided. It took both of them fucking up in order for the incident to occur, therefore, they are both at fault.
I've really fucking had it with this "the thing I did wrong is okay because they did something wrong, too" mentality that seems to be running rampant lately. Seriously, it doesn't even make sense because the other person could just turn around and say the same thing; what they did wrong was okay because you did something wong. Okay, fine, neither of you take responsibility for whatever happened, and just both deal with the your own consequences of the resulting events separately. Don't want to do that? Both own up to your responsibility for the incident and deal with each others' consequences instead; after all it was your fuck up that caused those consequences for the other person -- even if their fuck up caused consequences for you.
It happens all too often. Bikes riding on the road are a perfect example. If a cyclist is obeying traffic laws and gets hit, it's the driver's fault; but, many cyclists think they're somehow absolved of the responsibility to obey the law. as a result, most accidents involving cyclists are, in the best case for the cyclist, shared responsibility. There was one guy who I swear was trying to get me to hit him every morning on my way to work. I didn't matter how early or how late I left, there he was, and he'd come from 100ft back or so as soon as he saw me and blow through his stop sign as I (who had no stop sign) began my right turn, turning left in front of me. Had I, one day, not stopped in time to avoid him (and there were a few close calls), it would have been not just because I fucked up, but also because he failed to stop as required by law; had either of us not fucked up, there would have been no accident. He consistently (seemingly purposely) fucked up and he's just lucky that I never did. The consequences for him would have been much worse than for me. One day, there was a bike pedal on the ground at that intersection and I never saw him again -- he must have tried that shit with a less skilled driver. Oops.
And that brings us back to personal responsibility. That cyclist was responsible for his own safety and obeying the law was just the first part of that. Awareness and avoidance are other parts (and there are a few more that are activity-specific) at which he clearly failed. When the potential consequences of someone fucking up (not necessarily you) are worse for you than they are for the other person, you have a personal responsibility -- for your own safety -- to observe and avoid, even if they're the one who's wrong. Take the cyclist; I wasn't there when he (presumably) got hit, maybe he did stop at the sign, maybe whoever 9presumably) hit himwaved him on, then gunned it and mowed him down. In that case, the driver is at fault for setting the incident up; but the cyclist failed to observe the driver, who was a known danger to the cyclist, and avoid the incident. As a result, the cyclist (presumably) was severely injured or killed.
Just as the drone was destroyed by the
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That's the part I don't get: Drones with which I am familiar need to be lightweight in order to fly -- especially to any significant altitude -- since their rotor area is so small, and have real difficulty attaining forward speed of any significance (also per design, since they need to stay within visual range of a person on the ground, and are usually used to take video, which becomes gut-wrenching if the platform moves rapidly). That means there's precious little metal in them, and certainly not enough mass to dent an aluminum panel, even one traveling at 150 kt. How does a drone hit the *side* of a forward-moving helicopter with enough speed to dent the helicopter?
Now, an R/C plane is another matter. It's traveling at a significant speed, and frequently has a petrol engine as the first thing to strike something. Still, it's incredibly difficult -- due to depth perception, even if one ignores the other problems of pursuit -- to hit an object flying at 1000 feet or more at 150 kt with an R/C plane.
I just wonder if we're creating some sort of urban myth by accepting the premise that these strikes are due to drones, when there's actually no physical evidence that they are -- just the lack of physical evidence of anything else that we can think of. Perhaps the real cause is something else, and what we're really demonstrating is a lack of imagination.