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."
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.
Maybe don't fly multiple helicopters 500 feet over a residential neighborhood after dark?
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
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.
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!
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.
More like quit flying military helicopters over our neighborhoods.
Who are you defending us against? Quit crashing into our stuff while claiming to be protecting us when you can't even win a war anymore.
Tom-A-Toe Tom-Ah-Toe.
Yes there are. There are plenty of reasons. Was there a airport near? Police helicopters providing support or on the ground operations. Military, Police, and Civilian helicopters involved in search and rescue operations. There are plenty of reasons for this.
Where there is no reason for a civilian drone to operate above more than 400 ft above the ground. There is plenty of reasons for commercial drones to operate above that limit but they should require licenses and transponders. There could even be a special license to allow civilian drones to operate above that limit if they wanted too.
Aircraft carry people, drones do not. Some of these drones weight 40 pounds. That is enough to bring down many aircraft in a strike. If a few 10 pound ducks can bring down a 737, what can a couple of 40 pound drones to do to one?
Time to stop treating these like toys and start treating for what they are, aircraft.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Where in San Antonio do you live?
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.
FAA rule 107 provides the 400' ceiling requirement and a lot of other regulations covering both commercial and non-commercial drone flight.
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/...
Why not send the military a bill for the drone?
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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!
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.
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.
This is correct. The military craft was in civilian airspace (all US airspace is civilian airspace) covered by a temporary flight restriction (which is rubber stamped, unenforceable, bullshit).
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.
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.
if it wasn't a military helo it would have been a civilian one.
the problem isn't the military helo.
its the irresponsible drone pilot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Just because someone is doing something legal doesn't mean they have absolved themselves of all liability.
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.
Joe's Millionaire Air Taxi does not need to fly over my property at 500 ft
But we are not talking about Joe Millionaire Air Taxi are we? We are talking about legitimate reasons for aircraft to be below 500 feet. An to correct you, yes every reason I mentioned is perfectly valid and legal. And thank God/Zeus/Cthulhu they are. Civilian helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are routinely involved in search and rescue of downed aircraft .
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Sure there is. My entertainment
An if you will notice I specifically said as long as you are properly licensed and you drone is carrying a transponder I have no problem with you flying your drone above 500 feet for entertainment.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
You have no ideal what the helicopters where doing or why they where at that altitude. That air space around where they where flying is some of the most congested airspace in the world. They may have been flying that low because they where told to fly that low. In class C airspace, you fly where you are told, not where you want too.
And if they where on final approach then its perfectly acceptable to be that low. You don't like aircraft flying over your head, don't live next to a airport.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.