Slashdot Mirror
How A Civilian Drone Crashed Into the US Army's Helicopter (arstechnica.com)
"In September, Slashdot reported on an in-flight collision between an Army UA60 helicopter and a hobby drone over Staten Island," writes Slashdot reader ElizabethGreene. "The NTSB has released its final report on the incident, blaming the drone pilot." Ars Technica reports:
After waiting 30 minutes, [drone-owner] Tantashov assumed there had been a mechanical malfunction and that his drone had fallen into the water. He returned home. A week later, Tantashov received a call at work. It was an investigator from the National Transportation Safety Board... Would Tantashov be surprised to learn, the investigator asked, that his drone had not crashed into the water?
And that it had instead slammed into the main rotor of a US Army-operated Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter that was patrolling for the UN General Assembly in Manhattan? And that it had put a 1.5-inch dent in said rotor and led to the helicopter diverting back to its New Jersey base...? As the recently completed NTSB report on the incident puts it, "several [drone] components were lodged in the helicopter."
The drone's serial number was still legible on its motor, and investigators were able to track down its owner by contacting the manufacturer, who'd maintained a record of the sale. The drone's owner said he'd been unaware of "temporary flight restrictions" in effect that night, and "said that he relied on 'the app' to tell him if it was OK to fly." But for two months DJI had disabled the feature that checks for temporary flight restrictions (to perform troubleshooting), and the NTSB notes that that feature "is intended for advisory use only," and it's the responsibility of drone pilots to comply with FAA airspace regulations.
The NTSB also faults the drone's owner for letting it fly out of his line of sight.
And that it had instead slammed into the main rotor of a US Army-operated Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter that was patrolling for the UN General Assembly in Manhattan? And that it had put a 1.5-inch dent in said rotor and led to the helicopter diverting back to its New Jersey base...? As the recently completed NTSB report on the incident puts it, "several [drone] components were lodged in the helicopter."
The drone's serial number was still legible on its motor, and investigators were able to track down its owner by contacting the manufacturer, who'd maintained a record of the sale. The drone's owner said he'd been unaware of "temporary flight restrictions" in effect that night, and "said that he relied on 'the app' to tell him if it was OK to fly." But for two months DJI had disabled the feature that checks for temporary flight restrictions (to perform troubleshooting), and the NTSB notes that that feature "is intended for advisory use only," and it's the responsibility of drone pilots to comply with FAA airspace regulations.
The NTSB also faults the drone's owner for letting it fly out of his line of sight.
Do they only have one?
How much does a rotor blade on a UH-60M run anyway?
Going to have to start hardening aircraft against drone strikes.
Many are already hardened against bird strikes like Canadian Geese.
Technically, any hobby R/C vehicle is an aircraft once it leaves the LOS of the operator, and at that point a pilots license is technically required.
Ban assault drones!
Correct. Because civilians wouldn't get bombed by Americans if ISIS weren't the murderous assholes that they are.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Technically, any hobby R/C vehicle is an aircraft once it leaves the LOS of the operator, and at that point a pilots license is technically required.
Any vehicle? Even my Tamiya Wild Willy 2000?
Correct. Because civilians wouldn't get bombed by Americans if ISIS weren't the murderous assholes that they are.
ISIS forced you idiots to firebomb a hospital?
Your answer doesn't make any sense. The US has bombed many people who had nothing to do with ISIS in areas where ISIS doesn't operate. For example, the US has bombed wedding parties, first aid responders, journalists, hospitals (being used as hospitals) and their patients, women, and many children.
So how did it crash?
The drone pilot was indeed an idiot.
The full report shows that he knew about the maximum permitted altitude of 400ft, yet logs showed he flew as high as 547ft 1.8 miles away. He also knew there were frequently helicopters in the area and still flew it 2.5miles away, well out of sight. This is why we can't have nice things.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenera...
I crashed my Phantom 3 a few years ago and decided it was best to just drop the hobby.
Just imagine if instead he'd caused a fatal accident.
The government would probably do more than just make you register your drones.
And you just know, it's bound to happen.
I mean if you drive your car into a train you are at fault The train can not maneuver, and you should have looked ahead and stopped when it looked like you were going to run into a train. Yet here we have a military pilot with the best equipment, best training, and best eyesight piloting flew a helicopter into a non maneuvering quadcopter on a fixed direct path to home. The drone was beyond LOS and the operator did not know that a Blackhawk was headed on an intercept coarse. Yet somehow the quadcopter operator is at fault.
In the nautical environment the vessel that is less maneuverable is given the right of way. Yet in the air environment all crashes are the fault of those least able to defend themselves. In this case it is the harmless happy go lucky quadcopter.
They should have been looking out for drones.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
US drops bombs on
innocent civilians
You misspelled "passive collaborators".
They provide the terrorists aid comfort and shelter. They make it possible for them to continue to murder in the name of a murdering baby-raping warlord false prophet who created a militant political system of brutal totalitarian rule disguised as a religion. Destroying their ability to continue their violence along with the willingness to tolerate them among the populations in which they hide and from whom they receive support is paramount.
They need to be shown in no uncertain terms that they're more likely to survive fighting against the terrorists to keep them out than they are to survive being targeted by the US military for providing terrorists aid & comfort. Sorry about your family, but maybe you should have been fighting to kick those terrorists out after their attack rather than handing out candy in the streets. Sucks to be you.
Well, there is altitude and there is height - they are different concepts and occasionally confused by qualified pilots as well. He MIGHT not be a complete idiot.
The collision happened at 300 AMSL in any case. Following the altitude rule would not have helped him.
Take off every 'sig' !!
It is not illegal to fly over 400'. It is illegal to fly without a spotter, and/or out of sight.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am a sport pilot - the other issue is that anyone that flies is required by law to get a weather briefing, and in that weather briefing they inform you of any TFRs. The call (or website use) is recorded, so you then have legal evidence that you weren't told about the TFR. If you don't have that, you are in big trouble for violating the TFR.
The drone pilots have to follow the same rules, other than in very specific situations (operating in sight, below 400 ft). So this guy is in a world of hurt.
Yes. Yes they did. And a baby milk factory, and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Oh bullshit. Murderous Islamic terrorists conquered much of Europe long before Europeans colonized North America. Muslim terrorists are not a new problem.
He definitely didn't have the right attitude for this.
Sorry, the 400ft agl thing is advisory only, my mistake.
It's also a default limit in the software that he would have specifically disabled.
First? Yeah, I agree that this drone operator was being irresponsible. You shouldn't really be able to accidentally crash into a helicopter or airplane with one, IMO. That only happens when you're flying one way out of line of sight range and probably only when you fly in airspace that's fairly busy.
Second? I feel like right after finally taking the plunge and investing a decent sum of money into a quality drone setup myself, the laws are just starting to appear at a fast and furious pace, to regulate what I can and can't do with this thing. We've got Trump demanding FAA registrations of drones must go on again, as part of some national security bill. We've got DJI pushing the "Aeroscope" tech to all the DC big-wigs, so anyone buying their tool can intercept your RF communications with a drone in flight and grab all your telemetry and registration info. And stories are appearing about law enforcement wanting to use drones to patrol for crime (and by extension, further limit what hobbyists can do with one that might "interfere" with their uses for them).
I'm not liking where all this is headed at all. My drone flights have been for such things as taking a video survey of the condition of my roof on my house. If I'm at risk of colliding with anything, it'll be some tree or utility line I accidentally flew into ... not other aircraft! Yet technically, I'm already flying in violation of the rules if I don't make an effort to report my intent to fly to a small airport in the next city over. (Realistically, I don't think I've ever seen a small plane fly over that would have come from that airport. It's just not a factor here. But the rules don't factor in common sense.... only how miles away from the nearest airport.)
I just wanted a video camera that could film from overhead and a little fun flying a modern version of your typical R/C helicopter or plane. But now, they're blowing this hobby out of proportion. It's like wanting to build and fly model rockets from the old Estes or Centuri kits and everyone eyeing you as a potential terrorist threat for launching missiles.
For what incident do you make this accusation?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
This was always a huge problem waiting to happen. The barrier to entry for idiot UAV operators is WAY too small. In my opinion they should all have pilots' licenses to fly beyond 50 feet from the operator.
OK, let me get this straight. You live in a country where 30000 people are shot each year, and what you're upset about about are drones that can fly 50 feet from the operator?
Guess what else flies 50 feet from the operator? You people need to get your priorities in order.
He MIGHT not be a complete idiot.
I am not sure if arguing exactly how much of an idiot he was is going to win many arguments (or lawsuits).
Well they reference the log data. If I remember correctly from when I had the DJI P3, it uses AGL relative to where it takes off. The software by default also limits you to 400ft AGL. Seeing as how he knew of the advised maximum altitude (height?) of 400ft agl, had the limiter disabled/increased and flew over 500ft as recorded in the logs, he's still well into the idiot category.
And yeah, the limiter wouldn't have helped in this case as he was under that. Just more adding to the idiot designation.
There you are spamming youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!
You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.
Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.
How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????
The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!
You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!
When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!
Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!
Bonus:
Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:
The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!
So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!
Signed:
The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!
so all it takes to bring down a military helicopter is a dozen or two dozen shitty drones ?
well, that's gotta have the military none too happy
Absolute statements are never true
DJI’s “GEO” system did offer some guidance on TFRs, but it was problematic; according to the NTSB, DJI responded by disabling the TFR features in GEO some time in August 2017, not restoring it until October. Thus, “relying on the app” was of limited use in September, when Tantashov made his flight. In any event, DJI stresses that GEO is only an “advisory” system and that drone pilots are responsible for knowing what restrictions exist in their areas.
Classic idiot software problem: There is a function called IsItSafe() and when the system does not know, it returned TRUE instead of FALSE. *facepalm* If it did not know for certain that there were no flight restrictions in place, it should have assumed that it was not safe! Better yet, it should display the message "Service temporarily disabled, check https://notams.aim.faa.gov/not... for up-to-date flight restrictions."
Didn't take them long to fly it straight up that it disappeared from sight.
If you could only disappear from sight as well, that would be wonderful!
--
Balena
Exactly,
It seems like Chris is a victim here. He keeps on reading those SEO, youtube algorithm, basically get rich quick sites. He doesn't realize that he is the fish for them since they make money off him with their own scheme. Then, he wastes his time trying to implement what those sites suggest and he ends up disturbing people.
I mean, those crooks tell Chris that he has to build personal brands and he goes on the Internet and makes everything about himself public!
I believe we should bring this up at our next meeting. He might not be our only patient victim of such on-line abuse.
--
Silvia Bunge
Psychology Department
University of California, Berkeley
Who the hell cares? Your content-free karma whoring attempts are tiresome, Chris.
ANTI-CREIMER TEAM, UNITE!!! MOD DOWN!
"You live in a country where 30000 people are shot each year"
I hope you realize that about 20000 of those are suicides - they INTENDED to get shot, since they did it themselves. Suicides should be pulled out of the stats.
you say that like 10,000 makes it an acceptable number! outside of warzones and 3rd world countries that is insane.
I have a pilots license and I still can't legally fly fpv out of line of sight.
For making it much worse for the rest of us by being irresponsible. More irresponsibility will lead to further regulatory requirements/restrictions just like everything else.
... draft the drones. No more civilian ones.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
And of those 10k about 8k are gang related
Firstly you can't ban drones. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't shove it back. While DJI is the largest manufacturer of "ready to fly" drones you can build a drone very cheaply from readily available components. And unless you want to ban Arduinos or raspberry pis there isn't a way to control for the flight controllers, let alone trying to ban brushless motors.
Secondly there is no question that the drone operator was at fault. The reasoning is he flew beyond visual range in an area that has a high amount of manned air traffic. While he was under 400ft at the time of the incident there is still too much air traffic to be flying beyond visual range.
On the flip side though notams are difficult to read if your aren't familiar with the terminology. And accessing the information isn't simple and easy. Drones are not going away. What's more, at some point DJI will lose its dominant position and drones will be controlled by iNav, betaflight, cleanflight, ardupilot or what ever. All of which run on a generic STM chip. Regulation via manufacturer will not be possible either.
Sure, it would be great if people used their brains more. But it aint happening. So steps need to be taken to mitigate risk. CASA, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has released an app which contains real time air safety information which drone users can use to check if their location is ok to fly their drone. This should become the standard approach world wide.
If you check the actual FAA report, you will see that both craft are defined as "Helicopter" in that report.
Therefore, this was a collision between like-craft.
And it's also interesting to note that registration did nothing to either prevent the incident nor to track down the operator of the "unmanned" helicopter involved.
So can someone explain why US drone owners have to register again?
Ok, so you are justifying n1gger obama and CIA goons organizing terrorists into ISIS with headquarters in Pentagon, correct?
I'd wager about 25,000 of the people shot were blacks by other blacks.
The rules for a hobbyist UAV pilot are actually quite different.
There is no requirement that they get a weather briefing. (They ought to know what the weather is like, but there's no requirement to check.)
They are required to follow relevant TFRs.
They are *not* limited to 400 feet AGL -- that limit is advisory, not mandatory.
Here's the rules they do have to follow, and I guess there's the re-enabled registration requirement, and you'll need to pick some CBO guidelines to operate under -- the AMA safety code is a fine choice but it's not the only one.
This guy broke a few of these rules, but there's no rule prohibiting going over 400' AGL for a hobbyist -- that's advisory, but not mandatory.
No. https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/
So this guy spent time disabling a key feature that would prevent such conflicts and yet one has to ask why he would do such a thing? Since flight path restrictions exist, why then can someone even disable such information being de programed? Of course then the operator was simply too lazy to obtain such flight restrictions himself to avoid these problems with other aircraft. Not sure just anyone should be able to obtain these drones because obviously they do not take them seriously as to how they can interfere with other aircraft.
Can you promise it didn't hit a ramp and go airborne?
I agree. Too many people think problems get solved when there is somebody to blame.
Instead, humans try to design "idiot proof" things which won't give even a chance to do wrong. Maybe the drones would need such systems. Like an automatic clearance call to an official server and fly only if it gets an 'OK' reply?
Otherwise they are a menace. We cannot count on the general public operating drones safely, and a collision can result in catastrophe. Many aircraft fly at low altitude at points. Also, some drones can fly very high. They are aircraft, and they are too small to see from an airplane - they all need to have transponders.
Spotted the FAA lackey. If I have to put a $1500 transponder and a $600 GPS (all FAA approved, remember), each weighing a few ounces, plus the electrical system to support them, in an model aircraft which costs under $1000 and weighs about a pound, I might as well give it up. Especially since I have several such models. Obviously that's what the FAA wants; they don't want anything in the airspace (including an inch off the ground) not flown by a Real Pilot with thousands of hours of instruction and medical exams and is impractical unless you're independently wealthy or do it for a living. Especially since once you have the license, anything the FAA says goes or they pull your license, regardless of what the actual law says.
Fortunately the FAA doesn't have enough enforcement officers to chase down all the model aircraft users.
I know it is burdensome, but consider what happens when a private aircraft with people on board strikes a drone - all the people are at risk of dying, and the damage to the aircraft can be catastrophic. Many amphibious sport aviation aircraft fly at low altitude over lakes or near local private runways - now pilots have to worry about someone flying a drone over the lake or near a private runway. It is just too risky. This is very serious. Perhaps the cost of the transponders will come down if all drones must have them.
Having software that claims to control for no-fly zones but fails to do so is a recipe for disaster, because it encourages people to use that software and believe that they're compliant. If I'm flying drones and know I need to check, then I can check in whatever ways are available to me (and acceptable methods for checking need to be determined and made public). If I fail to check, then obviously the fault is on me. But if I utilize tools that I chose because they said the checking was built-in and it turns out it was not, that's a huge failure.
It also needs to be clear what methods of checking are acceptable. If the only acceptable method of checking is to call a local airport's flight control operations center and ask, that needs to be clear both to drone users and to the staff at the airport who are about to get hammered with hundreds or thousands of calls "As required by the FAA." Oh, and if they get sick of those calls and decide to stop responding they can probably expect lawsuits over their backdoor ban on drone use.
Shades of Arthur Dent!
fencepost
just a little off
Most of these 10000 are negroes.
The word you are looking for is "prohibitive". Look, if you want to argue for banning model aircraft, argue for banning model aircraft. Pretending a transponder regulation is some reasonable common-sense regulation when it amounts to prohibition is dishonest.
And perhaps the check really is in the mail.
What country do I live in?
Hi. The difference is that model aircraft is a true hobby - people who use model aircraft are a small minority of the population, and are aficionados - they tend to be knowledgeable and responsible; whereas drones are mass marketed and every kid and goofball tends to have one. Drones also have cameras on them - I think most model aircraft don't - and so there is a tendency to want to send a drone far and wide to see what is there - violating the line of sight rules. There needs to be a way to either (1) restrict drones to people who are responsible and serious (perhaps like yourself), perhaps via a type of pilot license that requires training and money to obtain - i.e., an investment that proves a level of seriousness - that will eliminate the goofballs, or (2) make the devices such that they warn human passenger aircraft. Anyway, I have no say about it - that's just my opinion.
In a country of 320M people? So a 1:32,000 chance (per year, assuming it's randomly distributed, which it isn't). Sure, that number should be lower, but it's not anywhere near "war zone".
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.