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.
Yeah, that's the only workable path forward since Americans are too lazy to get their shit together and take an extra 5 fucking minutes
I have a drone. I know plenty of other people that have drones. I have NEVER checked for flight restrictions. The software shows "no-fly" areas, some of which are temporary, and I have always just assumed it was doing the job. Nobody I know checks either.
So maybe a mission critical dependence on a bunch of random civilians to be diligent, when there is overwhelming evidence that they are not, isn't such a bright idea.
1. DJI should not have shut off restriction updates.
2. The Army should not have been flying below the drone ceiling.
3. Trying to solve a problem by changing basic human nature is idiotic. You can't expect millions of people to be "not lazy" when YOUR life depends on it.
best solution then is simply to ban drones from people like yourself until such time you prove through training and certification that you are fully aware of the rules and regulations and understand your responsibilities, kinda like getting your drivers license.
Oh, kinda like you can't expect drivers to bother stopping for a red light or checking what the speed limit is?
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.
Oh, kinda like you can't expect drivers to bother stopping for a red light or checking what the speed limit is?
If it turned out that were temporary, unmarked speed restrictions that drivers could only find at the department of transportation's homepage I imagine there would be quite a few complaints no matter what the letter of the law said. A little googling says there's a free B4UFLY smartphone app that'll tell you of restrictions in place. If the control software isn't updated it wouldn't be unreasonable to "demand" that the user check compliance before taking off. By which I don't mean more than an OK button to push, but then you couldn't claim ignorance of that responsibility. And it would be incentive to fix their updates...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yep because training and certification combined with harsh fines have completely eliminated speeding, violation of road rules and car accidents as well.
GP said it right you can't fight human nature, not even with your ban and certification approach.