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.
How much does a rotor blade on a UH-60M run anyway?
Oh, it was only a dent which could hammered out with a $436 hammer, standing on a $74,000 ladder and a dash of $7,000 paint.
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.
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.