
Drone nearly collides with helicopter, operator gets caught - nols
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CHP-copter-avoids-hitting-drone-in-Martinez-6679935.php
======
shkkmo
So.... if the problem here is one of education. Why didn't this article quote
the relevant safety guidelines
([https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/))
or link to the FAA's information campaign
([http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/](http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/))?:

The operator violated the '400 ft ceiling' guideline and the 'remain well
clear of manned aircraft' guideline, and so could face civil penalties from
the FAA.

I would guess that if the operator's behavior was malicious or caused active
harm, it would also be possible to be charged under other laws (e.g.
manslaughter).

~~~
manicdee
There is no indication of who broke the 400ft level: did the drone go over it
or did the chopper go below it?

As for drone pilots keeping clear of aircraft, that is only possible when the
aircraft are maintaining visual contact with all drone operators on the
ground.

Ideally drone pilots would be able to receive smething similar to ADS-B
signals and the ground control stations would all direct drones away from
nearby aircraft. Sadly the resolution and accuracy of ADS-B in all four
dimensions is insufficient to allow automatic avoidance of scenarios like the
one posted.

~~~
tzs
> There is no indication of who broke the 400ft level: did the drone go over
> it or did the chopper go below it?

Huh? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article states that the
encounter was at 700 to 800 feet.

~~~
manicdee
Confirmed, I am blind :\

------
click170
As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close
calls with drones in my area, what I want to know is since when did ignorance
of the law become a defense from it?

I wouldn't be allowed to murder someone and then hide behind that excuse.

Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is
not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted.

~~~
shkkmo
> Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying
> is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted.

There isn't any law to throw (most of) them in jail under.

The FAA guidelines the operator violated carry civil, not criminal penalties.

Flying model aircraft could conceivably result in Reckless Endangerment or
Manslaughter charges. However I doubt that most violations of the FAA
guidelines warrant such charges.

~~~
click170
It seems your right.

And it deeply saddens me to think that it may cost someone's life before
anything will change.

~~~
bigiain
Unlike gun laws?

~~~
mikeash
Where did that come from? Please don't try to derail the conversation like
this.

~~~
bigiain
Just trying to point out a seeming lack of perspective. Not trying to derail
things (but, in retrospect, I suppose that argument inevitably would get
misconstrued, even if I'd made it well.)

People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any
concrete evidence of actual harm.

But threaten the "right to arm bears", and from some corners all hell breaks
loose.

How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the
context of improving personal safety when there's _so_ much other low hanging
fruit where real differences could be made?

~~~
cgriswald
Guns aren't exactly low-hanging fruit. If you actually separate out acts of
violence by motivation, goal, or type of violence, rather than by the weapon
used, you will see that solutions based on restricting guns are not solutions
at all.

For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically
you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns
are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's
only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual
class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different
weapon, such as arson or poison gas.

Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are
treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters.

So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk
and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the
case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range
drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a
lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong,
reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also
possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks
loose."

------
dham
Used to fly RC gliders regularly at 2000 feet in the 90's with my dad. Great
times, but never near airports.

Of course you couldn't just go on Amazon and buy an RTF easy to fly machine at
that time. You had to go to a hobby store and spend 2 - 3 months building it..
from scratch. I'm talking putting the wing together piece by piece. Then you
had to know someone who already knew how to fly to teach you, or you crash
your expensive glider that you spent the last 2 months building.

As time went on you could then by kits that had the wing and such prebuilt.
Then as the internet caught on people's attention spans dwindled. RTF started
to be come more a thing.

Then as time went on more, people didn't have the attention span to fly a 4
channel RC plane, let alone a 6 channel collective pitch helicopter.

Then vuala you get quadcopters.

~~~
prawn
For next time: voilà.

------
1024core
> The drone could come through window and take out the pilot, and the
> helicopter could come down,” he said.

Really? Unless the 'copter was flying at a very high speed, I'd deem this very
unlikely. I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can handle hail? I don't think a
small drone like a Phantom would pack the power of hail.

I'm not saying that this is OK; but hyperbole bothers me. Drone operator
should be prosecuted, but not to the extent that he could have crashed through
the window and brought down the helicopter.

~~~
steveax
I imagine a three pound hailstone (Phantom 3 specs say 1280 gram weight) would
cause some problems for a chopper.

~~~
ryan_j_naughton
I think his point was that the drone is unlikely to carry much more force than
hail.

F = MA

Thus, even though the drone is heavier than hail, it won't likely be going as
fast as hail (such that its deceleration when hitting the helicopter would be
less significant).

Thus, the comparison is apt. If we had 3 lb hail, it would have much more
force than most 3 lb drones bc of its speed.

~~~
mikeash
Hail was mentioned in the context of, "I'm assuming 'copter windscreens can
handle hail?"

I can guarantee you that a helicopter windscreen cannot handle 3lb hail. If
such a hailstorm were ever encountered (unlikely, the record in the US is 1lb
15oz) then the helicopter would be completely destroyed.

If we consider a somewhat more sane hailstone size of 8cm, that has a terminal
velocity of about 170km/h and weighs about 1.5lbs. And a helicopter is not
going to survive flying through a storm like that either. This drone, by
comparison, weighs twice as much. The helicopter's cruising speed is about
245km/h, so that would be about the impact speed.

I don't understand why anyone would think that a 3lb chunk of machinery moving
at 150MPH relative to a helicopter wouldn't go through the windscreen.

I also don't understand why everyone in this thread is apparently so eager to
minimize the risks presented here. There are some good arguments to be made
about not over-regulating and about the low probability of an actual impact,
but the attempts to downplay the potential effects of an impact should one
occur are getting pretty crazy.

------
dkroy
I hate how they are constructing news stories like this by dropping in the
word drone, and adding a little fear mongering to stir up us "common folk". It
may not be useful news, but it sure must get the eyeballs...

~~~
dkroy
As an additional note the news outlets did this with laser pointers when those
started becoming popular, and how many aircraft did those also take down? I am
going to guess the same amount, which I am assuming to be zero, unless someone
else here tells me differently.

~~~
mikeash
It's hard to be accidentally dangerous with a laser pointer. People know
you're not supposed to point them at others, and the only reason to point them
at an airplane is if you're up to no good.

UAVs, on the other hand, have lots of interesting uses which are also
potentially dangerous. That means your risk is from normal users who are just
ignorant or careless, not just pranksters. Thankfully there are not a lot of
people out there willing to deliberately endanger aircraft, but there are a
lot of stupid and ignorant people.

------
donatj
So what would have actually happened if the drone had hit the Helicopter, in
reality and not paranoid helicopter operator world?

~~~
mikeash
Depending on where it hit, anything from a "did you hear that?" followed by
normal flight, to an unconscious pilot followed shortly by a spectacular
crash.

Worries about three pounds of machinery coming through the windscreen aren't
really "paranoid" so much as "justifiably cautious."

~~~
donatj
How fast is that helicopter moving at top speed? I'm genuinely curious the
amount of energy involved in a collision like that and if it would be enough
to break the windshield. I presume the windshield (possibly incorrectly) on a
helicopter like that is Plexiglass or some other plastic to save on weight.
How do they handle impact? I have to imagine birds as big as geese get hit
regularly. How do they handle that kind of impact?

~~~
mikeash
It's a Eurocopter AS350 which has a cruise speed of about 150MPH and a top
speed around 180MPH.

Bird strikes aren't all that common. Certainly they happen, but it's not an
ongoing massacre up there. For one, birds are equipped with good vision and
hearing, and a strong instinct for self-preservation. When a small aircraft
does hit a large bird, the result is extremely messy and sometimes fatal.

~~~
donatj
This is exactly the information I was looking for. Thank you.

------
refurb
Anyone know how much damage a drone (like ones average people buy) could do to
a helicopter or plane? Bird strikes are a risk, but don't typically take down
a helicopter or plane.

I'm imagining it's a risk, but not like the helicopter is doomed to crash into
the ground.

~~~
mikeash
A Phantom 3 officially weighs 1280g (just under 3lbs) which is pretty heft.
It's dense, too. As the article says, probably the biggest risk is if it goes
through the windscreen and hits the pilot. I wouldn't be surprised if it could
do some unpleasant things to a helicopter rotor as well, but I'm not sure just
how strong those are. Birds are a lot squishier so are probably somewhat more
benign at the same weight.

Bird strikes do cause significant damage with some regularity, even if it's
not too common.

------
manicdee
There is a publicly accessible list of US no-fly-zones which a drone operator
can use to program their drone's geofences: [https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-
fly/#](https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/#)

------
kbutler
The constant issues with drones just make me really sad for the prospects of
flying cars.

~~~
uptown
If that ever comes to pass, they won't be piloted by the passenger.

------
guelo
How about installing WiFi jammers on aircraft? When they're flying high enough
the jammers shouldn't interfere with normal civilian use but they would
immobilize any approaching drones.

~~~
manicdee
Many drones don't use WiFi, and at the speeds that aircraft are usually
travelling you'd need a fairly large radius of effect on your WiFi jammer.

What happens when the drone's emergency behaviour is to either hold position
or simply fall out of the sky?

------
microcolonel
New title: Person alleged to have flown model aircraft above legal limit,
following a complaint that the activity interfered with a manned flight.

New subtitle: Alleged offender may face prosecution for the standard charges
associated with this activity.

This aircraft could only loosely be considered a drone to begin with.

~~~
mikeash
What about a Phantom 3 makes it "only loosely be considered a drone"? Looks
pretty drone-y to me. Fits both the traditional definition of "vehicle with no
people on board" and the emerging modern definition of "electric multirotor
helicopter."

I don't see why your proposed title/subtitle are better. The most interesting
thing here is not the violation of regulations, but the near miss with a
manned aircraft.

~~~
bigiain
If that's your definition of "drone" then have all RC aircraft have magically
become "drones" since the media started using the word? What about kites?
Model rockets? Birthday balloons?Frisbees? Boomerangs?

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but it's clear that right now there's no
community consensus on the technical definition of "drone" anything more
rigorous than the "I don't know what obscenity is, but know it when I see it"
argument.

Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? Does it need to carry a camera? Does it
need to be a multirotor? Is there a size limit? Is my 1.5oz CX10 a "drone"? My
~1kg GPS guided autonomous quadrotor? Where's the line? How about my 450g non-
autonomous FPV one? Or my 320g one that doesn't even have a camera?

Was the heli pilot any more at-risk that if it's been a buzzard or a goose?

(Note: I think the guy was a jerk for being up at 7-800 feet with a chopper
nearby, but nobody died - there's no suggestion that anybody even came close
to dying. Is the situation and it's outcome any worse than it he'd been
somewhat recklessly driving at 90mph on the highway rather than somewhat
recklessly flying at 800 feet over it? If you do 90 in your car and hit
someone, they hold you accountable. If you do 90 in your car and don't hit
anyone else but happen to be observed by the police, they don't penalise you
as though you just killed someone, they write you a ticket. Should this guy be
treated any differently?)

~~~
mikeash
RC aircraft have been "drones" since long before anybody in the media cared
about the word. Probably the most common use of the word before the current
quadcopter craze was in the phrase "target drone," which is typically a large
remote-controlled aircraft that military pilots can shoot at for training. I
think the word implies _some_ kind of guidance, whether automatic or remote-
piloted, so model rockets and such would not qualify. Kites aren't really
aircraft.

Does a "drone" need to be autonomous? I see no use, past or present, that
implies autonomy. Camera? Again, no. Multirotor? Historically no, current
media usage maybe. Size limit? Don't think so.

A large hobby drone is definitely more of a risk than a buzzard or goose.
Birds can dodge. They're not always successful, but the instinct for self-
preservation usually gets them out of the way, at least for slow aircraft like
a typical helicopter. Helicopters make a ton of noise too, which probably
helps a lot.

Going 90MPH on the highway is a pretty major offense in many places. Here in
Virginia that's an automatic reckless driving misdemeanor charge that's likely
to result in jail time. No, they don't punish you the same as they would if
you actually kill somebody, but then there's no indication they'll punish this
guy as if he killed somebody, so I have no idea why you'd mention that.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-
coll...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-collides-
with-helicopter-operator-gets-caught/), which points to this.

------
bprater
Unless it was an industrial-sized drone, I don't see it doing much damage to a
helicopter. Helicopter blades carry an enormous amount of energy in them.

There are stories of Vietnam-era military pilots using the rotor's blades to
cut down small trees to rescue American soldiers in harrowing circumstances.

Regardless, all airborn vehicles should be able to transmit their location to
other aircraft. Rather than forcing drone pilots to get FAA approval, this
technology should be built into all drones. Bad actors will get culled out
quickly and all non-transponding drones could be considered a threat.

~~~
tzs
> Unless it was an industrial-sized drone, I don't see it doing much damage to
> a helicopter. Helicopter blades carry an enormous amount of energy in them.

It was a DJI Phantom 3 Advanced [1]. Those weigh 2.8 pounds [2]. A 3 pound
red-tailed hawk can take down an AH-1W Cobra attack helicopter [3]. I doubt
that a 2.8 pound drone is less dangerous than a 3 pound bird, or that a
military attack helicopter is significantly more delicate than civilian
helicopters.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-
coll...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/drone-nearly-collides-
with-helicopter-operator-gets-caught/)

[2]
[http://store.dji.com/product/phantom-3-advanced](http://store.dji.com/product/phantom-3-advanced)

[3] [http://www.10news.com/news/report-bird-strike-caused-
deadly-...](http://www.10news.com/news/report-bird-strike-caused-deadly-
helicopter-crash)

~~~
bigiain
And a flock of geese can take down an airliner - but we don't react by jailing
hawk or goose owners, we acknowledge the risk and mitigate it where possible
and accept the risk where it's not.

Perhaps you've hit upon a decent yardstick by which to evaluate the dangers of
consumer "drones", if it's lighter than an ISO-standard hawk or goose, it's
something which the aviation people need to be dealing with anyway. If the
heli pilot was flying above a highway in a manner where an unfortunately
located bird might have caused him to crash - potentially onto a roadway full
of bystanders cars - perhaps their behaviour was more reckless than the
Phantom pilots...

~~~
mikeash
Animals are harder to control. Asking them to follow the rules and stay away
from aircraft doesn't work. It _does_ work for drone pilots, once you make it
clear what the rules are, and enforce them.

A lot of people are hurt or killed in car crashes with wildlife. Moose are
especially deadly, but deer are a common menace. Should we then take this to
mean that it's OK for anyone to put a large, heavy obstacle in a roadway in
front of an oncoming car, since this is a danger that drivers have to deal
with anyway? Or should we say that animals doing it is not an excuse, and
punish people who endanger the lives of others?

