
A news helicopter was struck by a suspected drone, causing substantial damage - prostoalex
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/us/helicopter-drone-emergency-landing-trnd/index.html
======
kbos87
As a drone owner I think it’s only a matter of time until enough stupid and
reckless things like this happen before it’s ruined for everyone who is safe
and thoughtful about their drone use. DJI has gotten better as has the FAA in
making it easier to decipher where you can and can’t fly, but the fact of the
matter is that they have a lot more they should be doing. Why not limit
flights in the US to the FAA mandated 400ft ceiling? There are enough high
altitude videos on YouTube to indicate that people still like to test the
limits and don’t think of the possible consequences.

~~~
Filligree
While I'd understand if such a limit was implemented, for me it'd kill the
hobby. Not because I like going high above the terrain -- that's illegal,
after all -- but because I do my photography somewhere very hilly, with grades
averaging 45 degrees in most of the places I fly.

"120 meters above the launch site" would also mean "120 meters away from the
launch site", and then only in two possible directions. The other two have
cliffs.

Before you ask, it's pretty deserted. It's also really pretty.

~~~
7952
You could phrase it as distance from nearest terrain rather than altitude.

~~~
Filligree
That's how it's already phrased in the law, but it isn't a practical rule for
DJI to implement. Maps aren't detailed enough, so they'd have to put ground
radar in the drones, which wouldn't work...

Or they'd just reduce the max altitude above launch site limitation already in
their firmware. An easier-to-implement limitation that stays within the legal
restrictions.

~~~
nwallin
> Maps aren't detailed enough,

Yes they are. All of the US is mapped to 3m horizontal resolution and 1m
vertical resolution, the world to 15m. This is grossly overkill. A 30m
lossless compression dataset will run you about 1GB, which is plenty for this
purpose.

It's free too.

[https://terra.nasa.gov/news/aster-digital-elevation-model-
ve...](https://terra.nasa.gov/news/aster-digital-elevation-model-
version-3-released)

------
FireBeyond
It's intriguing, even as a drone owner myself, how the general attitude seems
to be "what? no way, couldn't have been a drone". When you look at the damage,
it certainly wasn't a bird.

~~~
StavrosK
The general attitude also seems to be "there was something unidentified up
there, it must have been a drone".

~~~
catalogia
What else is small, isn't a bird, and flies? It certainly wasn't a birthday
balloon.

~~~
Piskvorrr
Baby Superman?

------
duelingjello
I've never heard of a drone proper (vertical lift, multiple motor R/C)
operating at 1100', which is well above the legal limit. Without proof,
they're both speculating by not presenting factual news, and scapegoating
drones. That's why the NTSB doesn't jump to conclusions before the facts are
in.

PS: Here's another, better article with the news station involved and video
interview:

[https://abc7.com/federal-agencies-investigating-drone-
collis...](https://abc7.com/federal-agencies-investigating-drone-collision-
involving-air7-hd/5736304/)

------
Jeff_Brown
Do drones really move fast enough to puncture a helicopter? If that's what
happened, should they not have found at least some of the drone inside the
helicopter afterward?

~~~
starpilot
Helicopters regularly cruise at over 120 mph, and the skin is around 1.27 mm
thin. The stuff gets SHREDDED in a crash [1], it's generally not load bearing
and acts as an aerodynamic fairing for the rest of the helo. The tail boom
contains a truss space frame to do the literal heavy lifting. You see those
"NO STEP" marks on commercial jet wings, because a human walking on some spots
can cause damage. It's very plausible that a 5 lb rigid object (which is also
how much a brick weighs), could do significant damage when striking skin at
100+ mph.

Add.: A better photo shows it's the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer
that was damaged:
[https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/5734793_120419-kabc-11pm-...](https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/5734793_120419-kabc-11pm-
air7-damage-vid.jpg?w=800&r=16%3A9) The puncture location on the upper surface
of leading edge corresponds with a nose-down pitch of the helo in forward
flight.

[1] This is something I notice wrong in CGI aircraft crashes, where it breaks
into big solid chunks that bounce. In reality, aircraft crumple, disintegrate,
and smear into tiny pieces on impact, leaving a long trail of small debris.

~~~
mopsi
> _[1] This is something I notice wrong in CGI aircraft crashes, where it
> breaks into big solid chunks that bounce. In reality, aircraft crumple,
> disintegrate, and smear into tiny pieces on impact, leaving a long trail of
> small debris._

I recently came across a very good example of this, barely anything left.
Scroll for photos:
[https://avherald.com/h?article=495997e2](https://avherald.com/h?article=495997e2)

------
stfp
On a semi-related note... News helicopters: why? How are they justified at
this point?

It's crazy to me that we're flying entire people on fragile, noisy, polluting
machines over dense urban areas so the 7 people still watching TV can look
at... traffic?

I think this should go away entirely or be done with (drum roll) drones.

~~~
e40
Cost will very likely move in the direction of drones and not human-powered
helicopters. Or, looking at another way, once Police departments are flying
drones everywhere, and if that footage were accessible to citizens, then news
orgs would for sure stop paying for the current system. That's a big "if",
though. It just as easily might be the drones come, but the footage is locked
up behind legal departments.

