Video has captured the moment a drone came within just three metres of a helicopter

[BigAl07]

This one is kind of hard to argue (was the video)..

Video has captured the moment a drone came within just three metres of a helicopter carrying five passengers.

I'll be the first to admit they may have over sensationalized the writing for this article

 

[Stevedots]

I'd like to read the story and see the video!

How about a link?

Unless the copter flew into the drone at speed I would think a full sized copters rotor wash would blow a Phantom quadcopter out of the sky before IT could fly into the copter.

P. S.

When we, myself included use the term "drone" instead of quadcopter we are just feeding into the anti-drone media frenzy, we are flying hi-tech quadcopters not true military style drones. I haven't read an anti-quadcopter story but plenty of anti-drone stories. In the future I'm going to try to remember to refer to my Phantom 3A as a quadcopter and not a drone.

The military have drones and the Borg have drones, we do not!.....I hope there are no Borg drones posting here!?

 

[With The Birds]

Yep- agree on the sensationalism here. I will say though, I have flown there and wouldn't do so without a spotter, there are a lot of low flying AC, many as low as 200ft out over the water and close in. That particular heli always has ADS-B active though..... There is no reason why this unfortunate opportunity to generate bad public perception could not have been avoided.

 

[The Springs]

With The Birds they are saying that it was restricted airspace on the news report "toward Coogee Beach "
Are Coogee Beach, South Head etc NFZ they are outside the 5.5km limit for Kingston Smith . Then again here are probably so many zones in Sydney I don't know how you fly there.
Or are they just referring to the height?.Or is the media just making it up as they go along ?

 

[With The Birds]

With The Birds they are saying that it was restricted airspace on the news report "toward Coogee Beach "
Are Coogee Beach, South Head etc NFZ they are outside the 5.5km limit for Kingston Smith . Then again here are probably so many zones in Sydney I don't know how you fly there.
Or are they just referring to the height?.Or is the media just making it up as they go along ?

It's fine to fly there as long as you stay below 90m relative to Kingsford Smith Airport (it's within the extended approach zone) and the usual VLOS and 30m guidlines are adhered to. The operator was way too high and I can't understand how they didn't see the Heli approaching, must have been flying FPV as with the visibility there over the ocean you would have close to a minute to be well clear of the area. Where I live (just a bit north) I have sightseeing AC frequently at 200ft and within 600m of land over the water. You can see them approaching with plenty of warning though.

 

[The Springs]

Typo sorry "Kingsford"

 

[Meta4]

When we, myself included use the term "drone" instead of quadcopter we are just feeding into the anti-drone media frenzy, we are flying hi-tech quadcopters not true military style drones. I haven't read an anti-quadcopter story but plenty of anti-drone stories. In the future I'm going to try to remember to refer to my Phantom 3A as a quadcopter and not a drone!

You're too late to catch that train. It left the station a couple of years ago.
The word drone is firmly in the language now referring to our little toys.
The public have heard so many stories about them that they don't confuse Phantoms with Reapers.

 

[BigAl07]

I'd like to read the story and see the video!

How about a link?

The link is included in the original post (the title of the story there is a link)

Unless the copter flew into the drone at speed I would think a full sized copters rotor wash would blow a Phantom quadcopter out of the sky before IT could fly into the copter.

You'd be very surprised at how quickly the UAS would fly through the prop wash at any appreciable closing speed. I don't recall the source but in one of my groups they ran the numbers and even with only marginal closure speed the UAS only dropped 12" total in the distance from the rotor tips to the windshield. The faster the speeds the less it dropped.

P. S.

When we, myself included use the term "drone" instead of quadcopter we are just feeding into the anti-drone media frenzy, we are flying hi-tech quadcopters not true military style drones. I haven't read an anti-quadcopter story but plenty of anti-drone stories. In the future I'm going to try to remember to refer to my Phantom 3A as a quadcopter and not a drone.

The military have drones and the Borg have drones, we do not!.....I hope there are no Borg drones posting here!?

While I whole heartedly agree with what you're saying but . . . that ship sailed a LONG time again. Once the Media ran the term into the ground and then John Q. Public was "taught" this term to be accurate it was too late. We fought that battle a couple of years ago and lost and there is no putting that horse back into the barn. Use it as you wish but there is no changing the way John Q. Public sees our UAS as drones.

Also keep in mind that merely using the term QuadCopters is a very narrow visioned statement because Drone/UAS encompass single rotors, dual rotors, quad rotors, hex rotors, octo rotors and let's not forget those of us lucky enough to fly planks (fixed wing) UAS. So the correct technical term would be either UAS or UAV.

 

[N017RW]

Why assume the drone is (always) below?

What if by chance it is above rotors and drawn in? I would bet very expensive inspection, repair or replace.

 

[sar104]

You'd be very surprised at how quickly the UAS would fly through the prop wash at any appreciable closing speed. I don't recall the source but in one of my groups they ran the numbers and even with only marginal closure speed the UAS only dropped 12" total in the distance from the rotor tips to the windshield. The faster the speeds the less it dropped.

I agree - we had this discussion briefly on a thread on this forum a couple of months ago, and I posted a very simple analysis of the forces and accelerations involved that yielded similar numbers:

near miss with military helicopter

 

[sar104]

This one is kind of hard to argue (was the video)..

Video has captured the moment a drone came within just three metres of a helicopter carrying five passengers.

I'll be the first to admit they may have over sensationalized the writing for this article

The assertion that a collision would definitely have taken down the helicopter is clearly incorrect, but that is not an incredible outcome. I doubt that the windshield would survive the collision, and so it is not inconceivable that it might incapacitate the pilot. There are other mechanical vulnerabilities too, if the strike were in a bad location. If anyone is inclined to defend this on the basis that the helicopter might not have crashed then we really are in trouble.

 

[mindstorm]

This one is kind of hard to argue (was the video)..

Video has captured the moment a drone came within just three metres of a helicopter carrying five passengers.

I'll be the first to admit they may have over sensationalized the writing for this article

Ok, I have my [emoji165] on but don't see link at all. What am I missing. Sorry.

Edit: I saw the link when pasting the original quote, copied and pasted into browsers and saw video. Click on on the original title does not take you to the video.

 

[N017RW]

Red text

 

[mindstorm]

Red text

There is no red text, no link. At least reading this on iPhone 7p.

 

[RW-1]

The assertion that a collision would definitely have taken down the helicopter is clearly incorrect, but that is not an incredible outcome. I doubt that the windshield would survive the collision, and so it is not inconceivable that it might incapacitate the pilot. There are other mechanical vulnerabilities too, if the strike were in a bad location. If anyone is inclined to defend this on the basis that the helicopter might not have crashed then we really are in trouble.

Well, as a Bell User, how the windscreen may react would depend on where it hit, if it glanced off, etc.
Not falling into this argument, nor the sensationalism of the article either.

I'll leave it as:

Quad flyer continues to fly towards a full scale aircraft knowingly, or, quad flyer flying outside visual range unwittingly flies towards helicopter, which isn't a valid excuse should something have occurred.

 

[schlepprock]

We all need to keep doing our part to educate our fellow hobbyist on the safety side of owning a UAV. SAFETY owns the airspace and believe me the FAA will and have the power to keep the airspace safe. It's getting worse. Now that anyone can walk in Best Buy, buy a UAV and launch it. The airspace HAS to belong to public transportation, law enforcement, life flights, fire fighters. We are enjoying a hobby. But this hobby will be completely grounded if things don't change. I don't want big brother lurking over my shoulder but some people just don't understand the risks involved sharing airspace. There will be more regulations. UAV technology has come a long way very quickly, the rules and regulations WILL catch up.

 

[With The Birds]

Typo sorry "Kingsford"

You will see plenty of them from me. Lets just call it Sydney Airport.

 

[gringorio]

To those of you who continue to argue 'sensationalism' and 'a Phantom drone could never cause enough damage to a helicopter' just stop it. You are wrong. Consider the impact of a small lighter object such as clipboard: Clipboard hitting rotor caused fatal copter crash | HeraldNet.com

 

[Jiggly-Wiggly]

To those of you who continue to argue 'sensationalism' and 'a Phantom drone could never cause enough damage to a helicopter' just stop it. You are wrong. Consider the impact of a small lighter object such as clipboard: Clipboard hitting rotor caused fatal copter crash | HeraldNet.com

Language is important when discussing the threat of consumer drones to aircraft. Yes, even a 2-lb. Phantom "could" take down a helicopter or private plane but what are the statistical odds? That's why we need rigorous independent testing of drone-aircraft impacts before we draw too many false conclusions. Geese are known to take down large commercial airliners --- but it's a very small percentage since most birds end up as bloody feathers as the aircraft keeps chugging along like nothing happened.

 

[gringorio]

Language is important when discussing the threat of consumer drones to aircraft. Yes, even a 2-lb. Phantom "could" take down a helicopter or private plane but what are the statistical odds? That's why we need rigorous independent testing of drone-aircraft impacts before we draw too many false conclusions. Geese are known to take down large commercial airliners --- but it's a very small percentage since most birds end up as bloody feathers as the aircraft keeps chugging along like nothing happened.

You are an idiot. Any chance matters. You're advocating that it's OK to fly for fun even when there's a chance that it could cost lives. It's time that anyone who flies a a recreational drone the size of a Mavic or Phantom stop denying that an impact with a commercial aircraft could cause a crash or fatalities.