If time allows decend as fast as possible, if in any doubt CSC, wait for the thump, and then go and collect the bits.
What to do with another aircraft in the area
- Thread starter Joe Lipinski
- Start date
Completely untrue for military aircraft, just going about their jollies (I have witnessed this from within the cockpit).
Also untrue legally in the UK because there are European 500' exemptions which explicitly allow it (I can post a link if you are interested).
All I know when I used to fly was that 500 feet was quoted as the minimum in our air rules unless we wanted to run the risk of breaking the law. Never flown military but I doubt they make a habit of flying below 500 feet over populated area.
I agree, but you probably should not be flying a quad over a populated area anyway
. The problem comes where manned aircraft are flying below 500' where there are also unmanned aircraft flying. Plenty of manned aircraft do it where I fly, the Air Ambulances and Police helicopters seem to do as they please, and there are lots of light aircraft which appear to be in between 400 and 500 feet. It is a fact that you need to keep LOS, and be prepared to ditch it if necessary.
No I dont think this is anything to do with alarmists. If you have not thought through what sense and avoid means before you go flying then there will be consequences should a collision happen and you have not been seen to get out of the way. It seems to me that the media have got their teeth into this hobby already, for whatever reason. The least we should be doing is following the rules, regulations and laws to minimise problems.
Last edited:
I've personally thought through it... I won't down it in the middle of a group of children, I won't fly with trains or helicoptors on my left or right... I won't fly over people that aren't "into it".... etc. soccer teams that both want footage... yes. tops of trees next to a partk? Yes. the trick is to fly into the area you want to cover... not up from the area where people see it land and take off. The land and take off part is the issue... just seeing something in the air isn't a big deal.
A couple weeks ago I was flying over a cotton field when a crop duster plane flew over . I was only at about 75 ft. at the time but he scared the heck out of me. I'm glad he was on the other side of the field so I didn't get sprayed . Needless to say that flight ended .
UK Military very often fly well under 400' in my area, especially helicopters (SAS probably) and hercules. I was flying FPV once on a common near where I live and a tornado came through at under 175' and he wasn't hanging about. Due to the shape of the land he would have been about 600' a few seconds before and after at this high point.
Many times I've had a pair or Hercules transport planes flying very low, and descending to 100 feet over the estuary.
I live on a hill and they fly right over very low and terrain follow down to the coast...
They always fly the same route so I avoid it...
I live on a hill and they fly right over very low and terrain follow down to the coast...
They always fly the same route so I avoid it...
Military rotor wing have no minimum in the US. We fly where we want to fly and almost always fly below 400ft AGL to avoid having to worry about all the planes in the air.
Talked about hysteria all you want. But people here have shown that there is obviously a potential for close shared airspace. I have personally had to land shortly after a bird strike. And if you arent mentally capable of understanding the coorilation between mass, impact, and damage then THAT is where you should perhaps invest some effort. There are a several hundred people on this site.. less than 10 in this conversation, and nearly half have evperienced close shared airspace situations. There are probably hundreds of thousands for DJI drones sold. You do the simple math. The potential of a mid air is there. With that... you are a lost cause, and im dont explaining common sense.
I
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Talked about hysteria all you want. But people here have shown that there is obviously a potential for close shared airspace. I have personally had to land shortly after a bird strike. And if you arent mentally capable of understanding the coorilation between mass, impact, and damage then THAT is where you should perhaps invest some effort. There are a several hundred people on this site.. less than 10 in this conversation, and nearly half have evperienced close shared airspace situations. There are probably hundreds of thousands for DJI drones sold. You do the simple math. The potential of a mid air is there. With that... you are a lost cause, and im dont explaining common sense.
I
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
No, the Phantoms WEIGHT is similar to the weight of a large bird, such as a Canadian Goose. The Phantom has a much lower mass, thus less kinetic energy. The bird is mostly fat, muscle and wet stuff. The Phantom is mostly air, plastic and a little liquid in the battery.
Jim was referring to the thousands of small personal drones when he said that "there's never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft", not a Giant Scale Model Aircraft with a six to twelve ft wingspan.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Ok @SteveMann Ill Give you that. I didn't add all the factors. But at the end of the day, semantics aside, you have a similar result. Int the video of the biplane that hit the 86%er.. the impact only involved the wings impacting, as you can see the full fuselage and basically in-tact tail fall to the ground. That wing MIGHT weigh a few pounds and is probably more than 98% balsa, a little birch, some 1/8" plywood, and a carbon fiber tube. . The MASS of the wing is near nothing But it did damage forcing a landing. THAT is the point!
Ive flown MANY flights that we were forced to land because of BUGS. Not for damage, but for lack of visibility.
At the end of the day, and back to the OP, the ONLY option in a potential interaction with a real aircraft is to get DOWN out of the sky, out of its way.
Ive flown MANY flights that we were forced to land because of BUGS. Not for damage, but for lack of visibility.
At the end of the day, and back to the OP, the ONLY option in a potential interaction with a real aircraft is to get DOWN out of the sky, out of its way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8c1716-758c-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/29/pilot-swerves-avoid-collission-drone-near-laguardi/
http://www.businessinsider.com/happens-when-drone-hits-plane-midair-2013-3
Need more examples Steve? I can provide hundreds more
Another better example.. Ignoring the obvious massive damage variable, how many planes? How many UAVs, and how many thousands of square miles are there in the sand box, yet AUVs still get hit.
http://defensetech.org/2011/08/17/midair-collision-between-a-c-130-and-a-uav/
http://defensetech.org/2011/08/17/midair-collision-between-a-c-130-and-a-uav/
How about ONE? Drone sightings are not contact in the context of the conversation.
Show me ONE example of a certified aircraft (not military) that has experienced a collision with a small drone.
Your first "example" refers to the FAA Drone data spreadsheet that was released last November? Have you even read it?
Notice what's completely missing from the entire file- The word "accident". The most frequented words was "UNKN" for "Unknown" followed by "No Evasive Action". Many of the reports are in Class E airspace where the separation requirements for VFR flight are pretty general - "see and avoid". Most amazing is that the pilots can even see a drone as far away as reported. Standing on the ground, looking up at a popular drone model, it becomes a barely perceptible speck at 200 ft yet quite a few of the reports say the sighted A/C was 500 ft away from them. (One even reported "a few hundred yards" - good eagle-eyes on that reporter). Another "3,000 feet below..." - that's a threat, how??
In one report a police helicopter is pursuing a drone - who is threatening whom?
Two of the reports said they received a TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance Service) alert. An Express Jet over New Jersey and a National Guard helicopter both reported a TCAS alert. Umm, yeah. TCAS only reports aircraft with transponders. The lightest transponder available weighs 440g, plus an encoding altimeter and transponder antenna. (And it costs $2500). It is seriously doubtful that the TCAS alerts are small drone sightings.
The FAA database of drone sightings even includes complaints from private citizens complaining, for example "that a neighbor was flying a UAS over his home and neighboring homes at 100 feet the previous evening." Is the threshold for being on a list of drone sightings that low?
The number of ACTUAL drone sightings that may present a threat to other aircraft is remarkably low especially considering how many small personal drones are flying today.
In the 1960's pilots were encouraged to report UFO sightings, and today it's drones. No difference but the name of the sightings. There's usually nothing there.
So your position is that "Because I don't want to believe the data the data is therefor false".
Nuff said. credibility level... ZERO!
Moving on.
Nuff said. credibility level... ZERO!
Moving on.
Similar threads
