Visual line of sight ?

[mdurbanek]

Helicopters freak me out.

Three weeks ago, the manager a non-towered airport told me he does not approve drone flights. Which struck me as odd, since I didn't ask for his approval, I just wanted to notify him of my plans to photograph a business 1 mile away and well off of the take-off/approach axis of the runway in Class G. I thanked him for his time.

Later that day, I am at the project (not flying) having a conversation with staff, 10 feet to the northeast side of a large barn. We were talking very loudly over the noise of a forklift operating nearby. Suddenly, a helicopter roared directly over the barn from the southwest, well under 100 feet AGL. None of heard it coming, probably a wine country sight-seeing tour. The staff all said that it happens all the time.

I also got buzzed pretty aggressively by helicopter a year ago while shooting a golf course. This guy was barely above the tree-tops.

I don't trust those guys. And no matter what they do, an incident will never be judged their fault.

 

[Earthman]

If you can get the aircraft numbers, report the incident to the FAA. The helicopter may be violating minimum safe altitude rules. See the following website:

FAA determines 'congested' areas on case-by-case basis

In enforcement actions, the FAA has successfully declared that a congested area includes a group of people on an airport ramp, sunbathers on a beach, a small subdivision covering less than a quarter mile, and traffic on an Interstate highway.

pilot-protection-services.aopa.org

Also, consider getting the app Flight Radar 24, which displays aircraft info if they are using ADS-B and I think all general aviation aircraft have to be equipped with it by sometime in 2020. See the attached photo and the following for more info:

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)

www.faa.gov

 

[PatR]

As of the latest statistics, roughly 6500 commercially registered manned aircraft have not been retrofitted with ADS-B. There is no data referencing the number of private aircraft that has not been retrofitted. Do not depend on ADS-B as the primary means to assure safe separation. For us it still comes down to human eyes and ears.

I’m totally in agreement with R. Perry. Something has to change to either add separation/see and avoid responsibility onto manned aviation, place minimum altitude “hard decks” upon them, or both. Too many of them, especially in rural areas such as the areas R. Perry and I live in. Somehow a whole lot of manned aviators seem to think that once out of controlled airspace they can do anything they want, without any concern for anyone else.

Until the FAA figures this stuff out and makes some changes the onus for assuring flight separation/safety will remain totally with us. Until then we’ll have to continue dealing with manned aviators flying too low and commercial passenger pilots with better eyesight than a Peregrine Falcon or an owl using Navy SEAL night vision devices, and faster reaction times than a cat claiming everything in the sky is a “near miss”drone

 

[Earthman]

As of the latest statistics, roughly 6500 commercially registered manned aircraft have not been retrofitted with ADS-B. There is no data referencing the number of private aircraft that has not been retrofitted. Do not depend on ADS-B as the primary means to assure safe separation. For us it still comes down to human eyes and ears.

I’m totally in agreement with R. Perry. Something has to change to either add separation/see and avoid responsibility onto manned aviation, place minimum altitude “hard decks” upon them, or both. Too many of them, especially in rural areas such as the areas R. Perry and I live in. Somehow a whole lot of manned aviators seem to think that once out of controlled airspace they can do anything they want, without any concern for anyone else.

Until the FAA figures this stuff out and makes some changes the onus for assuring flight separation/safety will remain totally with us. Until then we’ll have to continue dealing with manned aviators flying too low and commercial passenger pilots with better eyesight than a Peregrine Falcon or an owl using Navy SEAL night vision devices, and faster reaction times than a cat claiming everything in the sky is a “near miss”drone

You are right; however, I was suggesting using the FlightRadar24 app as an additional means of trying to identify the low flying helicopter, assuming they had an an ADS transponder, and this was to facilitate reporting the other pilot to the FAA. I was not suggesting the drone PIC rely on ADS for separation.

 

[PatR]

Perfect in concept but I think we might agree that every time a new technological widget becomes available people transfer the reliance on what they had been using to get something done to the new widget.

 

[BigAl07]

Part 107.31

^^^^^^^^ Excellent (and spot ON) reply.

One thing I'm sure most in here already know but I want to emphasize because it is important...

The use of a VO does not remove the responsibility to See & Avoid from the RPIC. The VO is not "assuming" VLOS from the RPIC (as the regulations are currently written anyway) but merely allowing a mutually located VO to look at the aircraft while the RPIC looks at the display device to help ENHANCE situational awareness.

The VO can't be placed a distance away from the RPIC and allow the aircraft to travel beyond the RPIC's original VLOS. The RPIC must be "ABLE" to put eyes on the aircraft during the entire portion of the flight. The only even slight allowance would be if the aircraft momentarily went behind a tree or structure the RPIC is required to regain VLOS ASAP.

 

[R.Perry]

Until the FAA figures this stuff out and makes some changes the onus for assuring flight separation/safety will remain totally with us. Until then we’ll have to continue dealing with manned aviators flying too low and commercial passenger pilots with better eyesight than a Peregrine Falcon or an owl using Navy SEAL night vision devices, and faster reaction times than a cat claiming everything in the sky is a “near miss”drone

I don't know a great deal about NTSB accident investigations other than following a few of them. But if you are flying at say 250 and a manned aircraft hit a drone, I believe one question that the NTSB would ask was why the manned aircraft was flying so low. We must remember that a low flying aircraft could be doing well over 120 mph or better and your drone can only move out of it's way so fast. We also must consider human reaction time to any event. That was proven in the NTSB investigation of the flight that went down in the Hudson river. Of course waiting on big brother to make sensible changes is another matter.

 

[PatR]

Well...pretty much exactly that happened at a general aviation airport “open house” some years back where an RC airplane demonstration was part of the event schedule.

The airport manager closed the airport to manned aviation to perform the RC portion of the event. He personally escorted the RC pilot into the runway while maintaining airport communications with a hand held radio.

During the RC flying a homebuilt biplane, with two way radio capabilities, returned to the field, and executed a high speed, smoke on, low pass over the runway and collided with a 40% scale RC airplane at an altitude of less than 30’, destroying the RC airplane (value $8,000.00+) and causing significant damage to the biplane’s right lower wing leading edge.

So, closed airport, high speed low pass using an airshow smoke system that caused a mid air collision. The collision occurred at the very left edge of the runway and the right wing on the biplane is what struck the RC plane. The biplane pilot stated he returned to the airport for a precautionary landing. A bald faced lie. But it was a good enough lie for the NTSB to place 100% fault on the RC pilot.

If you know where to look the collision is still on YouTube.

 

[Phaedrus]

You left the best part out. The FAA decided the RC pilot was at fault.

 

[BigAl07]

If you know where to look the collision is still on YouTube.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[PatR]

There used to be a much longer video of the event and the incident that provided a lot more back ground. In the NTSB report it was stated the biplane had departed the airport about 15-20 minutes earlier and the airport was closed to manned traffic afterwards.

The pilot of the biplane claimed he returned to the departed field due to suspected problems with the airplane for a “precautionary” landing and was not aware of the closure.

What part of that low pass, show pass looked like an attempt to land? StarDuster II’s don’t make an approach to land at over 100 knots with smoke on.

The RC pilot got hung out to dry and held responsible for damages after doing absolutely nothing wrong. Something for all of us to remember if we ever have a conflict with a full scale. No matter how it happened they will call it our fault.

 

[BigAl07]

There used to be a much longer video of the event and the incident that provided a lot more back ground. In the NTSB report it was stated the biplane had departed the airport about 15-20 minutes earlier and the airport was closed to manned traffic afterwards.

The pilot of the biplane claimed he returned to the departed field die to suspected problems with the airplane for a “precautionary” landing and was not aware of the closure.

What part of that low pass, show pass looked like an attempt to land? StarDuster II’s don’t make an approach to land at over 100 knots with smoke on.

The RC pilot got hung out to dry and held responsible for damages after doing absolutely nothing wrong. Something for all of us to remember if we ever have a conflict with a full scale. No matter how it happened they will call it our fault.

You're 100% right. No portion of that "stunt" was a precautionary approach and landing. The moment he lined up and "hit the smoke" he was show boating and putting everyone there in danger.

 

[PatR]

But that’s not how the NTSB called it. Because the guy was flying RC at a manned aviation airport it was his fault.

For those that haven’t caught on yet, no matter how, when, or where it happens, our government has already established that any conflict between unmanned and manned aviation will have fault assigned to the unmanned operator. The way the see and avoid, safe separation drone regs have been written makes that pretty explicit.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

But that’s not how the NTSB called it. Because the guy was flying RC at a manned aviation airport it was his fault.

For those that haven’t caught on yet, no matter how, when, or where it happens, our government has already established that any conflict between unmanned and manned aviation will have fault assigned to the unmanned operator. The way the see and avoid, safe separation drone regs have been written makes that pretty explicit.

Sometimes you get a pooch that can't be screwed. But it's always good to know what to expect, regardless of all our mitigation efforts, we will get hung out to dry. Thanks FAA.

PS- my comment in no way implies I won't continue to follow all my precautionary steps.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Sometimes you get a pooch that can't be screwed. But it's always good to know what to expect, regardless of all our mitigation efforts, we will get hung out to dry. Thanks FAA.

PS- my comment in no way implies I won't continue to follow all my precautionary steps.

Sounds just like being married! You are never right again!
PS—I'll still honor my marriage vows.

 

[R.Perry]

What interested me was the movie Sully, (pilot that landed in the Hudson river). The NTSB went out of their way to fault the pilots, when in reality the pilot took the only option he had. They used computer simulations done over and over to prove the pilot could have returned to one of two airports, on pilot practiced the simulation seventeen times, to me it was an embarrassment to the NTSB.
My wife worked in the courts for many years, she learned one major thing, justice isn't justice, it is politics and liars, I mean lawyers and judges that play favorites.
Shortly after getting out of the military I flew into Oakland, CA airport, got jumped on for a low approach, why, I was trained to land on the numbers, not somewhere on 9 thousand feet of runway, so yes my approach was low but safe, the air controller only seen that I was low on the glide-slope and freaked out because I came very low over a freeway.

With the RC verses manned aircraft, the manned pilot has a license, the RC guy probably don't, so it isn't about right or wrong, it is protecting the fraternity, better known as BS. What I would like to know, it what are the requirements for becoming an NTSB investigator.

 

[Bob Stekeur]

DJI drones move pretty slow, if a plane comes out over the treeline low I don't know how much avoidance I'm going to able to do.

 

[Phaedrus]

What interested me was the movie Sully, (pilot that landed in the Hudson river). The NTSB went out of their way to fault the pilots, when in reality the pilot took the only option he had.

The movie overly dramatized that. The NTSB has to ask all the questions, and in reality based on statements and talks by both Sully and his copilot (Jeff Skiles) they never felt that the NTSB was out to get them or scapegoat them. Eastwood basically made that part up to make the movie more dramatic.

 

[PatR]

What I would like to know, it what are the requirements for becoming an NTSB investigator.

Recognizing that no single individual is allowed to publish a finding based on factual, irrefutable data. All findings must be run through a multi level review process to obtain consensus.

 

[BigAl07]

Recognizing that no single individual is allowed to publish a finding based on factual, irrefutable data. All findings must be run through a multi level review process to obtain consensus.

That might be one of the best Internet comments of the week there LOL.