すべて
← Back to Squawk list
NTSB: Los Angeles Newscopter Hit Drone
The NTSB has concluded that damage sustained by a Los Angeles news helicopter late last year likely resulted from a drone strike. In findings released last week, the Board concluded that the probable cause of the damage was “an in-flight collision with a hard object of polycarbonate construction, with size and features consistent with that of a small UAS (drone).” (www.ainonline.com) さらに...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Sad to say it was probably the news-copter operating too low. One would think that they had they had modern HD cameras and therefore had no need to close in on their story. Come to think of it - with commercial drones being so good WHY in this day and age are they using heli's at all. Cost to operate a heli for news $$$$$$. Cost of a drone (or fleet of drones) $$. The FAA needs to step in here and ban newscopters in built up areas.
Because a helicopter can be on site in a fraction of the time it would take someone to drive there, get set up and get the drone in the air.
A helicopter can broadcast live from the air. I’ve never seen a drone do that.
And a helicopter can follow the action (car chase, etc) A drone can’t do that.
Drones definitely have their place in the news business but I don’t think they’ll replace helicopters any time soon.
A helicopter can broadcast live from the air. I’ve never seen a drone do that.
And a helicopter can follow the action (car chase, etc) A drone can’t do that.
Drones definitely have their place in the news business but I don’t think they’ll replace helicopters any time soon.
That drone would still be in its container while the helo is over the crash site on the backed up interstate. Then again, even if a drone could follow a police chase, the police helicopter following it could hit the drone as well since they tend to fly lower than news helicopters.
Obviously you are not aware of the latest technology. It does move very quickly from the military to the general public Try the Parrot Anafi USA. And yes - the police are moving much, much more to drones than helicoptors - they have more direct access to military technology than the News agencies.
So a drone with a max speed of ~33 MPH is gonna keep up with a speeder running at 100 MPH? While new tech is reaching the military and LEOs, it may well not be very practical for everything as you think. Even if a police agency could get a Predator type winged drone with long loiter time, it would not be very practical for some purposes such as high speed chases where a helicopter could almost turn on a dime.
When I was driving a block from my home about a year ago, a news helicopter passed over my house at what had to be less than 400 ft and moving damn fast, too. Not much above the trees, which I have to clear to fly my UAS. I could have been operating my small UAS and been involved in an incident because of that pilot. I found it very frustrating that my dedicated airspace was being invaded or given very little margin. I have since flown at 300 ft and no higher.
Then, several months ago, I witnessed a small Airbus private helicopter performing hammerheads between 400 and 800 ft over a heavily populated area and taking passengers on and off the 100 ft top of a building to give these “rides.” Obviously the safety issue there is a loss of control and “death from above” for those in homes, businesses, and stores below. But I was also angered by the lack of respect for my section of airspace, too. And by the way, another 2000 ft up was the approach path to HOU.
I’ve since been studying the FAA rules and guidelines for UAS operations. There is no excuse for ignorance of the law, right? But what is the excuse for deliberate violations of FAA rules by licensed pilots? In this case it was a rich oil guy with more ego and money than sense or consideration of others. I was unable to read his tail number because it was in low contrast numbering (dark grey on dark blue) and near his rotor instead of his tail boom.
I reported to the FAA and got a very good response from them. I was impressed with the sincerity and professionalism of the investigator. Unfortunately, my witness alone was not enough to give them any more authority than to say, “hey, somebody saw your aircraft doing aerobatics at 600 feet over a densely populated area.” They needed camera footage or other witnesses. And Flightaware and similar apps don’t reliably pick up low flyers like these guys. In fact, his aircraft got mixed up in Flightaware with another helicopter flying past in normal operation just a few moments earlier. He was more frustrated than I was.
So, all this to say, there’s plenty of room for improvement all around. And if manned aircraft want to beef against UAS, then they need to give some on their behavior and on being identified, too. I respect that I need to be held accountable for my actions. I have friends who fly equipment 10x the price of mine at far beyond visual range because they can and think it’s cool. Some even do it in controlled airspace. I don’t agree with that. UAS systems are cheap and very capable compared to manned craft, so they will present plenty of problems until flown responsibly. I just want same or higher standards for other classes, too.
You old school hobby RC guys and gals have my sympathy, too. You’re getting the squeeze.
Then, several months ago, I witnessed a small Airbus private helicopter performing hammerheads between 400 and 800 ft over a heavily populated area and taking passengers on and off the 100 ft top of a building to give these “rides.” Obviously the safety issue there is a loss of control and “death from above” for those in homes, businesses, and stores below. But I was also angered by the lack of respect for my section of airspace, too. And by the way, another 2000 ft up was the approach path to HOU.
I’ve since been studying the FAA rules and guidelines for UAS operations. There is no excuse for ignorance of the law, right? But what is the excuse for deliberate violations of FAA rules by licensed pilots? In this case it was a rich oil guy with more ego and money than sense or consideration of others. I was unable to read his tail number because it was in low contrast numbering (dark grey on dark blue) and near his rotor instead of his tail boom.
I reported to the FAA and got a very good response from them. I was impressed with the sincerity and professionalism of the investigator. Unfortunately, my witness alone was not enough to give them any more authority than to say, “hey, somebody saw your aircraft doing aerobatics at 600 feet over a densely populated area.” They needed camera footage or other witnesses. And Flightaware and similar apps don’t reliably pick up low flyers like these guys. In fact, his aircraft got mixed up in Flightaware with another helicopter flying past in normal operation just a few moments earlier. He was more frustrated than I was.
So, all this to say, there’s plenty of room for improvement all around. And if manned aircraft want to beef against UAS, then they need to give some on their behavior and on being identified, too. I respect that I need to be held accountable for my actions. I have friends who fly equipment 10x the price of mine at far beyond visual range because they can and think it’s cool. Some even do it in controlled airspace. I don’t agree with that. UAS systems are cheap and very capable compared to manned craft, so they will present plenty of problems until flown responsibly. I just want same or higher standards for other classes, too.
You old school hobby RC guys and gals have my sympathy, too. You’re getting the squeeze.
I agree, licensed pilots need to follow the rules as well. That you reported them is the right thing to do. Next time, if you see such, ensure you get video to back up the complaint.