Back to Squawk list
  • 52

NTSB: Los Angeles Newscopter Hit Drone

送信時刻:
 
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]


TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 10
Makes you wonder how many near misses there have been.
richardorgill
Richard Orgill 6
Having lived in the LA area for over 30 years (at least based there) I just knew somehow that a plane/helo would be the first hit in that area. Just a disaster waiting to happen with the LA crowd.

I remember in 82 I had just touched down walked into Ops at MCAS El Toro when the Ops officer informed me a guy had launched his lawn chair strapped to Balloons. FAA was asking for military flights in the area to monitor.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 3
I was aircrew at Tustin MCAS (H) in the mid 80s and it was bad enough having to deal with GA aircraft out of John Wayne International encroaching in Tustin's airspace. Flying low and slow in helos nowadays would be even worse with the worry of something you might not see until it is too late. My head was on a swivel watching for both fast movers and GA aircraft no matter where we went.
jdriskell
James Driskell 3
Seems to me that he hit FL160 in the chair before he started to shoot out the balloons with a pellet gun in order to descend. The guy committed suicide a few years ago, maybe because of an earlier oxygen deficiency.
AlbertSparks
Albert Sparks 4
He used a pellet gun to pop balloons to stabilize his flight, until he accidentally dropped the pellet gun overboard. As he descended, he got entangled in power lines and caused a 20 min power outage. As they say in the south, "bless his heart!"

You can read about the rest of his Three Stooges adventure at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight
f4fntm
john doe 1
Thanks for the link. That's an amazing story. Where does a guy get the nerve to pull a stunt like that? Kinda gives one a little hope for humanity.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 2
I remember that. His name was Larry Walters, he was a truck driver by trade, but history remembers him for the patio chair he "operated" through the airspace near LAX. Although his risky and illegal stunt turned him into a cult hero, it also cost “Lawnchair Larry” $1,500 in FAA fines and earned him plenty of ridicule. Not to mention a nasty "don't do that again" letter from the Dept. of Justice.

As an aside there is NO FL160 in U.S. airspace. Flight levels begin at FL180, the floor of Class A airspace. The lowest usable flight level is determined by the atmospheric pressure in the area of operation as shown in the table in 14 CFR 91.121. We use QNE or pressure altitude going above FL180 and QNH or local pressure adjusted to sea level pressure when operating below FL180.


Best


Capt. J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
jdriskell
James Driskell 0
OK, so I should have written 16,000 feet, or maybe Overscore X Overscore V Overscore I. Maybe 1.92 x 10 to the seventh, inches. In any event the significance of his approximate altitude was described.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 4
Yes, just stating 16,000 feet would have been best. Sorry but I am a stickler when it comes to rules, phraseology, procedures, etc. That has helped me get through 50+ years of safe airplane operations, big and small, all over the world. Plus a seat on an ICAO panel in Montreal.

Best
30west
30west 2
Lawn Chair Guy, remember it well!
stansdds
Michael Stansfield 3
mariofer
mariofer 1
Look at the FAA pilot drone sighting reports. Makes you want to take the bus.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 7
They need to bump up penalties and make them very public.
Hopnotic
C J 3
The age to operate a drone needs to be raised. Too much responsibility in the hands of a minor.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 3
Minors are not the problem, adults with the mentality of a minor are.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 2
Agreed. Unfortunately in this case they haven’t been able to identify whose drone it was, so there is nobody to prosecute.
zulu1953
K R 1
Reality sets in: Stick or carrot can be used to motivate people. Neither alone or in combination are 100% effective - EVER. Engineer around the failures if the failure rate is too high. There is glass/plastic that can deflect lasers - use it for your high risk areas. Wear glasses like the military. If you want the "joe cool" look favored by commercial pilots ask RayBan or Oakly to make some for you.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
Because harsh penalties have worked so well with lasers? To a moron, the greater the penalty the greater the fun. There's no other explanation.
mmadeleyn121rg
Mark Madeley 6
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.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
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.
linbb
linbb 13
Sad that people who are using those quad copters are causing all these problems. Now those of us who have flown model aircraft for years are paying the price for those people actions. We have never cause a problem, flown off of or next to small airports for years in some places agin without any problems. Now those idiots are soon going to kill someone in an aircraft with there actions.
MNJack76
Jack Metcalf 5
Don't judge all us quad copter flyers. Most of us follow all FAA guidelines.
eichmat
Tim Eichman 3
Yup--I properly registered and labeled mine before charging the batteries when my wife got me one for Christmas a few years ago. Mostly use it to inspect my second-floor roof and gutters ;)

Unfortunately, I'm inside Class C airspace and inside the 5nm radius, but at least I can get LAANC authorizations for flights up to 100' AGL: if I lived two blocks closer, I'd be in a 0' grid.

I'm interested to see what happens when UAS Remote Identification goes into effect... though with so many pre-UASID drones will exist by then that can't be retrofitted, it'll take a long time until they're completely eliminated and we don't have to worry about incidents like this one.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
The original proposal put all non-conforming units in the trash after 3 years.

Don't have to worry about incidents like this one? You're dreaming. Between the absurdly complicated and expensive technical requirements, direct sales/shipping from China, a motivated hacking community, and less than enthusiastic law enforcement with bigger problems to worry about... compliance is going to be just slightly above zero.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 4
99.9% follow the rules. 0.01% is ruining it for everyone else. With incidents like this the identification requirements will get pushed thru and kill the drone hobby for many.
zulu1953
K R 0
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.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 4
I wonder how many people in this thread remember this? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/drone-collides-with-us-army-helicopter-puts-1-5-dent-in-rotor/ This was big here on FA.
mmadeleyn121rg
Mark Madeley 2
I remember.
zulu1953
K R 1
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.
Kensterfly
Ken Thompson 2
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.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
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.
zulu1953
K R 1
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.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
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.
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
I’ve had two close calls with drones in the last two years. One in the Class D at 2200’ at KRFD and one at 8000’ 20 nm south of KDBQ.

Both very near and very worrisome. Reported it to ATC each time but the operators were never found.
Geldridge
Gary Eldridge -6
This is total speculation and not proof.
f4fntm
john doe 6
With the amount of investigation that went into it, I don't think "speculation" is the word. "Logical conclusion" is closer the mark.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

clarify
clarify 9
There absolutely is evidence that it was a drone.

From the article: "Laboratory analysis indicated the shape, dimensions, and markings of the damage to the horizontal stabilizer to be consistent with the footprint of a small drone and an infrared examination revealed material transfer of the same type of polycarbonate polymer used in small drone construction."
Kensterfly
Ken Thompson 5
Uhhh. Probably never. What would have had to occur for a plane to hit an object at altitude that was not a bird, and that was the pilots fault?

Birds leave distinct traces.

Keep your cute little toys out of proscribed airspace. Simple, eh?
wacoachy
wacoachy -6
How many times have planes been below 500 and not landing. Not including large planes. Pilots break more rules then drones do. Im saying use evidence not speculation. If it was a drone then hang the owner.
Kensterfly
Ken Thompson 2
It’s perfectly legal to be below 500 feet of not over people or inhabited buildings. Legal, but not very prudent. And nothing I engage in.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 3
I don't think the regulation I cited in my previous response includes the words "...inhabited buildings." I think what it says is:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


Best

Capt J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Lib4ever
Maxwell Johnson 3
And your evidence in support of this remarkable assertion would be?
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 0
Aircraft can operate below 500' above the surface (land or water) provided they comply with the minimum safe altitude rules as defined in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation Section Part 91 (GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES), Section 91.119 (Minimum safe altitudes.)


Best Regards

Capt. J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Your evidence of this is what?

Got any citations?
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 1
https://dronedj.com/2019/05/30/aeromexico-boeing-737-not-hit-drone/
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
That's one.

That is not conclusive evidence drone users are rarely at fault operating where they should not be.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
And that's called moving the goalposts.
mmadeleyn121rg
Mark Madeley 1
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62000-62499/62438/625097.pdf
To follow up on Stefan with the official reply from Boeing on the AeroMexico incident.

Where’s the evidence you cite to support your point that for incidents initially blaming drones, it’s almost always drones that prove to be the cause after investigation?

I’m happy to be informed. I don’t think it’s incorrect or inconclusive for the previous poster to provide just one example of a case that received high visibility with immediate press reporting of a drone strike when that was incorrect. It’s the high visibility cases that produce the knee jerk judgments of the hobby and of other classes.

I think our enemies are not each other but a lousy press and the bad apples who operate in all classes. I’ve seen YouTube posters photoshop fake drone strike videos on aircraft that are based on nothing but their imagination and a desire to stir up an issue.

Let’s stop trying to prove the other class of aviation is wrong and get all classes held to their standards of operation.

Initially I believed that there was too much restriction on hobby UAS as I entered the hobby. But after becoming an aviation enthusiast with a desire to learn more, I can see that the same level of care is needed to operate them as to operate manned aircraft.

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!
当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる