Drone Near Miss (FP)

"The Dummy Gummy" (dummygummy)
08/20/2018 at 17:48 • Filed to: drones, close call, uav

I’m excited about the upcoming drones and the cheap but quality pictures we can get from them in the future. Easy accessibility has me worried, there are inevita bly going to be noncomplying idiots, such as the one featured in the drone story on the front page. R ules are i n place to make sure people don’t get hurt or worse killed. The first major rule is that you can’t fly within 5 miles of an airport. T his operator complies with that (11 miles from Ft Lauderdale International Airport). The second major drone rule is that you can’t fly higher than !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! which this person seems to be violating.

In the video you can see the drone is higher than the building seen at the six second mark. This building is the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . It’s 36 stories high; which is likely over 500ft. Even with buffer for hei ght marg in of error in there, this guy is clearly over the limit and could have caused a catastrophe .

I f we are going to use these new tools/toys we have a responsibility to fly them safely . Helicopters aren’t silent. I understand reaction time can be slow when watching the screen (as well as screen delay) , but you can hear a helicopter from miles away. Lets all be safe, be aware of our surrounding and we can prevent our fun being taken away from us because we couldn’t act responsibility .

Thankfully no one was hurt in this close call.

DISCUSSION (5)

facw > The Dummy Gummy
08/20/2018 at 18:43

I think it would be fine to have a much more restrictive ceiling on recreational drones (commercial drones are a different story, especially since I think the switch to unmanned planes is coming way sooner than most people expect).

In any event, I’d imagine it won’t be hard for the FAA to figure out how high it was. Really though the drones should be GPS fenced to not be able to operate in restricted airspace.

WRXforScience > The Dummy Gummy
08/20/2018 at 19:21

Looks like floors for similar buildings are about 12ft, so if the drone is close to the building height it is close to or just above the 400ft ceiling (drones can fly higher if they are within 400ft of a structure, they can then fly up to 400ft above the structure as long as they’re within 400ft of the structure) . Helicopters are supposed to fly above 500ft (except over open water, which doesn’t apply since there’s a beach below). The helicopter is also required to be at least 500ft from any structures . The drone appears to line up with the roof (the decorative arches) of the building.

I think the d rone was a little high and the chopper was a little low. The two restrictions are meant to keep manned and unmanned aircraft from getting too close, but when the helicopters want to get as low as possible and the drones want to get as high as possible, we’re going to have these types of incidents. The manned craft has right of way and the drone has to yield; however, with how fast the helicopter is flying I’m not sure that the drone pilot could make any meaningful evasive maneuvers .

The helicopter clears the drone in about 4-6 frames which would clock the helicopter at over 100mph (we’d have to subtract the drone’s speed but I’m comfortable at putting the helicopter at 80+mph as a conservative estimate).

I’d like to see the floor for helicopters raised, the only good reason to fly low is to get a better view which I think the helicopters should cede to drones.

The Dummy Gummy > WRXforScience
08/20/2018 at 19:33

I wasn’t aware of the structure limitations. Floors are 13 with a 30 foot lobby or something like that. I was there once... it’s kind of absurd ha.

I am with you on how fast the helicopter is traveling, but that is limiting to sight only . Helicopters are loud and with water they are even louder. He should have been aware of what was around and he would have saw the helicopter before it was in range of his drone.

You are right about the 500ft rule, but the ocean would count. The problem here is that the other requirement with the over water rule is that it has to be sparsely populated. Hollywood doesn’t qualify for that. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/atl/local_more/media/nlowfly.pdf

I agree though helicopters in the wrong as well but they are way more limited on who can use them. Drones can pretty much be used by everyone which is why we need to be responsible; otherwise we will be limited to more restrictive rules making them less fun.

TheRealBicycleBuck > The Dummy Gummy
08/21/2018 at 00:41

I just spent several hours on FAR being taught by a fellow who used to work for the FAA. He EMPHASIZED repeatedly the importance of little words like must, shall, and or. The key word in the rule you quoted is “or”.

An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

The rule says over open water OR over sparsely populated areas, you have to maintain a minimum distance from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Either way, 91.119(c), the rule you quoted, applies to aircraft, not UAS. The FAA could not charge a remote pilot for breaking that rule.

The pilot could be charged for breaking §107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
(a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

The Dummy Gummy > TheRealBicycleBuck
08/21/2018 at 07:36

Sorry if I gave any confusion, I was saying that rule applied to the helicopter pilot. I know I was switching back and forth between drone and helicopter. I should have specified. That said I think both could be charged with two separate violations.

Thankfully if that’s all that happens that’s not the worst. No one meeting their maker is the best outcome in this near miss.