Drone hobbyists find flaws in “close call” reports to FAA from other aircraft

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/13/drone-reports-faa-close-call-near-miss-academy-model-aeronautics-/72064388/?AID=10709313&PID=3836173&SID=iekr385peb0004o400dth

by Varcht • 11 years ago

54 49 11 years ago

usatoday.com

paublyrne• 11 years ago

If there is misreporting for political reasons, that is unfortunate. How and where drones can be operated is a real concern and will become only more and more of an issue as they become cheaper, better, and more common.

dirktheman3• 11 years ago

Sigh. I'm a "drone hobbyist" myself, although I mostly refer to the hobby as "RC model flying". Nothing new, because the RC flying hobby has been around for decades.

Part of me applauds the stricter rules. It's just so easy for some knucklehead to buy a quadcopter from China and fly it around the White House or an airport or over someone's backyard. Unfortunately, these people destroy the hobby, giving it a bad name.

On the other hand, the rules we have had for decades (don't fly near airports or restricted zones, don't fly too high, don't fly over crowds, etc.) are perfectly fine and reasonable. We don't need stricter rules and regulations, we need common sense from drone pilots.

Secretly I hope that drones are really a fad, and the interest will fade away. That leaves the hobby for the real enthousiasts.

TazeTSchnitzel• 11 years ago

"Common sense" isn't common. Lay down clear rules and get people to follow them.

masklinn• 11 years ago

Yup. If you expect a nebulous and undefined "common sense" to prevail after your hobby has entered its eternal september what you'll end up getting is a severe crackdown when shit inevitably hits the fan.

"Common sense" is mostly social norms (usually starts out as "hard-earned wisdom" until the culture forgets how it was acquired), when there's a huge continuous influx of new participants the "old culture" can't keep up, neither can its "common sense". Doubly so when a hobby lends itself to nefarious uses and mindless fuckups as much as drones do.

vwcx• 11 years ago

But in a lot of cases, isn't this the same as the people who film themselves climbing tall buildings, bridges, etc? For many people, drones will always have the exhibitionist grandeur attached to them. Sure, they know they aren't allowed to fly near Point A, but the sunset is just so perfect, they can already smell the 4000 upvotes they'll get that night posting on Reddit.

ourmandave• 11 years ago

If it is a fad, now is the time to ride the inevitable tsunami that's coming.

Use your expertise to start a club with exorbitant fees or teach exclusive weekend beginner classes (Bring Your Own Drone).

AKA: Start selling pick axes to the new gold miners.

ascagnel_• 11 years ago

A simple licensing process would work here; a written test that verifies that pilots have read and understand the rules (similar to a written driver's license test) would likely be enough.

fnordfnordfnord7• 11 years ago

I want to know more about this drone that was supposedly pestering an aircraft during firefighting operations. 10,000 ft altitude is quite high; if it was a quad-copter type thing, I've got my doubts that it could make it to that altitude at all, much less maintain that altitude for any length of time. I'm going to assume that anything flying higher than ~15,000 ft is a military drone, and the FAA using these particular sightings to cast aspersions at private individuals is dishonest. Including incidents involving drones operated by the police is also pretty sketchy. Media are parroting this crap uncritically; I hope more of them find some gumption and ask a question or two. I can see where drones are potentially a problem, especially considering that they are only getting better/cheaper; but this sham-press release thing from the FAA appears to be scaremongering and it deserves ridicule.

Links to both the FAA's press release and the AMA's response in this AMA blog post.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/09/14/ama-respo...

lsaferite2• 11 years ago

I don't doubt a quad copter could hit 10k feet, but I do doubt many people would go that high. The only way to control that would be via a remote telemetry and/or video link or via strict autonomous programming. A standard 250 class quad could likely hit that 3km in 1.5-3 minutes under full power. I know from my time build and flying that a flight time for a quad hovered (hah) around 15-20 minutes on average. That leaves 9-12 minutes of loiter time as max. Then you need to factor in the power cost of stabilizing the aircraft at the height. The wind will be shoving it around so the FC will need to be constantly fighting for position hold.

I'd really love to see the math on the probability of a tiny quad intersecting the flight path of a firefighting aircraft at 3km altitude though. They are small and that's a LOT of open space. I can barely spot one against the open sky at a few hundred feet up. If these guys spotted one they must have amazing superhuman vision or amazing luck to have come within a very close distance.

Personally I put most of the sightings into the mass-hysteria camp. I know there are idiots out there flying in controlled space, but I also think things are being blown way out of proportion.

Edit: I found a site that did the speed/climd rate calculations. My numbers are bit off. The DJI, a common platform, could hit 3km in about 5.5 minutes and a 250 racing quad could do it in about 5. With about 20 minutes of battery power that leaves maybe 5-10 minutes of loiter time.

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+: flight speed of 17 m/s (61 km/h) and a maximum climbing rate of 9 m/s

250 FPV Racing Quad: maximum flight speed of 18.5 m/s (67 km/h) and a maximum climbing rate of 10 m/s

source: http://bpmsg.com/flight-speed-of-a-quadcopter/

fnordfnordfnord7• 11 years ago

10,000 ft has to be above or near the "service ceiling" of what a quad copter is even capable of. As altitude increases, air density decreases. The copter will have to work very hard, and will have less control force available. I think you're over-estimating the available power of a quad copter.

I think it's a certainty that one would/should have a video system for operating without line-of-sight. Video systems are common in high-end equipment.

Personally I put most of the sightings into the mass-hysteria camp. I know there are idiots out there flying in controlled space, but I also think things are being blown way out of proportion.

Yeah. Agreed.

>I found a site that did the speed/climd rate calculations. My numbers are bit off. The DJI, a common platform, could hit 3km in about 5.5 minutes and a 250 racing quad could do it in about 5. With about 20 minutes of battery power that leaves maybe 5-10 minutes of loiter time.

10,000 ft seems right at the edge of what the things can even do. They aren't going to be stable or easy to fly/land like a fixed wing aircraft would.

edit: forgot part of my post.

I'd really love to see the math on the probability of a tiny quad intersecting the flight path of a firefighting aircraft at 3km altitude though. They are small and that's a LOT of open space.

"Big Sky" theory doesn't give me as much comfort as it ought to.

I can barely spot one against the open sky at a few hundred feet up. If these guys spotted one they must have amazing superhuman vision or amazing luck to have come within a very close distance.

This. I have a difficult time spotting full-sized aircraft in the air, and I have pretty good vision.

zobzu2• 11 years ago

250mm quads fly 3-7mins and going straight up is not hovering, it takes a lot of power. I fear you dont know what you're talking about.

Basically you can go 3k up then stay a minute and free fall down.

Bigger quads can fly longer - albeit going up always takes most energy and many big quads also need energy to go down / can't free fall without crash

votingprawn6• 11 years ago

There is some confusion in this particular case stemming from the difference between altitude above sea level and above ground level.

The UAV in question was spotted at ~10,000ft above sea level, but it was only about 800-900ft above the local ground level at the time.

fnordfnordfnord7• 11 years ago

There is no confusion. I assumed 10,000 ft above sea level. Starting at 9,000 ft doesn't help much. The air is quite thin at 10,000 ft; many small general aviation aircraft have difficulty reaching that altitude. Here is a YT video showing a few minutes of someone's drone flight allegedly at that altitude. It doesn't appear to me that sustained flight for any reasonable duration is possible with that particular drone, nor do I expect any/many other drones to perform much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnnlAS5Zzfg

foobarbecue• 11 years ago

I fly standard quadcopters above 10,000ft ASL regularly. Soon I will be on a trip where I will be taking off from aronud 20,000ft. Increase prop size or pitch to compensate and you don't lose any thrust, but you do lose some efficiency, esp. if you go for higher pitch. On Erebus (~ 0.65 atm) I had about half my sea level battery life fully loaded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh8kM4o6tk

hydrogen18• 11 years ago

Forget 10,000 ft above sea level. The article quotes one incident as occurring at 51,000 ft. 51,000 ft is a crazy high altitude.

Exactly what does the FAA think hobby kits include now? A complete knock down kit for a RQ-4 Global Hawk?

fnordfnordfnord7• 11 years ago

Agreed. FL 510 is right out. Or else I'm expecting to hear a joke about a drone radioing in to ATC to request a groundspeed check any minute.

edit: corrected post, see reply below.

Vexs2• 11 years ago

I don't even think quadcopters could produce 20% thrust at that height... which is pretty bad as consumer quads have something like a 2:1 thrust/weight ratio, maybe 3:1. High quality racing quads can get 8:1, but those have tiny batteries.

dirktheman3• 11 years ago

This one hits the 12,000ft mark at around 8:30 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKARaE51SPo

Thing is, I seriously doubt many people fly their quadcopters that high. It's not much fun (not more fun than, say, 500ft), you don't have line of sight, and the wind will blow it away so if you don't track where you're going you're likely to lose your craft.

Plus at that range, we're talking some serious long-range equipment. Ready-to-fly consumer drones max out at approx. 1 mile range. If you buy this stuff, you probably understand (you should!) what you're doing.

It's possible alright, but not very likely.

wheaties• 11 years ago

As someone taking off from a runway the other day and having to actually dodge a stupid camera tied to balloons, we don't always report all that stuff. I, for one, welcome the rules. I also understand that not everyone will follow them. Welcome to the world.

fnordfnordfnord7• 11 years ago

That stupid camera tied to balloons wasn't by chance a permitted-in-advance activity was it? We have that at my local airport. A few times per year a prof from a nearby uni sends a balloon up mostly for the benefit of his students. You ought to hear the Saturday morning FBO free-coffee-drinkers club whine about the inconvenience of it. All GA pilots may not always report everything, but there are a few who report everything they see and everything they imagine they saw.

jonnycowboy• 11 years ago

Usually the balloon flyers must post a NOTAM (notice to air men) which pilots request from the local tower prior to takeoff or landing.

dirktheman3• 11 years ago

I also welcome the rules. People flying stuff (balloons, RC aircraft, drones, kites, etc.) near airports should be punished. It's just that I don't think even stricter rules are the answer.

peterwwillis4• 11 years ago

Near miss? It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss!

sound of explosions

"Aw, will you look at that, Dave. They nearly missed."

"Yes. But not quite!"

-- George Carlin

mikeash4• 11 years ago

I greatly enjoy that bit, but it's also totally wrong. "Near" is not the same as "nearly." It's "near" as opposed to "far." It's a miss which is near.

throwaway1967• 11 years ago

That is correct, but the frog died in the process. :)

peterwwillis4• 11 years ago

I don't buy it. What if the miss wasn't near? Would it be a far miss? An average miss? What exactly is the point at which you go from colliding to a near miss, to any other kind of miss? It's redundant language.

rasz_pl• 11 years ago

TLDR: the big “close call” list consist of every mere mention of a word Drone by a pilot, not the actual near misses.

Drone hobbyists find flaws in “close call” reports to FAA from other aircraft

Related Stories