How A Civilian Drone Crashed Into the US Army's Helicopter (arstechnica.com) 141
"In September, Slashdot reported on an in-flight collision between an Army UA60 helicopter and a hobby drone over Staten Island," writes Slashdot reader ElizabethGreene. "The NTSB has released its final report on the incident, blaming the drone pilot." Ars Technica reports:
After waiting 30 minutes, [drone-owner] Tantashov assumed there had been a mechanical malfunction and that his drone had fallen into the water. He returned home. A week later, Tantashov received a call at work. It was an investigator from the National Transportation Safety Board... Would Tantashov be surprised to learn, the investigator asked, that his drone had not crashed into the water?
And that it had instead slammed into the main rotor of a US Army-operated Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter that was patrolling for the UN General Assembly in Manhattan? And that it had put a 1.5-inch dent in said rotor and led to the helicopter diverting back to its New Jersey base...? As the recently completed NTSB report on the incident puts it, "several [drone] components were lodged in the helicopter."
The drone's serial number was still legible on its motor, and investigators were able to track down its owner by contacting the manufacturer, who'd maintained a record of the sale. The drone's owner said he'd been unaware of "temporary flight restrictions" in effect that night, and "said that he relied on 'the app' to tell him if it was OK to fly." But for two months DJI had disabled the feature that checks for temporary flight restrictions (to perform troubleshooting), and the NTSB notes that that feature "is intended for advisory use only," and it's the responsibility of drone pilots to comply with FAA airspace regulations.
The NTSB also faults the drone's owner for letting it fly out of his line of sight.
And that it had instead slammed into the main rotor of a US Army-operated Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter that was patrolling for the UN General Assembly in Manhattan? And that it had put a 1.5-inch dent in said rotor and led to the helicopter diverting back to its New Jersey base...? As the recently completed NTSB report on the incident puts it, "several [drone] components were lodged in the helicopter."
The drone's serial number was still legible on its motor, and investigators were able to track down its owner by contacting the manufacturer, who'd maintained a record of the sale. The drone's owner said he'd been unaware of "temporary flight restrictions" in effect that night, and "said that he relied on 'the app' to tell him if it was OK to fly." But for two months DJI had disabled the feature that checks for temporary flight restrictions (to perform troubleshooting), and the NTSB notes that that feature "is intended for advisory use only," and it's the responsibility of drone pilots to comply with FAA airspace regulations.
The NTSB also faults the drone's owner for letting it fly out of his line of sight.
Expensive hobby (Score:5, Funny)
How much does a rotor blade on a UH-60M run anyway?
Re:Expensive hobby (Score:5, Funny)
292 rpm.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is way too awake for the end of the year, but great answer!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the price for a Black Hawk, but in the late '90s, a rotor blade for a Bell JetRanger cost about AU$30,000.
Obvious Solution (Score:3)
Going to have to start hardening aircraft against drone strikes.
Many are already hardened against bird strikes like Canadian Geese.
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Use a thawed drone.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder how these Black Hawk helicopters fare against flak and shrapnel.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the helicopter did not crash, they can obviously survive light shrapnel.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. It's the dark shrapnel that you have to watch out for.
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Military physicists have yet to prove that dark shrapnel exists - it's currently just theoretical.
Re: (Score:1)
Some trivia: IIRC, it's short for fliegerabwehrkanone, which is German for anti-aircraft-gun. I am not enough of a military buff to know whether AA guns are generally referred to as such by non-Germans these days.
And, continuing the pedantic arc, "Shrapnel" once referred to a specific type of artillery cartridge where the payload (metal fragments used as projectiles) was launched via explosive charge after being delivered over enemy position. The meaning got broadened later to any metal fragments used aga
Re: (Score:2)
I am not enough of a military buff to know whether AA guns are generally referred to as such by non-Germans these days.
In the UK the word flak is in common use, so although it's probably not used to describe AA guns it will be used to describe the shell bursts they cause.
If only pilots wore flak jackets.
Re: (Score:1)
That would make sense. If we followed the same logic we do with bird strikes as we do with geese, we should immediately fine any birds flying over 400 feet and within 5 miles of an airport.
I would like to see President Trump kick all the Canadian Geese out of USAian skies though. They need to stay in Canadia where they belong.
Death to Mexicans and Canadians walking or flying on USAian territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Just build a wall in the sky.
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's the only workable path forward since Americans are too lazy to get their shit together and take an extra 5 fucking minutes
I have a drone. I know plenty of other people that have drones. I have NEVER checked for flight restrictions. The software shows "no-fly" areas, some of which are temporary, and I have always just assumed it was doing the job. Nobody I know checks either.
So maybe a mission critical dependence on a bunch of random civilians to be diligent, when there is overwhelming evidence that they are not, isn't such a bright idea.
1. DJI should not have shut off restriction updates.
2. The Army should not have been flying below the drone ceiling.
3. Trying to solve a problem by changing basic human nature is idiotic. You can't expect millions of people to be "not lazy" when YOUR life depends on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that's the only workable path forward since Americans are too lazy to get their shit together and take an extra 5 fucking minutes
I have a drone. I know plenty of other people that have drones. I have NEVER checked for flight restrictions. The software shows "no-fly" areas, some of which are temporary, and I have always just assumed it was doing the job.
Sounds like the solution is a "default deny" posture (just like your average firewall at home), and unless explicitly validated as approved for the location, you do not get to fly. Fail safe.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
So maybe a mission critical dependence on a bunch of random civilians to be diligent, when there is overwhelming evidence that they are not, isn't such a bright idea.
You mean like pilots (single prop, ultralights), if you don't think there's a bunch of random civilians diligently flying around right now then I have some overwhelming evidence for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:4, Informative)
There's a difference in the operator of a licensed manned airplane and random guy who picked up a toy at Best Buy on a lark.
Both in terms of training and in terms of incremental difficulty of checking TFR compared to the general involved process of preparing for flying and taking off.
Besides, it's bad enough for accidental interference, but if there *is* something that the patrol would catch, then you have an antagonistic adversary and it would not be a good idea for them to be able to knock out air support with an unarmed drone.
Of course, in this case it was more dramatic presumably because they could afford to be. They had an extra vehicle in the patrol, so they could peel off. Replacing the blade is also because they could afford to, in a more urgent situation they could have probably done other options safely.
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the second part, and if as a licensed operator you allowed to unmanned drone to impact a manned aircraft for what ever reason, will be enjoying an extended custodial stay for criminal negligence and risking human life. There always has to be a hammer that falls for any impact of law. So really, really much safer to do the right thing else the negative impact will be extreme, many will simply not take the chance and that is fine too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep because training and certification combined with harsh fines have completely eliminated speeding, violation of road rules and car accidents as well.
GP said it right you can't fight human nature, not even with your ban and certification approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, kinda like you can't expect drivers to bother stopping for a red light or checking what the speed limit is?
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, kinda like you can't expect drivers to bother stopping for a red light or checking what the speed limit is?
If it turned out that were temporary, unmarked speed restrictions that drivers could only find at the department of transportation's homepage I imagine there would be quite a few complaints no matter what the letter of the law said. A little googling says there's a free B4UFLY smartphone app that'll tell you of restrictions in place. If the control software isn't updated it wouldn't be unreasonable to "demand" that the user check compliance before taking off. By which I don't mean more than an OK button to push, but then you couldn't claim ignorance of that responsibility. And it would be incentive to fix their updates...
Re: (Score:3)
I have an oversize towing permit (for a boat I own that's over 8.5 ft in width). The restrictions on where I can tow the oversized load changes every week, depending on freeway construction and closures. If I decide to tow my boat on the highway (almost never do, but if), it's my responsibility to check with the CalTrans website (weekly short-term restrictions) [ca.gov] to m
Re: (Score:1)
I have a drone. I know plenty of other people that have drones. I have NEVER checked for flight restrictions.
then you are a core part of the problem and I bet you will bitch and complain when they bring in stricter and stricter regulations even though you have blatantly shown through your own disregard for the rules that they are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to fly in a no fly zone? The software keeps a simple database file on your phone. Edit that file and you're good to go. Check out the DefCon talk on drone hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
2. The Army should not have been flying below the drone ceiling.
One of the major points of a TFR is to allow relatively low altitude flying for helicopters patrolling. The incident was at 500 feet, which is a standard daytime helicopter patrol altitude. A helicopter couldn't provide patrol at 1,400 ft, they would just be too far away.
Either way, the software has to do it for the operator in a drone context. As you say, people will get lazy, particularly if taking off is a spur of the moment thing and after the first 20 times not seeing a TFR, you start overlooking it
Re: (Score:1)
There's a saying that goes, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be alive?" Sure, the responsibility to check NTAMs might be on the drone operator, but do you want to risk your life counting on them doing so? If not, you need a better system.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, any hobby R/C vehicle is an aircraft once it leaves the LOS of the operator, and at that point a pilots license is technically required.
Any vehicle? Even my Tamiya Wild Willy 2000?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you promise it didn't hit a ramp and go airborne?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
The drone pilot was indeed an idiot.
The full report shows that he knew about the maximum permitted altitude of 400ft, yet logs showed he flew as high as 547ft 1.8 miles away. He also knew there were frequently helicopters in the area and still flew it 2.5miles away, well out of sight. This is why we can't have nice things.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenera... [ntsb.gov]
I crashed my Phantom 3 a few years ago and decided it was best to just drop the hobby.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there is altitude and there is height - they are different concepts and occasionally confused by qualified pilots as well. He MIGHT not be a complete idiot.
The collision happened at 300 AMSL in any case. Following the altitude rule would not have helped him.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they reference the log data. If I remember correctly from when I had the DJI P3, it uses AGL relative to where it takes off. The software by default also limits you to 400ft AGL. Seeing as how he knew of the advised maximum altitude (height?) of 400ft agl, had the limiter disabled/increased and flew over 500ft as recorded in the logs, he's still well into the idiot category.
And yeah, the limiter wouldn't have helped in this case as he was under that. Just more adding to the idiot designation.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not illegal to fly over 400'. It is illegal to fly without a spotter, and/or out of sight.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, the 400ft agl thing is advisory only, my mistake.
It's also a default limit in the software that he would have specifically disabled.
Re: (Score:1)
I am a sport pilot - the other issue is that anyone that flies is required by law to get a weather briefing, and in that weather briefing they inform you of any TFRs. The call (or website use) is recorded, so you then have legal evidence that you weren't told about the TFR. If you don't have that, you are in big trouble for violating the TFR.
The drone pilots have to follow the same rules, other than in very specific situations (operating in sight, below 400 ft). So this guy is in a world of hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules for a hobbyist UAV pilot are actually quite different.
There is no requirement that they get a weather briefing. (They ought to know what the weather is like, but there's no requirement to check.)
They are required to follow relevant TFRs.
They are *not* limited to 400 feet AGL -- that limit is advisory, not mandatory.
Here's the rules they do have to follow [cornell.edu], and I guess there's the re-enabled registration requirement, and you'll need to pick some CBO guidelines to operate under -- the AMA safety cod [modelaircraft.org]
Re: (Score:1)
He definitely didn't have the right attitude for this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
SubjectIsSubject (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The drone crashed by being out of the control of its pilot and in the path of a military helicopter.
The helicopter didn't crash.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if the nautical environment has a rule like "You shouldn't fucking be here. And that is NOT a suggestion." The air one certainly does.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'Law of Gross Tonnage' is actually not written into maritime law but it is well known and typically followed (if you plan on staying alive).
The reason that drones don't have the right-of-way is because it is unmanned. Robots are ALWAYS subservient to humans. Been that way since the 1950's,
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter pilots fault (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They could put a radar on these low-flying helicopters. One that goes "beep" when detecting small flying objects on a possible crash course. Hobbyist drones are not stealthy - they all have metal wires & motors in them. They may then avoid the drone without having to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
If it hadn't been in an urban area, I'd say it would be a nice time for target practice.
Frustrating from several angles .... (Score:3)
First? Yeah, I agree that this drone operator was being irresponsible. You shouldn't really be able to accidentally crash into a helicopter or airplane with one, IMO. That only happens when you're flying one way out of line of sight range and probably only when you fly in airspace that's fairly busy.
Second? I feel like right after finally taking the plunge and investing a decent sum of money into a quality drone setup myself, the laws are just starting to appear at a fast and furious pace, to regulate what I can and can't do with this thing. We've got Trump demanding FAA registrations of drones must go on again, as part of some national security bill. We've got DJI pushing the "Aeroscope" tech to all the DC big-wigs, so anyone buying their tool can intercept your RF communications with a drone in flight and grab all your telemetry and registration info. And stories are appearing about law enforcement wanting to use drones to patrol for crime (and by extension, further limit what hobbyists can do with one that might "interfere" with their uses for them).
I'm not liking where all this is headed at all. My drone flights have been for such things as taking a video survey of the condition of my roof on my house. If I'm at risk of colliding with anything, it'll be some tree or utility line I accidentally flew into ... not other aircraft! Yet technically, I'm already flying in violation of the rules if I don't make an effort to report my intent to fly to a small airport in the next city over. (Realistically, I don't think I've ever seen a small plane fly over that would have come from that airport. It's just not a factor here. But the rules don't factor in common sense.... only how miles away from the nearest airport.)
I just wanted a video camera that could film from overhead and a little fun flying a modern version of your typical R/C helicopter or plane. But now, they're blowing this hobby out of proportion. It's like wanting to build and fly model rockets from the old Estes or Centuri kits and everyone eyeing you as a potential terrorist threat for launching missiles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
falling off or through a roof is probably more risky than a careful hobby pilot crashing into anything.... much less hurting someone. Perhaps OP has a two-story home.. increasing the "ladder risk" you propose.
Re:Frustrating from several angles .... (Score:4, Informative)
Model rockets are in fact governed as aircraft in that one must also adhere to TFRs and other permanent airspace rules. The thing is that the typical Estes hobby rocket's incursion is so fleeting that it doesn't really matter, and the people engaged in this hobby are so comparatively few that they're pretty serious about it, along with handling things like tubes of packed black powder, that they generally don't cause trouble due to their innate sense of responsibility. The high-performance rocketeers even coordinate with the FAA to arrange NOTAMs and even TFRs for their activity so that other users of the airspace are notified and may plan accordingly.
But, I have to say this - your attitude, though, does fit 2 of the 5 Aviation Hazardous Attitudes[1]. Remember, these regulations are *not* about YOU.
Regulations cannot be tailor-made to everyone, and while you inspecting your roof with a drone 20 miles from the nearest airport is in reality a so-what deal, the FAA isn't going to spell out every possible exception to every FAR just to suit every drone-flying nerd in every possible situation. There are people (such as the one TFA is about) who completely flaunt the FARs and don't exercise even basic common sense on top of it. They don't understand that all drone pilots are now sharing airspace with actual aircraft, and thus all occupants of the airspace must play by the same rulebook. This matters most in the most congested airspace, and are largely the target audience of these rules.
We already have stories from around the world where dumbasses are flying their drones along major airport approach and departure paths, with near-misses now being a common report. These rules, as draconian to the non-pilot normies as they may seem, are an attempt to get people to act straight and not do this shit because no one wants to find out the hard way what happens when a drone collides with an aircraft that's on climb-out - an aircraft that might be experiencing a flame-out on one engine due to unrelated problems, only to have a drone get sucked into the one remaining operational one. No one thought USAir 1549 would happen - until it actually did. Same goes for a lot of other accidents, be they mechanical, environmental, or human-caused.
You have a drone, that's great. This also makes you a pilot. I highly suggest that you start thinking like one, and then follow that up with acting like one. Given your missive above, the below link would be a great place to start (and yes, these hazardous attitudes and their antidotes are questions indeed posed on the PPL written exam.)
[1] http://aviationknowledge.wikid... [wikidot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations cannot be tailor-made to everyone, and while you inspecting your roof with a drone 20 miles from the nearest airport is in reality a so-what deal...
It's actually 5 miles [faa.gov] from an airport.
More importantly, if he is flying low over his own property (possibly as high as 500 feet AGL), FAA may not have any legal standing to regulate his use of it. At least according to the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org], such airspace is considered private property, not navigable airspace, and the government cannot interfere with "their possession and enjoyment of it or with any use they might conceivably make of it".
Re: (Score:2)
Yet technically, I'm already flying in violation of the rules if I don't make an effort to report my intent to fly to a small airport in the next city over. (Realistically, I don't think I've ever seen a small plane fly over that would have come from that airport. It's just not a factor here. But the rules don't factor in common sense.... only how miles away from the nearest airport.)
That distance is five miles. You're within five miles of the nearest airport? I drive past one any time I go anyplace, pretty much, and yet I'm not within five miles of it. I'm just outside. I can't fly more than a quarter-mile or so towards the airport, but I can fly as far as I can see in any other direction.
You can also just notify the airport via mail that you're going to be flying regularly in your area. You're still responsible for checking for no-fly zones, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.... just barely 5 miles from a small municipal airport. And sure, I could drive a little bit the opposite direction of it and find a place to fly that's outside that 5 mile range. But the point here is, I'd usually want to do videography of things in my own small town. There's not much of anything video-worthy out that other direction, outside of town.
I'd be subject to far more restrictions if i lived closer to any of the nearby cities, because closer to the DC metro area you've got airports and "no fly
Re: (Score:2)
I'm within 5 miles of about 13 airports. See, airport doesn't include just the places with the control towers. It also includes uncontrolled strips, and any place anyone's designated as a place to land a helicopter, which is not only the local hospitals but a few sports fields. The FAA claims I'm required to notify eac
denial of service attack (Score:1)
so all it takes to bring down a military helicopter is a dozen or two dozen shitty drones ?
well, that's gotta have the military none too happy
The software vendor holds some culpability too (Score:2)
DJI’s “GEO” system did offer some guidance on TFRs, but it was problematic; according to the NTSB, DJI responded by disabling the TFR features in GEO some time in August 2017, not restoring it until October. Thus, “relying on the app” was of limited use in September, when Tantashov made his flight. In any event, DJI stresses that GEO is only an “advisory” system and that drone pilots are responsible for knowing what restrictions exist in their areas.
Classic idiot software problem: There is a function called IsItSafe() and when the system does not know, it returned TRUE instead of FALSE. *facepalm* If it did not know for certain that there were no flight restrictions in place, it should have assumed that it was not safe! Better yet, it should display the message "Service temporarily disabled, check https://notams.aim.faa.gov/not... [faa.gov] for up-to-date flight restrictions."
Re: (Score:2)
You got that right.
And it's not like billions of dollars of sleek aerospace t
Re: (Score:1)
The app should never be relied upon as a failsafe. Drone operators need to know the rules and check before flying.
That's the problem with DJI's bullshit app. It does everything for you, except when it doesn't. The app is supposed to check that stuff for you. Therefore, just launching the app is supposed to be checking that stuff. DJI either needs to make it work, or stick it up their arse sideways. They're not taking this even remotely serious enough. They want to be in between the user and the right to fly, keep them out of this and that zone, but then they don't want to actually be responsible about it? This is just
Re: (Score:1)
No argument there.
I say we ... (Score:2)
... draft the drones. No more civilian ones.
Couple of observations (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly you can't ban drones. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't shove it back. While DJI is the largest manufacturer of "ready to fly" drones you can build a drone very cheaply from readily available components. And unless you want to ban Arduinos or raspberry pis there isn't a way to control for the flight controllers, let alone trying to ban brushless motors.
Secondly there is no question that the drone operator was at fault. The reasoning is he flew beyond visual range in an area that has a high amount of manned air traffic. While he was under 400ft at the time of the incident there is still too much air traffic to be flying beyond visual range.
On the flip side though notams are difficult to read if your aren't familiar with the terminology. And accessing the information isn't simple and easy. Drones are not going away. What's more, at some point DJI will lose its dominant position and drones will be controlled by iNav, betaflight, cleanflight, ardupilot or what ever. All of which run on a generic STM chip. Regulation via manufacturer will not be possible either.
Sure, it would be great if people used their brains more. But it aint happening. So steps need to be taken to mitigate risk. CASA, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has released an app which contains real time air safety information which drone users can use to check if their location is ok to fly their drone. This should become the standard approach world wide.
No, it wasn't a drone vs helicopter incident (Score:2)
If you check the actual FAA report, you will see that both craft are defined as "Helicopter" in that report.
Therefore, this was a collision between like-craft.
And it's also interesting to note that registration did nothing to either prevent the incident nor to track down the operator of the "unmanned" helicopter involved.
So can someone explain why US drone owners have to register again?
All drones should be required to have transponders (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Spotted the FAA lackey. If I have to put a $1500 transponder and a $600 GPS (all FAA approved, remember), each weighing a few ounces, plus the electrical system to support them, in an model aircraft which costs under $1000 and weighs about a pound, I might as well give it up. Especially since I have several such models. Obviously that's what the FAA wants; they don't want anything in the airspace (including an inch off the ground) not flown by a Real Pilot with thousands of hours of instruction and medic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The word you are looking for is "prohibitive". Look, if you want to argue for banning model aircraft, argue for banning model aircraft. Pretending a transponder regulation is some reasonable common-sense regulation when it amounts to prohibition is dishonest.
And perhaps the check really is in the mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Responsibility for checking no-fly needs clarity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. Because civilians wouldn't get bombed by Americans if ISIS weren't the murderous assholes that they are.
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. Because civilians wouldn't get bombed by Americans if ISIS weren't the murderous assholes that they are.
ISIS forced you idiots to firebomb a hospital?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Yes they did. And a baby milk factory, and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.