Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions
07-08-2016, 07:43 PM
#351
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Or this ancient 20 year old.......
http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dfn0hv3iqxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Both he and Tyler are members of my club....great pilots, great people. All types of aircraft are able to do some pretty amazing things.
http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dfn0hv3iqxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Both he and Tyler are members of my club....great pilots, great people. All types of aircraft are able to do some pretty amazing things.
07-08-2016, 07:48 PM
#352
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
One more....
An awesome heli pilot, a fellow member as well.
http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c9WwkZTE6ZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c9WwkZTE6ZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
07-08-2016, 09:18 PM
#353
have been that many actual near misses. Again I say if a airport is aware of someone conflicting with their operations they should report such activity to the police but they should not have the right
to tell someone they cant fly their model because they are within 5 miles of each other, now if the modeler has stated they want to fly in a manner or specific location that would cause a conflict they
should advise the modeler of such and if they do start to operate in a manner that could cause a problem then call the police.
07-09-2016, 02:16 AM
#355
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
07-09-2016, 05:17 AM
#356
I would say its obvious that there are people out there flying models where they should not and just a general like of common sense in the way they operate their models, however I don’t think there have been that many actual near misses. Again I say if a airport is aware of someone conflicting with their operations they should report such activity to the police but they should not have the right to tell someone they cant fly their model because they are within 5 miles of each other, now if the modeler has stated they want to fly in a manner or specific location that would cause a conflict they should advise the modeler of such and if they do start to operate in a manner that could cause a problem then call the police.
- Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College
07-09-2016, 05:18 AM
#357
I've never felt the need to brag about the equipment I own, how much I spent on it, or my flying skills (or lack thereof). I'm very thankful for the opportunities I've had and goals I've achieved in life and have never felt bragging about anything I own or have I've accomplished makes me a better person.
07-09-2016, 05:53 AM
#359
Here is an interesting report.
Here is a link to this report and others. Suggest you put the airplane type to UAV, and search for words "drone% or UAV"
https://akama.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSDBOnl...x?server=ASRSO
ACN: 1330573 (4 of 35)
Time / Day
Date : 201602
Local Time Of Day : 0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
State Reference : US
Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 400
Environment
Flight Conditions : VMC
Weather Elements / Visibility.Visibility : 10
Light : Daylight
Ceiling.Single Value : 18000
Aircraft : 1
Reference : X
Aircraft Operator : Personal
Make Model Name : UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Flight Plan : None
Mission : Personal
Flight Phase : Cruise
Airspace.Class G : ZZZ
Aircraft : 2
Reference : Y
Aircraft Operator : Government
Make Model Name : Helicopter
Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
Operating Under FAR Part : Part 137
Flight Phase : Cruise
Route In Use : None
Airspace.Class G : ZZZ
Person
Reference : 1
Location Of Person : Gate / Ramp / Line
Reporter Organization : Personal
Experience.Flight Crew.Total : 200
Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 60
Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 200
ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1330573
Human Factors : Confusion
Human Factors : Situational Awareness
Events
Anomaly.Airspace Violation : All Types
Anomaly.Conflict : NMAC
Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
Detector.Person : Flight Crew
Miss Distance.Horizontal : 20
Were Passengers Involved In Event : N
When Detected : In-flight
Result.Flight Crew : Took Evasive Action
Assessments
Contributing Factors / Situations : Procedure
Contributing Factors / Situations : Chart Or Publication
Primary Problem : Chart Or Publication
Narrative: 1
I was flying an unmanned aircraft which has an autopilot which was programmed to fly a grid pattern nearby within Visual Line of Site (VLOS). I was monitoring the flight when a helicopter appeared in the area. I took action by triggering the autopilot's RTL (Return to Launch location). The aircraft automatically flew back to above where I launched it from and circled once, still at it's cruise altitude. It then began its landing sequence which consists of flying out while maintaining cruise altitude then turning around and starting a 10 degree pitch approach. The landing is automatic. Meanwhile the helicopter tracked my aircraft during this process and followed it to the ground where the helicopter then landed. The helicopter pilots then exited their aircraft and approached me, turns out they were Sheriffs! They claimed I flew over them by 20 feet and that they estimated my altitude to be 550 AGL.
Altitude information between unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft are different. Unmanned aircraft reference the ground where manned aircraft reference a barometric pressure and set to calibrated to MSL. Disparity in altitudes are bound to occur using different reference points. Judging spatial distance between two objects from a d=ground observer's perspective is very difficult and inaccurate at best. Abundance of altitude buffer should be practiced by all. I'm surprised that with the abundance of drones in today's society that the helicopter pilot would be flying anywhere this low for his own safety's sake.
Synopsis
An Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) pilot reported his aircraft and a law enforcement helicopter had a near miss at 550 feet even though his UAS computerized flight plan's altitude restriction was 400 feet. The QNH was 30.40 at the time.
Time / Day
Date : 201602
Local Time Of Day : 0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
State Reference : US
Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 400
Environment
Flight Conditions : VMC
Weather Elements / Visibility.Visibility : 10
Light : Daylight
Ceiling.Single Value : 18000
Aircraft : 1
Reference : X
Aircraft Operator : Personal
Make Model Name : UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Flight Plan : None
Mission : Personal
Flight Phase : Cruise
Airspace.Class G : ZZZ
Aircraft : 2
Reference : Y
Aircraft Operator : Government
Make Model Name : Helicopter
Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
Operating Under FAR Part : Part 137
Flight Phase : Cruise
Route In Use : None
Airspace.Class G : ZZZ
Person
Reference : 1
Location Of Person : Gate / Ramp / Line
Reporter Organization : Personal
Experience.Flight Crew.Total : 200
Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 60
Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 200
ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1330573
Human Factors : Confusion
Human Factors : Situational Awareness
Events
Anomaly.Airspace Violation : All Types
Anomaly.Conflict : NMAC
Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
Detector.Person : Flight Crew
Miss Distance.Horizontal : 20
Were Passengers Involved In Event : N
When Detected : In-flight
Result.Flight Crew : Took Evasive Action
Assessments
Contributing Factors / Situations : Procedure
Contributing Factors / Situations : Chart Or Publication
Primary Problem : Chart Or Publication
Narrative: 1
I was flying an unmanned aircraft which has an autopilot which was programmed to fly a grid pattern nearby within Visual Line of Site (VLOS). I was monitoring the flight when a helicopter appeared in the area. I took action by triggering the autopilot's RTL (Return to Launch location). The aircraft automatically flew back to above where I launched it from and circled once, still at it's cruise altitude. It then began its landing sequence which consists of flying out while maintaining cruise altitude then turning around and starting a 10 degree pitch approach. The landing is automatic. Meanwhile the helicopter tracked my aircraft during this process and followed it to the ground where the helicopter then landed. The helicopter pilots then exited their aircraft and approached me, turns out they were Sheriffs! They claimed I flew over them by 20 feet and that they estimated my altitude to be 550 AGL.
Altitude information between unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft are different. Unmanned aircraft reference the ground where manned aircraft reference a barometric pressure and set to calibrated to MSL. Disparity in altitudes are bound to occur using different reference points. Judging spatial distance between two objects from a d=ground observer's perspective is very difficult and inaccurate at best. Abundance of altitude buffer should be practiced by all. I'm surprised that with the abundance of drones in today's society that the helicopter pilot would be flying anywhere this low for his own safety's sake.
Synopsis
An Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) pilot reported his aircraft and a law enforcement helicopter had a near miss at 550 feet even though his UAS computerized flight plan's altitude restriction was 400 feet. The QNH was 30.40 at the time.
https://akama.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSDBOnl...x?server=ASRSO
07-09-2016, 05:54 AM
#360
LoL bless your heart. More machismo, look at how I fly and how big my airplane is everyone. Shall we start measuring other things while we pound our chests? I may or may not be able to "do it myself", I sure don't feel the need to post videos up of what I can do, or better yet how big my airplane is. It's all sooo impressive!
It was you who questioned capabilities right? You criticized Hydro for not rising to the challenge and you criticized me for meeting the challenge even though initially I ignored it and had stated that it has no bearing on the thread topic. You three ( Porcia, Sport Pilot and Chris P Bacon ) just seem to make it up as you go and seem to use the same reasoning skills as my three teen age sons. At least they eventually use reason and come to the correct conclusion. Personally I think everyone else should leave the thread so you have no body to argue with.
07-09-2016, 06:36 AM
#362
It was you who questioned capabilities right? You criticized Hydro for not rising to the challenge and you criticized me for meeting the challenge even though initially I ignored it and had stated that it has no bearing on the thread topic. You three ( Porcia, Sport Pilot and Chris P Bacon ) just seem to make it up as you go and seem to use the same reasoning skills as my three teen age sons. At least they eventually use reason and come to the correct conclusion. Personally I think everyone else should leave the thread so you have no body to argue with.
- "...only flies small stuff..."
- "...are you a turbine waiver holder?"
- "...what have you done?"
- "...what have you accomplished?"
- "...if you're not a CD..."
- "...have you ever flown IMAC?"
Those are just a few that I've seen leveled.
07-09-2016, 06:41 AM
#365
Other variations when folks are trying to shut down discussion (paraphrased) ..
- "...only flies small stuff..."
- "...are you a turbine waiver holder?"
- "...what have you done?"
- "...what have you accomplished?"
- "...if you're not a CD..."
- "...have you ever flown IMAC?"
Those are just a few that I've seen leveled.
- "...only flies small stuff..."
- "...are you a turbine waiver holder?"
- "...what have you done?"
- "...what have you accomplished?"
- "...if you're not a CD..."
- "...have you ever flown IMAC?"
Those are just a few that I've seen leveled.
07-09-2016, 06:42 AM
#366
07-09-2016, 06:45 AM
#367
07-09-2016, 06:47 AM
#368
It was you who questioned capabilities right? You criticized Hydro for not rising to the challenge and you criticized me for meeting the challenge even though initially I ignored it and had stated that it has no bearing on the thread topic. You three ( Porcia, Sport Pilot and Chris P Bacon ) just seem to make it up as you go and seem to use the same reasoning skills as my three teen age sons. At least they eventually use reason and come to the correct conclusion.
Personally I think everyone else should leave the thread so you have no body to argue with.
Lead by example.
Personally I think everyone else should leave the thread so you have no body to argue with.
Lead by example.
07-09-2016, 06:54 AM
#370
- Center for the Study of the Drone, "Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis," Gettinger & MIchael, 11 December 2015, pg 6
07-09-2016, 06:55 AM
#371
07-09-2016, 06:58 AM
#372
Hi speedracerntrixie , I see you have just come to the same conclusion I came to a bit over a month ago , that certain people's participation here has exactly nothing to do with the AMA , FPV , or anything else except non stop arguing , with a few personal insults thrown in for good measure , like the real "gem" I have quoted at the bottom of my post . What they are actually doing , even though they really don't care , is making the AMA look bad to anyone who happens to find this (supposed) "AMA forum" in a search . Pretend you know nothing of anyone's posting history here and read this thread , and then tell me how any of this could possibly be good for the AMA's image ? For all I know , the "three amigos" may be great guys in person , may be fun to spend a day flying with , but here , behind the anonymity of the keyboard that they pound as their bully pulpit , they are nothing short of a disgrace to the AMA that they so loudly proclaim their absolute allegiance to .
07-09-2016, 07:02 AM
#373
I would point out that I generally try to cite my sources and the actual data and then let people evaluate the credibility of those sources for themselves. You seem to discount most of those citations for one or more reasons, and that's your choice. I'm just thankful not everyone does. I think it would add to the discussion if you'd support more of your statements with source references.
07-09-2016, 07:05 AM
#374
Hi speedracerntrixie , I see you have just come to the same conclusion I came to a bit over a month ago , that certain people's participation here has exactly nothing to do with the AMA , FPV , or anything else except non stop arguing , with a few personal insults thrown in for good measure , like the real "gem" I have quoted at the bottom of my post . What they are actually doing , even though they really don't care , is making the AMA look bad to anyone who happens to find this (supposed) "AMA forum" in a search . Pretend you know nothing of anyone's posting history here and read this thread , and then tell me how any of this could possibly be good for the AMA's image ? For all I know , the "three amigos" may be great guys in person , may be fun to spend a day flying with , but here , behind the anonymity of the keyboard that they pound as their bully pulpit , they are nothing short of a disgrace to the AMA that they so loudly proclaim their absolute allegiance to .
07-09-2016, 07:17 AM
#375
"Our dataset consists of Federal Aviation Administration and Department of the Interior reports submitted by pilots and air traffic controllers over the period from December 2013 to September 2015."
- Center for the Study of the Drone, "Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis," Gettinger & MIchael, 11 December 2015, pg 6
- Center for the Study of the Drone, "Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis," Gettinger & MIchael, 11 December 2015, pg 6