Canada stepped up by dispatching two additional CL-415 aircraft to replace and bolster firefighting efforts after Quebec 1 was grounded due to the drone collision. Their willingness to assist during such critical situations exemplifies the highest level of goodwill. O Canada!
The CL 415 was probably flying 90 - 100 kts at the time of impact and the aluminum skin on the leading edge of the wing isn’t very thick. At least it was the wing instead of the windshield. Even a small drone under 5 lbs can be a lethal missile at those speeds. The pilot of a manned aircraft usually can’t see a drone because of it’s small size but also because you are maneuvering the aircraft at low level just above the trees and looking for obstacles as well as your drop site. It would be helpful to have some sort of drone detection device on board a manned aircraft that receives the 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz band signals in close proximity. Even having a smartphone with an app like Drone Scanner would increase the safety of the manned aircraft.
1 reply
Just for context, a hovering DJI mini weighing 249 grams impacting an airplane traveling at 100 knots would have about 3x the kinetic energy on impact as an MLB fastball. Depending on how thick the cockpit windscreen is, things could have ended very different if the plane had been about 25 feet to the left and about 3 feet higher.
1 reply
Ban drone usage for the general public except in designated areas. Punish offenders with huge fines and imprisonment. Ok, Ok, I’m dreaming in print. However, this is a very real problem and someone(s) are going to get badly injured or killed by an idiot with a drone.
I have an FAA issued commercial drone certificate (which is lapsed at the moment) having NEVER flown a drone. What does that even mean?
1 reply
Unfortunately, it seems that sUAS piece of plastic is mostly worthless. Joe Consumer certainly knows nothing about it or the rules that govern the airspace above their head, and I question how many commercial operators even know about the sUAS certificate. I’m almost certain nearly all amateur commercial operators don’t know about it.
As a former rc modeler flying methanol powered helicopters, model drones were starting to appear. At a local unauthorized park where park rangers and police looked the other way, allowing rc models and drones, I attempted to make friendly conversation, warning new drone fliers to keep them at rc heights below 400 feet, the dangers of interfering with KLGA traffic and collisions. The few I spoke to were adamant of drones causing damage to aircraft. Several years passed when the park banned all rc and drones. One of the first drone collisions occurred on the Hudson River in NYC; a group of army helicopters were flying south over the Hudson River near Manhattan when one collided with a drone and continued flight. The drone operator was not in visible range of his drone, arrested and charged with illegal drone flight in controlled airspace.
Maybe it’s time for manned aircraft to be equipped with drone jammers that broadcast into the forward direction of flight. The forward range of the jammer would be dependent on the aircraft’s max speed at low level (e.g. less the 5k’). The intended effect is to clear any drones from the aircraft’s path. For fixed wing aircraft a field of effect of +/-45 deg horizontal and +/5 deg vertical is probably sufficient. Helicopters could have a 360 degree field of effect when operating at low ground speeds.
4 replies
Drones, because these kids don’t have the skills to fly real models, same with car guys.
Just kidding, relax.
Would not solve the problem. If the drone was 300ft above the aircraft, it would drop it into the flight path. So lets make it jam for 3000ft. Then an aircraft would knock down all good and bad drones along its path. I suppose a possible solution would be to include circuitry that jams any drone higher than 400ft from its takeoff point but many hobbyist make their own drones from scratch.
1 reply
If we’re being serious about this, such a concept wouldn’t work as desired. Can you imagine the negative backlash this would cause aviation if now manned aircraft flying overhead could start disrupting people’s wifi connections on the ground?
I think the FAA has already addressed many of the issues here. BVLOS is only allowed by a Part 107 drone pilot certification. Part 107 certification requires detailed knowledge of FAA NAS, including TFRs and restricted airspace. Consumer drone operators are required to register their drones if they weigh over 250 grams. Part 107 drones are limited to 55 lbs. Drone operators operate under the same theory as pilots, it’s their responsibility to fly responsibly. These rules have been formulated over the last few years, so although they’re not new, they’re relatively new. What we’re dealing with is irresponsible people doing irresponsible things. Modern social media pressures (getting the unique video/pic) is outweighing common sense. I’ve been involved in the drone world since 2016 and intensively involved in what’s happening with drones in Ukraine. Unfortunately, drone detection and defense technology isn’t great right now, and believe me, the Ukraine and Israel are heavily focused on this and very good on the RF side. Unfortunately, I raise a lot of issues here, but don’t have great answers unless we want the FAA to increase preventative enforcement. Other than funding early drone companies, I’m also a type-rated pilot and see both worlds intersecting. Joby Aviation, and the entire autonomous transportation area, will cause more accommodation. (I’ve know the founders of Joby and ICON Aviation for 10+ years).
2 replies
I think that’s exactly what is needed. What good are all of the requirements if, as I suspect, a lot of drone owners aren’t following them. Start fining a lot of drone operators for violating the rules and then maybe Joe and Jane Consumer will start to pay attention (and start with the owners who don’t already have a pilot certificate - give some leeway to those with pilot certificates).
2 replies
The surprising thing is probably how little damage was done. A punctured skin and a couple of bent nose spars. The aircraft remained controllable and landed safely.
Not much more than a days work for a couple of good structures guys to put it all back together. Aluminium is a very damage-tolerant material and that’s one tough old bird they built from it.
I’m not belittling the risk. A prop or windscreen strike might have had a very different outcome.
P
1 reply
Currently the fine is $75,000 for a violation but since this was restricted airspace (a TFR was in place) the fund could go up to $250,000 and 1 year in jail (a criminal charge). Of course, suspensions, loss of privileges, and confiscation are part of the punishments.
In not pleasing one side or another and I’m incredibly angry about this, but more enforcement ruins freedoms for everyone. I guess that’s the natural progression of things.
2 replies
As I told my father in law, who was aghast at the damage caused by running over a traffic cone on the freeway, “it’s not the size of what you hit but how fast you hit it!”
“Nose spars?” No such thing. Anyone around airplanes know those are ribs.
No, it isn’t time. What’s the threat? One collision, caused by some moron, making the headlines isn’t reason to develop anti-drone technology and countermeasures in all aircraft. You paying for it? This is called Chicken Little Syndrome
2 replies
What’s the threat??? One collision isn’t significant? Ya right.
Engine intake ingestion?? At low altitude <1000 ft. either TO, landing phase or firefighting. My left engine (JTD15-4 turbofan) ingested a Canadian goose on TO from KSCK. Luckily, it kept on running, cabin smelled of KFC, returned immediately to the airport, VERY expensive overhaul bill. Would not have liked a SE go-around and landing even if it is a normal part of recurrent training. I can’t imagine if it was a metal, 4000 mWH LiB, and plastic. I was lucky that day.
If rules aren’t enforced, what’s the point of having them? And as we all should know here, aviation rules are written in blood, and sooner or later someone is going to be killed by an irresponsible, ignorant drone operator. If the “freedom” to operate drones is unlimited, at the potential expense of others’ lives, that’s not freedom, that’s anarchy.
1 reply
Truly the kind of solution a person who doesn’t know a MHz from a dB would propose.
There is no question that accommodating UAVs in airspace has become an issue that needs to be addressed. IMHO the underlying question should be who is going to pay for same? I would expect the costs should be assigned 100% to the UAV industry and community - with extremely harsh penalties for non compliance. If we need something in genav panels to accommodate that cost too should be passed on to the UAV world, not coming out of our pockets.
This has been studied in the lab. It won’t let me insert a youtube link, but search youtube for “What Happens When a Drone Hits an Airplane Wing? – AIN” and you should find it.
They also compare it with bird strikes, and the drone strikes do more internal damage for the same mass. It will probably become more of a problem with the removal of hard geofencing, especially with less experienced and/or less responsible drone users.
All drones are required to broadcast remote ID as of March 2024. “As of Saturday, the FAA’s Remote ID rule—which mandates that all drones required to be registered with the agency include a “digital license plate” that broadcasts information such as ID number, location, and altitude—is in full effect.”
“As of Saturday, March 16 2024, the FAA’s Remote ID rule—which mandates that all drones required to be registered with the agency include a “digital license plate” that broadcasts information such as ID number, location, and altitude—is in full effect.” FAA Remote ID Rule for Drones Takes Full Effect - FLYING Magazine
1 reply
Doesn’t apply to drones that weigh less than 250 grams and this drone was in that category.
Russ
I’m sure my widow will be comforted by the fact that they were able to “get the license plate” of the invisible drone that smashed through the front of my chopper. Unlike using forensics to match a bullet to a gun to a killer in “Law&Order”, there seems to be no legal ramifications for the drone operator that pulled that trigger. And I dare you to find that “license plate” after it has taken out my tail-rotor, and I auger in a mile away.
Making matters worse (as usual, with regulators) this “digital license plate” is mandated to NOT use ADS/B-out, thus I cannot see the threat looking outside, and my ADS/B-in won’t see it either.
Until every aircraft (and drone) is mandated to be equipped with ADS/B-in+out, the rule is still “see and be seen”, and even at the leisurely speed of my 'copter, those flying air-mines are “un-see-able”.
“Fines or suspensions”, hah.
Hey ‘AJFoyt’ - look at the internal damage to rib and stringers.
A chunk of work accomplished in only a few days.
Work all night, probably, by experienced workers. (I’ve been out in middle of night helping sheet metal workers fix damage to an airplane.)
I expect there are a few UAVs (pka drones) operated by fire fighters to scope site.
Just have to control them properly. RCMPolice did not one day in NE BC, intimate contact between two of their own flying machines but small helo victim landed safety, then was lifted out by a larger helo. (Fault was with drone operator, I forget detail reasons for failure to properly coordinate.)
The penalties should be publicized, especially when an event is underway.
True, but some people like ‘Foyt’ claimed it would be.
Technicians did well - fast work.