A couple of points need to be made:
- The “Big Sky” theory is fallacious because that sky is not evenly distributed. All that empty space over Montana doesn’t do a damn bit of good to a pilot in southern California. Pilots in LA are far more likely to have a UAS close encounter of the worst kind because drone operations tend to track population density.
- In densely populated areas the airspace is more regulated, keeping aircraft at higher altitudes when not in an approach or departure corridor. Poorly-defined, and unenforced UAS operations in the airspace around an airport provide no protection to legal aircraft operations outside of the traffic pattern, and evidently not even inside the pattern.
- We are several years away from any implementation of the NASA LAANC plan for integration of sUAS into ATC. The FAA has consistently underestimated future sUAS ownership*, but currently forecast 1.6 million recreational drones in the air in four years. Add to that a more accurate projection of nearly 1.4 million commercial sUAS, and you have a swarm of 3 million undetectable air-mines floating around in the same airspace that we use to fly to business meetings and pancake breakfasts.
- We are at the same place in history as the advent of the automobile. Initially, they were rare, and their slow, noisy approach made them avoidable by animal-drawn vehicles. But they began to pose a physical threat to passengers in the existing installed base of legacy vehicles. This led directly to the invention of the traffic light at intersections in cities, primarily because horse-less vehicles (or more accurately, their drivers) weren’t smart enough not to run into other vehicles.
- This particular drone-aircraft collision happened in controlled airspace to competent pilots. Had this happened to me in my 172, I’d be looking to sue all parties responsible. Had it happened to me in my helicopter, I’d be dead.
-Chip-
*https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.pdf