If they find the owner he will be financially in deep. Can you imagine what a new helicopter roter costs? And a new door? We're talking 1000s here.
Drone collides with Black Hawk over the UN in New York.
- Thread starter noooris
- Start date
On another forum, an army helicopter mechanic said $200-300,000 per blade.
Meanwhile that kid probably went out and bought another phantom immediately, just to cover up the fact that he’s suddenly phantomless.
All nice to say, but didn't sounds like more damage as a bird hit.
Now let's be back to the Spark.
I don't think that a Spark can make any critical damage to a copter (or a copter really need some upgrade).
That case is probably related to something more heavy than a Spark.
Being one time in the position with a PH3 very close to two military copters flying high speed, too low, just above 30 meters a wood I was flying (their fault), that having a CSC (RC combination) with the Phantom was a real big plan B for emergency situation. With the Spark, that plan B is dead, it is a big idiotic think, especially for pilot with experience with other DJI drone. CSC is really your last option to accept your responsibility of flying drone and that the drone price is nothing in comparison to a manned flying stuff, whatever it is.
I can imagine that DJI disabled it to avoid service cases from basic pilots doing wrong with their sticks (or they miss the point with the .0600 fw update), but this is not a good reason to remove the pilot its last emergency command.
The other point is to define what are the risk related to the drone potential damage. This is usually defined as the kinetic energy. Many countries (at least Switzerland) having interests in potential key parameter to classify drone applications and the kinetic energy sounds like a good key indicators to define the risk related to a drone operation.
I made a thread related to kinetic energy of DJI drones HERE.
Now let's be back to the Spark.
I don't think that a Spark can make any critical damage to a copter (or a copter really need some upgrade).
That case is probably related to something more heavy than a Spark.
Being one time in the position with a PH3 very close to two military copters flying high speed, too low, just above 30 meters a wood I was flying (their fault), that having a CSC (RC combination) with the Phantom was a real big plan B for emergency situation. With the Spark, that plan B is dead, it is a big idiotic think, especially for pilot with experience with other DJI drone. CSC is really your last option to accept your responsibility of flying drone and that the drone price is nothing in comparison to a manned flying stuff, whatever it is.
I can imagine that DJI disabled it to avoid service cases from basic pilots doing wrong with their sticks (or they miss the point with the .0600 fw update), but this is not a good reason to remove the pilot its last emergency command.
The other point is to define what are the risk related to the drone potential damage. This is usually defined as the kinetic energy. Many countries (at least Switzerland) having interests in potential key parameter to classify drone applications and the kinetic energy sounds like a good key indicators to define the risk related to a drone operation.
I made a thread related to kinetic energy of DJI drones HERE.
A bird strike wont damage rotors. This is much more damage. Everything in a drone is more dense than a bird.
And to suggest that something flying illegally into the path of an aircraft means that the multimillion dollar piece of hardware needs an update is preposterous. Dont fly where you arent allowed to.
The Spark likely wont cause fatal damage, but it could cause serious engine damage if ingested into a turbine. At a minimum an overhaul inspection, up to total loss in the millions of dollars.
Remember that the issues here are not just safety, but the price to pay for the damage. As mentioned, those uh60 rotor blades are $300k each, and each engine is almost $800k. Engine on an airliner is $10million+. Is that worth a cool pic with your $500-1000drone? Not for me...
Can't fly at any parks in nyc,even the ones listed they boot you out.Where he was flying isn't a restricted area unless he was in the gateway area,but there was a tfr so he shouldn't have been flying regardless
ageloreyes27
Well-Known Member
- Join
- Aug 14, 2017
- Messages
- 50
- Age
- 37
And this is what they use for missions? if a quadcopter can take down a black hawk it shouldn't be in service lol
Didn't take it down, but there is a big difference between surviving small arms fire, and a brick to the rotors.
ageloreyes27
Well-Known Member
- Join
- Aug 14, 2017
- Messages
- 50
- Age
- 37
Well, I don't know. We may have a real issue here nobody is responsible for.
E.g., I know of a location in rural Southern Germany where airspace is unrestricted with no limitation and no nearby airports or heliports. Yet, about twice within a year, I've seen fighter jets flying low in tandem and close to speed of sound (they came back the exact same path half an hour later, so must be sort of training corridor - yet not marked in any map I could get hold of ...). The moment you could hear them they had already passed! No way a drone pilot would have any chance to react. I don't care about the drone though - there are manned ultra-light vehicles in the region and I doubt the fighters would have had a chance to avoid a collision with them too.
I do really think we need a technical solution where all aircrafts within the same airspace can see each other electronically, drones und ultra-lights included. It is overdue.
I consider any approach to avoid hazards only by separating airspace a thing of the past. If any drone rules are discussed, it should be forward thinking, not anchored in the past. Just my two cents.
That's why we are limited to max 300 meters Altitude in Germany. Military aircraft have very few limits as to where they can fly.
I hoped I wouldn't have to clarify ...
The fighters were well below 100 m, allowed height for drones in airspace G is 100m, minimal "safe" flight altitude for manned aircraft is 150 m (300 m in cities). (applies to Germany) @BobD, your post contained multiple errors and doesn't alter my point: the height restriction for drones creates a perceived increased safety which isn't for real. As a matter of fact, chances to hit an aircraft at 500 m are a lot smaller than at 100 m, as I have observed.
Better to solve the problem by technology and then allow the same heights as are allowed for balloons now (which is at least up to 3000 m).
Where I am right now, most manned aircraft ignore the minimal "safe" flight altitude (well, they probably don't ignore, but there are millions of flights exempted from this per year).
I really hate discussions (this forum included) along the lines "follow the rules and all will be good". It won't. We need an active and more intelligent discussion, how rules AND technology should evolve. Especially in a drone forum, I believe.
Last edited:
Found this on Quora, written by Navy pilot John Chesire:
Fighters can fly safely and extremely low with proper training and a large amount of incremental practice. The only question is, as one flies ever lower, when does it become less safe, or even unsafe.
I have had a lot of low-level training. In training as a Naval Aviator we flew canned low-level training routes or, ‘sand blowers’ across the western US. These were done at 500 feet/152 meters and as I recall at 360kts/667km/h. (We had a waiver for flying over 250kts below 10,000) However in training for combat, in between combat line periods in Southeast Asia, we practiced more incredibly low and incredibly fast flights over water.
More than anything else, unseen obstacles are the greatest threat to low level flying safety. At 500 feet and being on the planned and authorized canned routes flown by many others, obstacles were not too much of a problem. These planned routes avoided them. However other aircraft were sometimes a problem, mostly light civil aircraft. I also do remember one time I dropped down from 500 feet to perhaps 200 feet over the flat desert, only to have an F-111 fly perpendicular and underneath me at an even lower attitude.
We flew a lot out of the Philippines. There the main problem was the unseen obstacles of logging cables, stretched across a valley from one mountain to another. We had one aircraft have part of his wing sliced off by one of these cables as he flew a low-level through a valley. He landed safely but was in a lot of trouble with his CO. Months later we lost an aircraft hitting a logging cable, but the pilot safely ejected.
I remember practicing low-level flight over the water off the Philippine coast. We flew as fast and as low as we possibly could. We maybe rationalized that it was for training to dodge SAMs over North Vietnam, but I think we did it mostly because it was thrilling. We used to leave wakes in the water, then pull up, look back to see who had the best wake.
There is an aerodynamic effect called ground effect. It is the reason that sometimes an aircraft will tend to “float” down the runway after flaring, instead of touching down sooner. On some of these extreme low-level flights, I would experience ground affect. I would get so low that I could feel resistance and pressure if I gingerly pushed the stick slightly forward and any lower. I knew that was as low as it should ever get! I had hit, the ground effect barrier!
[Ground affect occurs at one half the aircraft’s wingspan. My F-4 had a wingspan of 38ft. Half of that meant I was only 19ft/6m above the water at a very fast speed. It was a cushion. Was it safe? Probably not since one of my friends and squadron pilot actually lost his centerline tank doing this. But his F-4 was otherwise undamaged.]
Years later flying an F-14, I found I could not fly anywhere near this low. And thankfully, I never had to. 500 feet was low enough! And safe!
Fighters can fly safely and extremely low with proper training and a large amount of incremental practice. The only question is, as one flies ever lower, when does it become less safe, or even unsafe.
I have had a lot of low-level training. In training as a Naval Aviator we flew canned low-level training routes or, ‘sand blowers’ across the western US. These were done at 500 feet/152 meters and as I recall at 360kts/667km/h. (We had a waiver for flying over 250kts below 10,000) However in training for combat, in between combat line periods in Southeast Asia, we practiced more incredibly low and incredibly fast flights over water.
More than anything else, unseen obstacles are the greatest threat to low level flying safety. At 500 feet and being on the planned and authorized canned routes flown by many others, obstacles were not too much of a problem. These planned routes avoided them. However other aircraft were sometimes a problem, mostly light civil aircraft. I also do remember one time I dropped down from 500 feet to perhaps 200 feet over the flat desert, only to have an F-111 fly perpendicular and underneath me at an even lower attitude.
We flew a lot out of the Philippines. There the main problem was the unseen obstacles of logging cables, stretched across a valley from one mountain to another. We had one aircraft have part of his wing sliced off by one of these cables as he flew a low-level through a valley. He landed safely but was in a lot of trouble with his CO. Months later we lost an aircraft hitting a logging cable, but the pilot safely ejected.
I remember practicing low-level flight over the water off the Philippine coast. We flew as fast and as low as we possibly could. We maybe rationalized that it was for training to dodge SAMs over North Vietnam, but I think we did it mostly because it was thrilling. We used to leave wakes in the water, then pull up, look back to see who had the best wake.
There is an aerodynamic effect called ground effect. It is the reason that sometimes an aircraft will tend to “float” down the runway after flaring, instead of touching down sooner. On some of these extreme low-level flights, I would experience ground affect. I would get so low that I could feel resistance and pressure if I gingerly pushed the stick slightly forward and any lower. I knew that was as low as it should ever get! I had hit, the ground effect barrier!
[Ground affect occurs at one half the aircraft’s wingspan. My F-4 had a wingspan of 38ft. Half of that meant I was only 19ft/6m above the water at a very fast speed. It was a cushion. Was it safe? Probably not since one of my friends and squadron pilot actually lost his centerline tank doing this. But his F-4 was otherwise undamaged.]
Years later flying an F-14, I found I could not fly anywhere near this low. And thankfully, I never had to. 500 feet was low enough! And safe!
Buddy411
Well-Known Member
- Join
- Jul 2, 2017
- Messages
- 209
- Age
- 54
"Model Aircraft Fields
New York City specifically has a number of Model Aircraft Fields that are legal to fly in. Other than the areas listed below, you are not allowed to fly a drone anywhere else in the city:
- Calvert Vaux
- Marine Park
- Flushing Meadows Corona Park
- Forest Park
- La Tourette Park (Greenbelt)"
Drone Laws In New York
So your telling me you've been stopped from flying in the parks listed above?
lannes
Well-Known Member
- Join
- Jul 28, 2017
- Messages
- 131
- Age
- 59
I have seem this here as well Helicopters fly way too low, but you know it will be the drones fault if anything bad were ever to happen.
In a huge city like NYC, having ONLY 5 parks you can fly in is utterly ridiculous.
Another senseless and apologetic post, by the Editor. I can see just fine at 2000 feet away, with 20/20 vision.
Buddy411
Well-Known Member
- Join
- Jul 2, 2017
- Messages
- 209
- Age
- 54
Your logic is flawed. The larger the city, there SHOULD be less areas to fly. I'll explain the reasoning if you need help understanding.
Similar threads
- Sticky
