This is an interesting thread as it shows how simple it is to turn an informative thread into a string of unnecessary abuse.
As to the OP.
The full details of the incident can be found here: http://bit.ly/2hJDR7S
The translation to the French incident report is as follows:
“A Beech A100 operated by Sky Jet (C-GJBV / SJ512), flying from Schefferville (CYKL), QC, to Quebec City / Jean Lesage (CYQB) QC, struck a drone on the nose of the aircraft at 7 miles in the final runway 24 to 2400 ft. The extent of the damage is unknown. The aircraft landed safely.”
The salient points are that the collision happened in “Controlled Airspace” at a height of “2,400ft” and the damage to the Beech was “unknown”!
Claude made a very good observation:
I would tend to agree, and in fact there is no need for a Home Inspector to operate a drone higher than around 20ft above the target property, which would give a height (average family home) of around 130ft. Not 2,400ft.
Roy responded equally sensibly,
I would agree with Roy here./ Given the number of drones sold, the number of home inspectors flying them for business would be minimal.
To answer Roy’s question as to why the government can’t treat all those with drones the same way is both easy and hard at the same time.
The easy answer is that not all “drones” are the same. They are not collated into a bracket called “UAS” or Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This is in alignment with Internationally recognized standards.
It includes: rockets, model-aircraft and drones.
It also spans a wide classification in weights. It covers drones from 250g up to (and presumably beyond) the 2,223Kg of a predator. This is not a one-size fits all, and the current regulations are sadly lacking.
The new proposals go a long way to closing the gaps, and gets us closer to what Roy asks. However, they are proposals, and not yet set in stone.
Patrick then made an equally sensible post with his opinion.
The incident report unfortunately doesn’t identify the UAS pilot or what happened to the UA. Speculation about it not being a Home Inspector is probably likely to be the case.
The question is, with no UA as evidence we have the pilots information only to go on.
The approach speed of a Beech A100 is at 7 miles out going to be 131 mph. Even assuming a 30 mph headwind that’s 100mph, or 146 ft/sec.
DJI’s largest drone, the Matrice 600 has an all up weight of 15.5kg and an approximate diameter of 5.5 ft. It can certainly reach a 2,400 ft flight level.
DJI’s smallest, the spark can also reach 2,400, and is a mere 5.5 inches in size weighing in at 300gm.
The CADORS incident report stats that their was “unknown” damage to the Beech. Colliding with a spark at landing speed would equal a collision force of 318.38 foot pounds. Certainly enough to put a visible ding in the Beech.
Colliding with a Matrice would raise the energy to around 16,450 foot pounds. Enough I suspect to bring the Beech down. So we can identify whatever hit the Beech (or whatever the Beech hit) had less force than either of the two, which means the thing it hit was obvious neither stationary, nor flying toward the Beech at the time of impact.
So at what speed would the “thing” have to be flying away from the Beech at, to have little or no impact, and yet be visible long enough for the pilot to know it was a “drone”?
Well it turns out, to not “ding” the skin of a Beech you’d have to hit it with less than 0.5 foot pounds.
This means that the little spark would have to have a closing speed of no more than 4.7 mph, and the mahoosive Matrice would have to have a closing speed of no more than 0.66 mph.
This means that the Spark would have to attain 127 mph which is 86 mph faster than it can fly, and the Matrice would have to attain 129 mph which is 89 mph faster than it can fly.
At both the closing speeds not to cause damage to the Beech, the pilot of the Beech would have seen the “drone” for a good 4-5 minutes before the collision, sufficient time to call a pan-pan and take avoiding action.
I have my doubts that it was a “drone” that hit this plane.
A model rocket however is much faster, and can reach heights well in excess of the collision level. Was it one of these? Well a model rocket, such as the Miranda 38KS can reach speeds of over 200mph, so it is capable of having a closing speed of 0 mph if needed. Also as it would be coming up from below the Beech, it wouldn’t be seen by the pilot until after the collision.
Rockets are purely recreational, lending strength to Pat’s argument that this is more likely to be a recreational hit as a profession one.
Roy then responded with a link to Walmart selling drones, supporting that these are easy to get for recreational users, and not expensive.
Robert chipped in to talk about his experiences of Drone flying and then quoted from Transport Canada. This is where the trouble begins.
Robert failed to recognise that he had only posted the first line of the requirements from Transport-Canada. This is a problem often seen in many professions today. The lack of being able to read the whole document and decipher what it is actually saying. I suspect this could be proved as many will have glazed over on this post by now, even though I’m just getting to the bit that may help people not fall into the same trap (It could save you from a court date in the future for example)
The Transport-Canada website does say
*“If you fly your drone for fun and it weighs more than 250 g and up to 35 kg, you do not need special permission from Transport Canada to fly”
*
but it goes on to say
*"The list below is an overview of the new rules for recreational drone users
- below 90 m above the ground
- at least 30 m away from vehicles, vessels, and the public (if your drone weighs more than 250 g up to 1 kg)
- at least 75 m away from vehicles, vessels, and the public (if your drone weighs more than 1 kg up to 35 kg)
- at least 5.5 km away from aerodromes (any airport, seaplane base, or areas where aircraft take-off and land)
- at least 1.8 km away from heliports or aerodromes used by helicopters only
- outside of controlled or restricted airspace
- at least 9 km away from a natural hazard or disaster area
away from areas where operation could interfere with police or first responders - during the day and not in clouds
- within your sight at all times
- within 500 m of yourself or closer
- only if clearly marked with your name, address, and telephone number
I’ve highlighted some very important points. But basically what Robert stated was factual, if not complete.
Pat responded
Again, factual.
Roy posts more reference material, Erik asks a valid question (Pat answers later)
Then Robert intejects
Before we get onto Pat’s comments, i would like to analyse what Robert posted.
Explain how Pat?
This could have been aimed at two parts of Pat’s post.
- Except you have to operate at a set distance from an airport control area and aerodromes. or
- Moot point since using a drone for home inspections is not in the “Recreational” class and are subject to very much more stringent rules, such as getting the required SFOC.
The easy answer to #1 is "Because that’s what the regulations say.
The answer to the second of Pat’s points is "if you are using a drone for home inspections then by the very definition “using…for home inspections” means it’s NOT recreational.
Then Robert goes on to ask: You think as a business person I would not use my drone for recreational purposes?
This is a valid but baiting question. My answer to this is “so what?”. If you are using your drone for business purposes, you have to abide by the regulations that apply. If you are using your drone for recreational purposes, you still have to abide by the regulations that apply, even if they are different regulations.
Robert goes on to say
“Major cities have airports scattered all around.”
My response is, the regulations take this into account… No flying recreationally or for business purposes with controlled airspace or within prescribed limits for the aerodrome. The sole exemption is for business flyers who have an SFOC to allow them to fly specifically in that area.
Robert also points out that Transport Canada states on their website “No Drone Zone signage is available in various format to interested airports, parks and municipalities who would like to post signage around the perimeter of their property or event.”
This is true, but not everyone takes advantage of that. Take Niagara Parks Commission for example. The Niagara Parks are “No Drone Zones”, they are also within 5.5 km or an aerodrome (actually they are within 3km), they also are on the edge of an international border (also an area where you can’t fly without an SFOC) and there’s no a single NDZ sign to be seen.
Pat actually makes these points out to Robert, although in a more forthright manner, but there is no attack in this post
Pat’s only mistake here is to say Robert was totally wrong. His error wasn’t total, he did post that the NDZ signs are available.
Roy attempts to also keep the thread on track by posting more useful information.
The thread then degenerates into the usual Robert Young vs. well anyone who disagrees with him.
so to try and get this excellent thread (once again thank you Roy) back on track.
Robert, you incorrect perceive things as an attack when they are patently not.
Pat said “What you or others decide to do is up to you and if you choose to try to beat the system, good luck.”
This is not an attack. It’s a statement of fact. What anyone does is up to them. If one tries to beat the system, that is their decision.
I don’t agree that Pat should have finished it off with Good Luck, he should have said " if one chooses to try to beat the system, one shouldn’t be trying to justify it here on a message board that is here to train inspector s how to do things right." Which is a long winded way I guess of saying “Good Luck, you will get caught eventually”.
