Literally 30 seconds of searching brought up a IFF transponder that would add 100 g (3.53 oz). Why isn't a state owned drone not equipped as such? (XPC-TR Mode C Transponder)
100g is a lot for the type of drones used there, it's comparable to their whole battery pack weight. Also, the power draw of such a transponder is likely to be significant.
Sorry, but unless it’s a toy drone, the battery weighs a lot more than 100g. I own almost 20 drones and I think only the Tello batteries clock in at that range in weight and it’s useless imho to a police department. My Phantom (nearly 500g battery) / Inspire (515g) / Mavic (~250g) batteries are all way heavier than 100g and the batteries I use for my S1000 are over 2,000g. That said, 100g additional payload is significant for everything but my S1000, but I had to correct the statement re: batteries.
As to transponder power usage, it would be very negligible compared to the power draw of the ESC/motors.
Some of the RAF Tornado GR4s have TCAS; there's an ongoing safety concern about them colliding with civilian aircraft or each other, especially after two collided near Lossiemouth with casualties.
First, even if the transponder weighs 100g mounting it securely on the drone will likely add more weight and affect flight. Ditto for reliable receive / reply.
Even if it were equipped with the transponder it is not a given that F-15, as flown, would be (A) interrogating it, (B) show the pilots the replies, (C) show the pilot the replies early enough to make the difference. Pilot flying F-15 at 500AGL is likely training for other things than avoiding small drones. I think at those altitudes and speeds he is given the clearance to exercise (500+kts; not the regular restriction of under 250kts below 10000ft) in a well defined region and assumes that it is clear.
There is no error nor a lesson to be learned because in the estimation of the board this was not a "near miss" and the drone operator was in error in making this assessment.
I don't think that's right -- they got lucky that it was a near miss. The aircraft could well have been lower -- there's overlap in the operating ranges of the aircraft in this area, and of drones.
That’s a unit dedicated to Drones that’s new. Police using drones have been around for almost a decade, at least (I first saw one being used to surveil Stonehenge visitors around 2009)
When the territory they're flying over is run by the same government that owns them (or even a friendly government) this is definitely not the case. The limits are just more permissive than civilian aircraft.
It's Devon, it's not very dense. The UK has some areas used for low level fast jet training where people get Tornadoes over their house every week. It's practically a tourist attraction. E.g. https://machloop.co.uk/
I've seen Hercules transports doing very low level flying in Scotland - saw two fly below me last week when I was at the top of a not very high hill in Fife.
Not if there is a 200 foot distance, and the situation was deemed safe. If actual lives _had_ been at risk, this report would read rather differently. The drone operator had a little panic. That's not a lesson anyone can do anything with.
It's only 4 pages, and explains the situation fairly clearly. Choice quotes:
The Airprox occurred on the northern edge of Dartmoor
some distance from any notable habitation and therefore
in an area where military aircraft can operate to their
minimums. Both the drone operator and the F-15E pilot
were operating within their regulations which, in the
case of the F-15E, was not below 500ft agl.
Nevertheless, it is of note that within the UKLFS RAF
fast-jets can use a minimum of 250ft MSD
although the drone operator perceived that the F15s
were extremely close to his drone, in actuality they
appeared to have had sufficient separation
after discussion about the likely separation between
the two air systems, it was agreed that the
circumstances were probably best described as a
sighting report, with the risk assessed as Category E,
normal safety standards and procedures had pertained.
Nevertheless, the Board agreed that the drone operator
had been right to raise a report with his concerns and
thanked him for doing so because it had provided useful
discussion points about the integration of drones and
military fast-jets.
To be clear, nowhere in the report does it say "near-miss", or that the risk was "high" (these were the words of the drone operator, not the board). A high risk would correspond to a Category A assessment, which is basically the opposite of what happened.
Edit: Also, "no blame nor any lessons to be learned" is a curious characterisation given that the military flight was booked through CADS, the Centralised Aviation Data Service, which is mandatory for low altitude military flights but not currently used by police drone units. There was substantial discussion about the police checking CADS in future or booking their operations through CADS. The military are also considering integrating the existing Drone Assist location sharing system into a future unified CADS replacement.
You’d be surprised. Jets bleed a lot of altitude in a bank unless it’s compensated for.
That said, I find it highly suspect that a jet is banking at 500ft altitude in the first place, unless it’s at an air show. It’s highly dangerous doing maneuvers like that at that altitude.
I grew up near the area - well 50miles west of. North Dartmoor is used extensively by the forces for training and low flying jets are not uncommon. 'Tis a beautiful place to visit too!
This drone is on the heavy side at 6kg, could be ugly if it’s sucked by the engine intake or hits a wingtip (as happened recently to a commercial flight).
It drove home that the aircraft doing low-level flights have very little manuverability option when flying at 400kts (~200 meters per second). Dodging a drone would be infeasible even if you could see where it was. Transponders with LOS limitation might be of limited use given that the terrain is extremely hilly and the aircraft could come round a corner in the valleys or over a ridge.
It's also a major tourist area, just the sort of place that people might want to send up a photography drone...
It's not only limited manuverability, is the time window to see something that small and react at that speed. In an airliner at 180kts is like 5-7 seconds, you see a bird, confirm that is in a collision path and you correct you trajectory.
At 400kts it's maybe 2-3 seconds to do all that.
You need to be looking forward to have time enough, but you need to look elsewhere sometimes(instruments, to the sides, etc..). So it's possible to crash with something you didn't see comming if it's small.
(The RAF doesn't have any F-15s, but routinely hosts visiting aircraft from other NATO air forces. One wonders if differing operational standards played a role in this airprox -- or if politics played a role in the incident being downplayed.)
Who was piloting the airplane, it's a US aircraft? AFAIK the RAF itself doesn't operate F15 aircraft. Could it have been USAF 48th fighter wing out of RAF Lakenheath?
May I grab this no particular occasion and ask English speakers: is this natural to you? A near miss? I mean, a near miss is something I would expect from sports where a shooter nearly misses the target but manages to hit it but barely. How is an avoided collision a near miss...? Close call, close to a collision, but a near miss?
I think this expression would be familiar to most native English speakers, but it is idiomatic.
It's using "near" as a synonym to "close" -- as in "a close shave" (actually close) rather than as a synonym for "close to" as it is in the expression "near death" (almost, but not quite dead).
The second sense is definitely more common.
This post suggests "near miss" became common as a military phrase to mean "missed, but still damaged the target" but changed as it entered the vernacular:
It's definitely a strange phrase in some ways. But I would say that the way the wording makes sense if you consider 'near' to be an adjective to 'miss' and that 'near' in this case means 'close' and not something else like 'approximate'.
47 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 94.8 ms ] threadAs to transponder power usage, it would be very negligible compared to the power draw of the ESC/motors.
Even if it were equipped with the transponder it is not a given that F-15, as flown, would be (A) interrogating it, (B) show the pilots the replies, (C) show the pilot the replies early enough to make the difference. Pilot flying F-15 at 500AGL is likely training for other things than avoiding small drones. I think at those altitudes and speeds he is given the clearance to exercise (500+kts; not the regular restriction of under 250kts below 10000ft) in a well defined region and assumes that it is clear.
If the drone pilot believed a crash was imminent, and the F15 pilot was oblivious, I'd be concerned. It could have been a lot worse.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-40595540
https://www.gov.uk/low-flying-in-your-area
”Low flying isn’t usually allowed in areas around airports, or towns and cities with populations of more than 10,000.”
It's only 4 pages, and explains the situation fairly clearly. Choice quotes:
To be clear, nowhere in the report does it say "near-miss", or that the risk was "high" (these were the words of the drone operator, not the board). A high risk would correspond to a Category A assessment, which is basically the opposite of what happened.Edit: Also, "no blame nor any lessons to be learned" is a curious characterisation given that the military flight was booked through CADS, the Centralised Aviation Data Service, which is mandatory for low altitude military flights but not currently used by police drone units. There was substantial discussion about the police checking CADS in future or booking their operations through CADS. The military are also considering integrating the existing Drone Assist location sharing system into a future unified CADS replacement.
That said, I find it highly suspect that a jet is banking at 500ft altitude in the first place, unless it’s at an air show. It’s highly dangerous doing maneuvers like that at that altitude.
There's at least one incident of an F-15 and a Douglas A-4 colliding, A-4 fireballed on impact and the F-15 flew home and landed.
On one wing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M359poNjvVA
It drove home that the aircraft doing low-level flights have very little manuverability option when flying at 400kts (~200 meters per second). Dodging a drone would be infeasible even if you could see where it was. Transponders with LOS limitation might be of limited use given that the terrain is extremely hilly and the aircraft could come round a corner in the valleys or over a ridge.
It's also a major tourist area, just the sort of place that people might want to send up a photography drone...
You need to be looking forward to have time enough, but you need to look elsewhere sometimes(instruments, to the sides, etc..). So it's possible to crash with something you didn't see comming if it's small.
(The RAF doesn't have any F-15s, but routinely hosts visiting aircraft from other NATO air forces. One wonders if differing operational standards played a role in this airprox -- or if politics played a role in the incident being downplayed.)
It's using "near" as a synonym to "close" -- as in "a close shave" (actually close) rather than as a synonym for "close to" as it is in the expression "near death" (almost, but not quite dead).
The second sense is definitely more common.
This post suggests "near miss" became common as a military phrase to mean "missed, but still damaged the target" but changed as it entered the vernacular:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nea1.htm
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/near_miss