How to insure no helicopter will every be forced to land because of a drone...

[Simon The Impaler]

Your insurance company would be able to help with any INSURANCE requirements, but to ENSURE no helicopter is brought down by a drone, follow the rules/guidelines and be observant. Of course, accidents do happen, but in this case it's mostly down to us to be sensible and vigilant to keep them to a minimum...

 

[rpossum]

As a pilot of many years, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that an attempt at changing the rules for GA aircraft will be futile. The right of way rules trickle down... airplanes give way to Gliders... Gliders give way to Lighter than air (balloons) ... etc etc
UAS are at the bottom of the "give-way" list and probably always will be, for the reason mentioned above... if your UAS crashes, you don't die... everyone else in the sky is in big trouble if they crash.
So GIVE WAY will likely always be the rule for UAS.
My opinion ;-)
Cheers
Russell

 

[The Editor]

As a pilot of many years, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that an attempt at changing the rules for GA aircraft will be futile. The right of way rules trickle down... airplanes give way to Gliders... Gliders give way to Lighter than air (balloons) ... etc etc
UAS are at the bottom of the "give-way" list and probably always will be, for the reason mentioned above... if your UAS crashes, you don't die... everyone else in the sky is in big trouble if they crash.
So GIVE WAY will likely always be the rule for UAS.
My opinion ;-)
Cheers
Russell

Agreed.
UAV have always and should always give way to aircraft carrying souls.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Emergency (Medical/Air Ambulance), Fire, Police Helicopters?

Other than the last 300' or so for the purpose of landing, why would they have to fly under 150' AGL? Hell...for that matter, why would they fly below 400' AGL?

Military? (Both fixed and non fixed wing) using terrain following tech.

I believe you're referring to military training routes, which are clearly marked on the Sectional Charts.

Military training route - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Class H would naturally not supersede military training routes. Quite the opposite would be true.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

As a pilot of many years, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that an attempt at changing the rules for GA aircraft will be futile. The right of way rules trickle down... airplanes give way to Gliders... Gliders give way to Lighter than air (balloons) ... etc etc

I agree. But I think it's worth noting that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't assign a 400' ceiling to drones, but then complain when a helicopter strikes a drone @ 200' AGL @ 150 knots.

UAS are at the bottom of the "give-way" list and probably always will be, for the reason mentioned above...

Sure. Agreed. The point of Class H is NOT to give drones the "right of way." The entire point of Class H is to give drones a fighting chance to get the heck OUT of the way.

if your UAS crashes, you don't die... everyone else in the sky is in big trouble if they crash.

Agreed. Class H is a SAFEGUARD for full scale aviation. Class H airspace is made FOR the PROTECTION of full scale aviation, NOT for drones.

So GIVE WAY will likely always be the rule for UAS.

Absolutely. Class H doesn't change that. It just gives the weary UAV pilot a fighting chance to get the heck out of the way. It's intuitive, and makes a whole lot of sense. In time, it could be made nearly flawless.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

Agreed.
UAV have always and should always give way to aircraft carrying souls.

Class H doesn't change that. It merely gives the UAV pilot a fighting chance to get out of the way. You can't assign drones a 400' ceiling, but then complain when a helicopter collides with a UAV @ 200' AGL traveling 150 knots. By allowing full scale aviation unfettered access to airspace below 400' AGL, you're just setting up an accident waiting to happen. Make sense?

OR...you can outlaw UAV's. I don't see that happening.

D

 

[tleedom]

Agreed. But if you're descending to land from above 400', rotor wash should clear your descent path of all drones, even the heavy lifters. I don't know of a single drone that can push up against a ton of thrust/rotor wash.

Helicopters don't have down wash pushing objects out of the way in forward flight, they run into things just like fixed wing aircraft do.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Helicopters don't have down wash pushing objects out of the way in forward flight, they run into things just like fixed wing aircraft do.

You assume helicopters land like a plane. They don't. Planes have a glide slope. Helicopters do not. They descend vertically. I concede that they ALSO move horizontally during landing, but you're talking about < 10 knots. I don't think any helicopter will smash into a drone at those speeds.

My assertion stands.

D

 

[tleedom]

You assume helicopters land like a plane. They don't. Planes have a glide slope. Helicopters do not. They descend vertically. I concede that they ALSO move horizontally during landing, but you're talking about < 10 knots. I don't think any helicopter will smash into a drone at those speeds.

My assertion stands.

D

I don't assume anything. with 4000hrs Army helicopter flight time (1000 as a Instructor, 1000 Test Pilot), With ratings in helicopters that will fit in a truck bed (H300) to one that will carry 2 trucks internally (CH-47) I have a pretty good idea how helicopters operate.

What practical experience do you base your statements on?

And helicopters only descend vertically after they have completed their approach to the intended landing point. Prior to that it is forward flight, which means the aircraft is has not crossed back through Effective Translational Lift (ETL) which happens during the actual transition to the vertical landing phase of the flight.

The science of helicopter flight is exactly the same as the science of fixed wing flight : it works by rotor blade (airfoils) generating lift—an upward-pushing force that overcomes its weight.

Here is a little light reading for you on the subject of real world aerodynamics.

Amazon.com

Effective Translational Lift (ETL) is when the lift generation from the rotor disc is more efficient due to increased aircraft speed or wind.

 

[tleedom]

I concede that they ALSO move horizontally during landing, but you're talking about < 10 knots. I don't think any helicopter will smash into a drone at those speeds.

My assertion stands.

D

Also the speeds you are talking about in landing (and takeoff) are the most dangerous phases of a flight in both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft, with minimal directional airspeed it is virtually impossible to avoid obstacles.

Your assertions have no standing.

 

[Donnie Frank]

I don't assume anything. With a Part 61 Commercial Instrument Helicopter rating and 4000hrs Army helicopter flight time (1000 as a Instructor, 1000 Test Pilot), With ratings in helicopters that will fit in a truck bed (H300) to one that will carry 2 trucks internally (CH-47) I have a pretty good idea how helicopters operate.

What practical experience do you base your statements on?

One doesn't have to be a meteorologist to know which way the wind is blowing.

We've all seen dozens - if not hundreds - of helicopters land in our lifetimes. We've seen them in real life, on T.V. and in the movies. I just saw a news helicopter land YESTERDAY. It doesn't require 4000 hours of flight experience to observe how helicopters land. In addition, for anyone who is uncertain, there are literally dozens - if not hundreds - of videos available on the subject. They're all pretty consistent across the board. The last 100' of a helicopter's descent is generally flown < 50 knots and most times < 30 knots. It's pretty consistent among all sizes, makes and models. Do you disagree???

And helicopters only descend vertically after they have completed their approach to the intended landing point.

No one questions this, including me. I simply am suggesting that it is unreasonable to assert that a helicopter *requires* a high rate of speed to land. It's NOT unreasonable to assert that a helicopter can maintain speeds of < 50 knots below 400' AGL and < 30 knots below 150' AGL. Do you disagree??? Is this unreasonable? Explain why.

Prior to that it is forward flight,

Sure. But not 150 knots. Surely any helicopter pilot can quell the last 100' of their approach to < 30 knots, yes? Obviously this doesn't apply if you're auto-rotating in an emergency descent. But otherwise, I think we can all agree that making this an FAA rule is not only NOT unreasonable, but - other than those traveling ridiculous speeds at ridiculously low altitudes - will probably have very little effect on the aviation industry. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

which means the aircraft is has not crossed back through Effective Translational Lift (ETL) which happens during the actual transition to the vertical landing phase of the flight.

All science jargon aside, here's video of TWO helicopters landing. Neither one exceeds 30 knots in the last 100' of descent. So I assume we all agree that it CAN be done safely.

The science of helicopter flight is exactly the same as the science of fixed wing flight : it works by rotor blade (airfoils) generating lift—an upward-pushing force that overcomes its weight.

Yep. All that's part of the 107.

Here is a little light reading for you on the subject of real world aerodynamics.

Already studied it for the part 107 test. Everyone in this forum has.

Effective Translational Lift (ETL) is when the lift generation from the rotor disc is more efficient due to increased aircraft speed or wind.

Agreed. But this doesn't refute my assertion that a helicopter can land safely while keeping lateral speed under 30 knots. I've posted one of dozens of videos that show this. While I agree that some helicopter pilots CHOOSE to exceed 30 knots, many do not, which proves that one doesn't HAVE to exceed 30 knots during the last 100' of descent. Do you still disagree? Or are we going to continue to argue apples and oranges?

I don't mind being proven wrong and subsequently conceding. But I have yet to see anything to show me that my "Class H airspace" idea is a bad one. Quite to the contrary, I've posted videos that show it is VERY possible to keep one's lateral speed down in the last 100' of descent.

Do you disagree??? Explain why.-

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

Also the speeds you are talking about in landing (and takeoff) are the most dangerous phases of a flight in both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft, with minimal directional airspeed (forward for fixed wing and forward, backward, left or right for helicopters) it is virtually impossible to avoid obstacles.

So your assertion is that it is EASIER to avoid obstacles if your moving laterally at a high rate of speed?????

Your assertions have no standing.

I HIGHLY question YOUR assertion that one must travel laterally at a high rate of speed to AVOID objects. That doesn't make sense to even the most dimwitted observer.

D

 

[tleedom]

A lot of responses to address:

First I see a lot of references to landing helicopters (even a video). This is totally irrelevant to a airspace discussion where sUAS are involved. So any discussion of operating air speeds in reference to landings (or takeoffs) is again irrelevant. Just because helicopters can operate at those speeds doesn't apply to normal in flight operations.

One doesn't have to be a meteorologist to know which way the wind is blowing.

No but when you keep throwing out >400' 50kts and >150' 30kts actually understanding the real world of helicopter flight operations would help. Just because it is physically possible doesn't make it safe or realistic.

We've all seen dozens - if not hundreds - of helicopters land in our lifetimes. We've seen them in real life, on T.V. and in the movies. I just saw a news helicopter land YESTERDAY. It doesn't require 4000 hours of flight experience to observe how helicopters land. In addition, for anyone who is uncertain, there are literally dozens - if not hundreds - of videos available on the subject. They're all pretty consistent across the board. The last 100' of a helicopter's descent is generally flown < 50 knots and most times < 30 knots. It's pretty consistent among all sizes, makes and models. Do you disagree???

The reference to my practical experience was to point out the side of this discussion which has been focused on lowering the airspeed of helicopters operating in a perceived sUAS airspace. Using references of helicopters landing at reduced airspeed to justify the feasibility of a new airspace class just makes my point. What has been completely ignored is the reason helicopters are used for first response is because they can respond quickly to emergencies at low altitude.

100' feet from touchdown not en-route altitude, aircraft and weight dependent yes i agree. But all those references you give for seeing helicopters land are just that they are landing and not in their normal mode of flight.

No one questions this, including me. I simply am suggesting that it is unreasonable to assert that a helicopter *requires* a high rate of speed to land. It's NOT unreasonable to assert that a helicopter can maintain speeds of < 50 knots below 400' AGL and < 30 knots below 150' AGL. Do you disagree??? Is this unreasonable? Explain why.

Disagree: part 1

The helicopter uses its "high rate of speed" More like 100-125kts not the 175kts I've seen posted and capability to fly directly to a scene as a asset, reducing their operation to make you feel more comfortable flying a sUAS is unreasonable. As you have mentioned many times they all slow upon landing. And yes I disagree with the airspeed with altitude restrictions because of operational safety of the aircraft.

Disagree: part 2

A perfect reference for this is the Bell Jet Ranger helicopter one of the most commonly used police helicopters requires a speed of 70kts in autorotation (engine failure) (actually the manual says 69 but rounded up) for a successful landing and that airspeed goes up for heavier aircraft. No pilot is going to operate their aircraft below the minimum airspeed for autorotation unless taking off, landing or a specific mission requires it.

Sure. But not 150 knots. Surely any helicopter pilot can quell the last 100' of their approach to < 30 knots, yes? Obviously this doesn't apply if you're auto-rotating in an emergency descent. But otherwise, I think we can all agree that making this an FAA rule is not only NOT unreasonable, but - other than those traveling ridiculous speeds at ridiculously low altitudes - will probably have very little effect on the aviation industry. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

Again talking about approach not enroute.

All science jargon aside, here's video of TWO helicopters landing. Neither one exceeds 30 knots in the last 100' of descent. So I assume we all agree that it CAN be done safely.

Again, landing not normal cruise flight.

Yep. All that's part of the 107.

Already studied it for the part 107 test. Everyone in this forum has.

Read some of it but only took home the basics, or people wouldn't be making assumptions that helicopters in flight shouldn't hit drones because the down wash makes it impossible or flying a helicopter >400' at 50kts or 150' at >30kts is a good idea for the helicopter pilots.

Agreed. But this doesn't refute my assertion that a helicopter can land safely while keeping lateral speed under 30 knots. I've posted one of dozens of videos that show this. While I agree that some helicopter pilots CHOOSE to exceed 30 knots, many do not, which proves that one doesn't HAVE to exceed 30 knots during the last 100' of descent. Do you still disagree? Or are we going to continue to argue apples and oranges?

I apologize for using the term Lateral to describe a direction of flight, but since helicopters are not restricted to the same directional mode of flight that fixed wing aircraft are I am used to using the terms lateral or directional to describe a horizontal flight mode.

Again, landing not normal cruise flight.

I don't mind being proven wrong and subsequently conceding. But I have yet to see anything to show me that my "Class H airspace" idea is a bad one. Quite to the contrary, I've posted videos that show it is VERY possible to keep one's lateral speed down in the last 100' of descent.

Do you disagree??? Explain why.-

Why are we still talking about helicopters descending and landing?

I agree that is is normal practice that helicopters reduce speed for landings usually at or before 100' of touchdown not 100' of altitude. If the en-route altitude is 100' then the aircraft will be at cruising speed until the approach is started a couple hundred feet out from landing.

D

So your assertion is that it is EASIER to avoid obstacles if your moving laterally at a high rate of speed?????

The point wasn't to mean move laterally, (again a term I should not have used) it was to say the lower the speed of the aircraft the more time it takes for the aircraft to respond to a obstacle or hazard.

I removed lateral from my original post

I HIGHLY question YOUR assertion that one must travel laterally at a high rate of speed to AVOID objects. That doesn't make sense to even the most dimwitted observer.

Sorry I used the term lateral. I removed lateral from my original post

D

Thanks for the mental gymnastics, it's late and I missed dinner.

 

[Donnie Frank]

A lot of responses to address:

First I see a lot of references to landing helicopters (even a video). This is totally irrelevant to a airspace discussion where sUAS are involved. So any discussion of operating air speeds in reference to landings (or takeoffs) is again irrelevant. Just because helicopters can operate at those speeds doesn't apply to normal in flight operations.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. I feel like we keep talking past each other. I keep saying "the last 100' of operation" and you come back with "But all those references you give for seeing helicopters land are just that they are landing and not in their normal mode of flight."

For whatever reason, I can't seem to get the point across that you can fly at any speed you wish ABOVE 400' AGL (which should allow you to reach ANY emergency in ANY situation in a timely manner). It's only when you break the 400' floor that the "Class H" would govern your speed to < 50 knots. I honestly can't say it any clearer and I'm not sure why you don't directly address that exact assertion.

Are you asserting that the only way a helicopter can conduct operations or even be useful as a tool is that IT MUST fly OVER 50 knots BELOW 400'??? Is that your assertion? That forcing a helicopter to conduct high-speed operations ABOVE 400' would render the helicopter useless or less effective?

Are you asserting that emergency helicopters NEED to fly UNDER 400' AGL from point A to point B and back?

Call me nuts, but I always assume if a helicopter were going to haul someone back to the hospital from say 10 miles away, that ascending to 500'+ would not only be SOP, but would be a darn prudent! Do you mean to tell me you emergency helicopter guys fly the entire 10 miles UNDER 400' AGL? And that rising to ABOVE 400' AGL would impede emergency operations? Is THIS what you're asserting?

I'll address the rest of your comments later.

Still trying to get educated, but we seem to be talking past one another.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

100' feet from touchdown not en-route altitude, aircraft and weight dependent yes i agree.

Well good! NOW we're getting somewhere. Are you saying that your "en-route altitude" HAS to be BELOW 400' AGL? If so, explain why that is.

But all those references you give for seeing helicopters land are just that they are landing and not in their normal mode of flight.

I understand that. The point of those videos was to show that for operations under 100' AGL, that MOST OF THE TIME helicopters slow down to < 50 knots ANYWAY. Ergo, classifying < 400' AGL as Class H as an "under 50 knots" zone isn't a far stretch.

In an emergency rescue operation it seems very possible to:

* Take off and ascend to 450' withOUT exceeding 50 knots.
* Once over the 400' ceiling, accelerate to emergency speeds.
* Once within say 1/4 mile of your landing pad, start your descent.
* Once you break the 400' floor, slow your air speed to 50 knots.

Are you saying this is completely unfeasible? If so, what part of the scenario is not feasible? Explain why.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

Disagree: part 1

The helicopter uses its "high rate of speed" More like 100-125kts not the 175kts I've seen posted and capability to fly directly to a scene as a asset, reducing their operation to make you feel more comfortable flying a sUAS is unreasonable.

You are deflecting and being vague. I NEVER ONCE asserted that helicopters would have to "reduce operational speed." I suggested that UNDER 400' AGL that they simply slow down. ABOVE 400' AGL you can fly the speed of sound for all I care. So unless you're asserting that ALL OPERATIONS MUST BE conducted UNDER 400' AGL, your assertion doesn't hold water.

And your reference to "comfort" is once again deflecting. My Class H proposal is NOT there for "comfort of UAV pilots." It's there for SAFETY of full scale aviation pilots!

As you have mentioned many times they all slow upon landing. And yes I disagree with the airspeed with altitude restrictions because of operational safety of the aircraft.

Your argument that a helicopter HAS to fly over 50 knots to "be safe" doesn't hold water. According to the Helicopter height–velocity diagram (published by the FAA), even an 8500 lb. behemoth can autorotate @ 50 knots @ 150' AGL.

Disagree: part 2

A perfect reference for this is the Bell Jet Ranger helicopter one of the most commonly used police helicopters requires a speed of 70kts in autorotation (engine failure) (actually the manual says 69 but rounded up) for a successful landing and that airspeed goes up for heavier aircraft.

Hmmmm....not according to the Helicopter height–velocity diagram published by the FAA (see above).

No pilot is going to operate their aircraft below the minimum airspeed for autorotation unless taking off, landing or a specific mission requires it.

My Class H speed restriction allows for full auto-rotation for helicopters up to 8500 lbs. at altitudes as low as 150' (see above diagram).

The take-off profile recommends a speed of 65 knots for altitudes 50' and above. Even 65 knots is way safer in the "Class H UAV zone" than 125 knots.

In other words, according to all available data, my "Class H airspace" proposal allows helicopter pilots to remain at safe speeds for auto rotation uncontrolled descents.

That said, how many times a year do pilots have to auto rotate their craft? That would be an interesting statistic. Because if you are at a fast enough velocity for auto rotation, that sure as heck doesn't guarantee a place to land. And since we're talking about metropolitan areas (where emergency helicopters would operate), it almost seems moot your point regarding auto rotation speeds within city limits.

Any thoughts on that?

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

If the en-route altitude is 100' then the aircraft will be at cruising speed until the approach is started a couple hundred feet out from landing.

Okay...NOW we're getting somewhere. So you are asserting that when you fly 10 miles out to an emergency site, you fly the entire route @ or around 100' AGL? Is THAT my understanding?

Good conversation.

D

 

[AMGPilot]

So many bad assumptions on your part Donnie.
You really need to read the Part 61 FARS to start with especially when it comes to speed (hint there is a speed limit already)

 

[Donnie Frank]

So many bad assumptions on your part Donnie.

Then educate me or at least point me in the right direction. If I'm to learn anything here, I need you to be more specific.

You really need to read the Part 61 FARS to start with especially when it comes to speed (hint there is a speed limit already)

I Googled "part 61 FARS" and results were all over the map. Can you please provide a link to the Part 61 FARS?

D

 

[AMGPilot]

Then educate me or at least point me in the right direction. If I'm to learn anything here, I need you to be more specific.





I Googled "part 61 FARS" and results were all over the map. Can you please provide a link to the Part 61 FARS?

D

If you don’t understand what the FAR’s are and how part 61 applies then you can be making proposals because you lack the base knowledge of how airspace works

putting a speed limit below 400 feet to accommodate drones is NOT the solution