I'm not sure this is entirely weapons related but I see more threads on helicopters here than anywhere else.
I was reading this article ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/drone-flying-over-forest-fire-diverts-planes-costs-us-forest-service-10k/ ) and was wondering exactly why the firefighters couldn't fly in if theres a drone in the air? Are they afraid it would get caught in their rotors or something? Please help!
Because they don't want someones fucking gopro sucked into an engine
>>29177583
Don't birds get sucked in all the time though? Shouldn't hurt it right?
>>29177605
how stupid are you, really?
Did you graduate high school?
>>29177605
Yeah, and that fucks up aircraft too.
>>29177632
No I'm 5 years old
>>29177561
Mid air collisions are fun and have never damaged aircraft.
>>29177605
Birds tend to avoid large,noisy flying objects, while drones are flown by the sort of people who shouldn't be trusted with a pencil sharpener and have no idea of the environment they are flying in.
>>29177632
did you know that one of the tests they do to certify jet engines is shooting chickens at it?
Radio interference. Whether it be directly from the radio-control system, or just from electrical interference coming from the devices, it can potentially fuck up a pilot's day.
It's similar to the reasons why you're told to shut off your electronics when you're boarding an airline jet, even when your devices don't transmit any signals.
Source: I'm an aircraft mechanic
>>29178664
>It's similar to the reasons why you're told to shut off your electronics when you're boarding an airline jet, even when your devices don't transmit any signals.
So in other words just pure bullshit?
>>29178692
It's not entirely bullshit, but the chances of it actually fucking something up, while minimal, are still existent.
Airlines don't like to take a chance with hundreds of people's lives on a single given airplane.
And no firefighter is gonna board a helicopter if they've been told "There's a 1/10000 chance you could die because those dumbass kids won't turn off their dinky little drone."
>>29178692
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-passengers-asked-to-switch-off-all-electronic-devices-before-takeoff-and-landing
>>29177769
That test is for windscreens, not engines. It fucks the engine up pretty good when it sucks up a goose or duck. That's what took down US Airways Flight 1549, when it crashed into the Hudson River. Lots of drones are roughly in the same weight class, and nearly all of them are made from harder, tougher stuff than a bird.
>>29178781
No, it's bullshit.
The airline staff were paranoid about handheld electronics and wanted them banned. If an aircraft will malfunction because of a wifi or cellphone signal then it shouldn't be allowed to fly.
>>29178664
I've been doing "drones" for years. You will not experience interference from our .5 watt stuff.
The real risk is stupid faggots flying their Walmart quadcopters where the real aircraft need to fly to stop a fire. Happened up by me last year.
Stupid fucks got the FAA involved
There's a completely safe way to do this hobby
Why not fly drones over Syria so Russia cannot fly planes?
>>29178664
What kind of jets do you work on? I work on private jets with FADEC engines, Garmin G1000, Primus Honeywell avionics and have never heard of this bullcrap.
All of the sensitive electrical wires are shielded to protect against outside interference any ways so I'm curious.
We even went through a phase of certifying IPads and IPhones for in flight use, doing high power ground checks while checking for interference. Shit even Jepp software is being used on iPads for pilots cause they get rid of bulky ass Jepp maps.
>>29181069
But then we wouldn't be able to fly planes either!
>>29177561
If you smack into it there's a good chance it's going to break something. And if you break something important while flying low over a blazing inferno... it's not fun.
>>29177605
And bird strikes knock aircrafts off the sky all the time.
>>29177605
this kills the plane
rly tho , cheapest AA ever
>>29178664
The reason why we don't like drones (BK-117 driver here) doesn't have anything, absolutely nothing to do with radio interference. Everything worthwhile in a VFR utility helicopter used for fires runs on fuel or hydraulic pressure, everything else is creature comforts, not VITAL for flight (radios, avionics) and certainly won't cause you to drop out of the sky.
Problem is blasting away at 120kts/140mph and hitting something that you can't see at that speed (you might not be able to get out of the way fast enough), which will certainly damage the rotors, exposed control linkages/swashplate, or windshield (bubble). Hitting the tail rotor will be even worse. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, and potentially loss of life. Just for a 100$ drone and sick wicked go pro footage? jesus. G / unrestricted airspace used to be wild enough with 1 village idiot blasting around in an ultralight with no radios, but now you've got a thousand of those village idiots with craft that you can't see, that want to fly close and film you?
Sometimes I fantasize about having some kind of anti-drone weaponry on the helicopter, small missiles or the like. Shit would be cash
>>29181937
>1 village idiot blasting around in an ultralight with no radios
As much as that guy is an arsehole, we fixed wing crew figure you guys don't want to wear out the push to talk switch seeing how most helo drivers don't seem to use the radio lol
>>29178825
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc
why dont you stop posting for a while, sparky.
>>29181945
Lol guilty as charged I suppose. Quite often, especially working down low in the bush, it's easy to get focused on the most immediate threat/problem (which might be not hitting the next tree) and completely disregard traffic higher up. There's a mentality of "they won't be this low/ I won't disturb them / I'll just stick real close to this ridge line / circuit traffic is waaay over there" Yeah. I've no excuse.
>>29182022
>There's a mentality of "they won't be this low
Yeah therein lies the crossover actually, haha - we're one of the few operators that are that low - we do maritime surveillance between 200 and 2000ft all day long. On the upside, the sea search radar is pretty good at finding helos.
>>29181951
No the gentleman to whom you're replying, but remember birds come in different shapes and sizes, and shit can happen even with small ones - the idea of that kind of testing/certification is to reduce the risks associated with birdstrikes, not eliminate them. As the guy above said, birds - geese, which aren't little - brought down an A320. Equally, jet engines are designed - and not certified if they don't - to contain all the various bits and pieces that go flying at great speed if a turbine blade lets go... that doesn't mean that on very rare occasions a blade hasn't been known to escape the engine and strike the aircraft.
>>29181057
This. The only things that need to be banned are cheap shit.
Forestry service fly the retardent dropping planes and spotter planes extremely low
>>29179058
This. It's like people are too stupid to understand that if you turn off the receiving end (computer, cellphone, radio) the signal is still being broadcast by the router/cell tower/station. Aircraft and human bodies and everything else that exists is constantly being bombarded with radio signals, and it doesn't brick instruments and send aircraft plummeting to the ground. Hell, even before we had radios the universe was bombarding Earth with radio.
>>29182054
>Ban it and it'll go away!!
I've seen morons with $50 kits as much as $2000 performance quadcopters
>>29181937
>Sometimes I fantasize about having some kind of anti-drone weaponry on the helicopter, small missiles or the like. Shit would be cash
I genuinely expect they'll proliferate soon.
>>29182493
uk made one too
>It's a net launcher with 100m range
>>29182054
That's not it. What needs to happen is people need to use some fucking common sense
>>29181937
this hit's the nail on the head.
Also fire crews don't like it when people watch and videotape stuff because some wildland fire tactics like setting back fires look bad when taken out of context.
