Skilled pilots approaching a runway usually can’t see small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) encroaching on their airspace, and they virtually never detect motionless drones, according to a new study.
During an airborne human factors experiment, certificated pilots failed to see a common type of quadcopter during 28 of 40 close encounters, researchers with Oklahoma State University and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University reported.
In other words, the pilots got a bead on the invading drone in 12 out of 40 cases, or only about 30% of the time.
When the drone was not moving, the task became even more difficult. A mere three out of 22 motionless drones were spotted by the pilots.
Drones were detected at distances of between 213 and 2,324 feet, according to the researchers.
These findings, published in the International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace (IJAAA), illustrate a real and growing threat to aviation safety, said Dr. Ryan J. Wallace, assistant professor of Aeronautical Science at Embry-Riddle.
“Dangerous close encounters between aircraft and drones are becoming an increasingly common problem,” Wallace said. “Statistics on pilot sightings of drones continue to increase year over year, and what is being reported by pilots is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of the time, unmanned aircraft are not being seen by pilots.”
Even in a best case scenario, if a drone was spotted at the study’s maximum detection range of 2,324′, the pilot would have only about 21 seconds to avoid a collision.
“That might be enough time if the drone was hovering in one spot, but not nearly enough if it’s in flight, headed for the aircraft,” said Dr. Matt Vance, assistant professor of aviation and space at Oklahoma State. “The situation is far more dangerous when both aircraft are moving. Our eyes are attuned to movement. When a drone is not moving, it becomes part of the background.”
An aircraft’s final approach for landing is an especially risky time for a drone encounter because “it can catch you unaware and you have little time to react,” explained Dr. Jon M. Loffi, associate professor of aviation and space at Oklahoma State. “You don’t have the altitude to maneuver safely, and if an engine ingests a drone, that could bring the aircraft down.”
The research examined what happens as a pilot prepares to land and switches from instrument-guided flight to visual flight. Pilot participants were selected from a collegiate flight-training program. During the experiment, pilots conducted an approach to landing in a Cessna 172S while a DJI Phantom IV quadcopter-type drone flew a scripted series of maneuvers along the approach path. Pilots were told that they might or might not encounter a drone.
Drones are a Growing Problem
Currently in the United States, there are more than 1.4 million registered — and likely many more unregistered drones — and they continue to proliferate, Wallace said.
Close calls between drones and commercial aircraft are on the rise. On Oct. 21, 2019, for example, a commercial crew on approach to Boston’s Logan International Airport reported a drone at about 3,500′ above ground level – higher than FAA regulations allow. The event took place a week after another crew spotted a drone after takeoff from the same airport.
While the FAA “has made strides to secure control airspace from UAS incursions,” the study authors wrote, “their efforts have been met with mixed results.”
There is currently no reliable method for tracking UAS flights within the United States, the researchers add.
The research team’s next project will involve rigging a drone with an electronic pinging device (uAvionix Ping), which uses ADS-B technology to track aircraft. The study will assess whether the technology helps pilots pinpoint and avoid a collision with the drone.
Leveraging UAS remote identification data has been proposed as a way to reduce the risk of aircraft-drone accidents. As of January 2020, Vance noted, no aircraft will be allowed to fly in controlled airspace near airports without ADS-B tracking technology, but the law does not extend to small unmanned aircraft.
If all drones had such technology, pilots would have a more complete picture of the skies around them, improving safety, he said.
Anyone considered that the FAA in its zeal to control so-called “drones” has virtually doomed the sport of model aircraft flying through their inability either recognize or even comprehend that they are totally different animals. As already noted the similarity of the government’s position on gun control to model control in that the laws and restrictions imposed will only affect the people already obeying the laws. The murderers killing folks and non-modelers flying quads in the wrong places aren’t NRA or AMA members in the first place and couldn’t care less about society’s norms or FAA regs in the second.
It wouldn’t hurt if the FAA actually fined a drone user for breaking the rules instead of just a slap on the wrist. Lets see some $20,000 fines leveled and things might change.
The software of each drone manufacturer may not operate near airfields or airports. Why do we have GPS?
Any crap you can control, why not those stupid drone freaks?
The much larger threat is from birds everywhere in the pattern, and at most altitudes we typically fly.
A drone near the airport and below 500 ft. is only a threat on short final and initial takeoff.
Drone pilots just need to not fly there.
Agreed JimH. The “Chicken Little” syndrome towards drones would be better spent on educating drone pilots that if they are found to be the cause of an accident with a plane, they will go to prison for most of the rest of their life for murder. Taking drones from responsible parties is no different than taking guns from law abiding responsible people. Life has inherent risks. I’ve never seen a drone while flying. I’ve seen 1000’s of birds, many deer on run ways, coyotes, dogs, opossums, etc. Where is the FAA with these more predominant risks? Chasing kids with their drones, that’s where.
All inflight vehicles should have the same requirements. Why should aircraft owners be forced to equip for ADS-B, only to have their lives placed at risk by hobbyists and other drone operators who have no such requirement? It will probably take dead pilots and passengers before our irresponsible leaders will take action to address this growing lethal threat, but the day is coming. The threat is real and the results of ignoring this threat will be loss of life.
Which is exactly why NextGen (PastGen?) is going to fail,… to the tune of a wasted $40B, and many wasted current GA avionics installations, such as for FAA’s seriously flawed ADS-B concept (foolishly used as Pseudo-radar). That’s because NextGen doesn’t yet adequately address all the air-vehicles needing to use the shared airspace system, ….ranging from drones to gliders, to Cubs, to military aircraft, to spacecraft. Instead NextGen needs to use automated RNP based trajectory separation, fueled by families of data links (e.g., ADS-C), with ADS-B ONLY used as an Air-Air backup, NOT as FAA’s foolish substitute for ATS radars, that will never work. That way, drones could easily and economically and safely be incorporated, but it would require completely redesigning NextGen, and properly using RNP trajectory capability, families of data links, and trajectory separation via ATS automation, and relegating ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C to their originally intended roles. For ADS-B, that includes it ONLY serving as an air-air backup link to TCAS, and allowing for its use of any GPS (no WAAS needed), thus allowing for low cost very short range ADS-B systems, for vehicles like low end GA, and drones. But don’t hold your breath. The next event is likely to be the partial collapse of the ADS-B mandate next January, as under 50% of the entire US airspace using fleet is yet equipped, and many will never be equipped (e.g., many types of DoD aircraft).