Nothing Mysterious About This Drone Report

NASA has collected unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) safety reports in its Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) since August 2021. Operators of unmanned and manned aircraft file reports on a wide range of issues such as close calls, hazards, airspace violations, mechanical failures, and other safety-related events.

NASA UAS safety reports allow operators to contribute to aviation safety by sharing lessons learned with others; the FAA offers protection against civil penalties and certificate action in exchange for this valuable safety information.

The first NASA UAS ASRS database report set was published in July. Absent from this dataset are any ridiculous claims of nefarious drone operations by “bad actors” throughout New Jersey and other East Coast states. This report provides some real insight into safety issues that affect operators of manned and unmanned aircraft in the U.S.

NASA provides a caveat regarding the use of ASRS data. As an example, this dataset includes 50 reports and since each report is voluntarily submitted, it’s difficult to infer the prevalence of a specific problem in the National Airspace System. In addition, there is a “reporting bias” since not all participants in the aviation system are aware of ASRS. Like airline aviation safety action program (ASAP) reports, there may be some bias based on incentives or protections to individuals by the FAA for sharing information that may include noncompliance with federal regulations.

Following an analysis of the UAS ASRS report synopses there are two main categories of submissions to NASA by operators of unmanned and manned aircraft in the U.S.: noncompliance with CFRs (50%) and near-midair collisions (42%). A third, far less common category relates to mechanical or link failures, which account for only 8% of all events.

Noncompliance with regulations is the most common UAS report submitted to NASA ASRS by certificated Part 107 UAS pilots (64% of these reports), recreational drone pilots (20%), and air traffic controllers (16%). Over half of these events are caused by Part 107 pilots flying a UAS into controlled airspace or TFR area without authorization. Others exceed airspace/altitude or weather (low-visibility) restrictions. ATC often reports military UAS operators not complying with a clearance.

In one report, a recreational drone pilot flew into marginal weather conditions, including icing conditions, and came within 600 meters (1,970 feet) of a manned aircraft. In the report, the operator stated, “When preparing for my flight, the Dronecaster app indicated clouds, but not cloud ceiling. I misjudged the height of the cloud base and when ascending to 390 feet agl [and] began to experience reduced visibility. I reduced altitude to remain clear of clouds, forgetting that I had to remain 500 feet below [the clouds].” After landing, the UAS operator noticed icing on the propellers of the drone and other errors such as the ability to judge cloud height visually from the ground.

Generally, the airspace or TFR violations by Part 107 or recreational drone pilots often are linked to a lack of situational awareness—in relation to controlled airspace or TFRs—or in the case of ATC reports a government-operated UAS blundering outside of restricted airspace.

Near-midair collisions (NMAC) are the second most common event reported in the NASA UAS ASRS database; 42 percent of all UAS safety reports involve a manned or unmanned operator concerned about separation between two aircraft. Pilots who fly for hire reported 13 events (26 percent of all reports) where a UAS encroached on their flight path. General aviation pilots reported six NMACs with a UAS. In two reports, a Part 107 operator reported a near-midair collision between either a manned or unmanned aircraft.

In one case, a helicopter pilot reported that a drone collided from below their aircraft. According to the report, “I had a midair collision with an unknown object (around 300 feet agl). I collided with something which at first I thought was a bird, but upon later inspection on the ground I believe it was a drone.”

The helicopter pilot continued, “I was unable to see the object since it came from below and was out of my field of view. A big factor in this collision was flying low-level close to the shore over the water.” The submitter realized that both the drone and helicopter have the same rights in that airspace; both were legal. In the future, the helicopter pilot plans on flying at a higher altitude—above 400 feet agl—in that area.

In another case, a general aviation pilot reported that while on final approach in hazy conditions, they encountered a near-midair on final approach to landing. The reporter said, “I noted a rapidly approaching target and banked to the left. Both [pilots] noted a large UAV [drone] pass within one-quarter mile of the right wing.”

The event pilot continued, “I was able to recover to a stabilized approach and land without further incident.” The pilot concluded the report stating, “Operating a drone on final approach course to an airport [in these weather conditions] is extremely careless and reckless.”

The final reports in the NASA UAS ASRS dataset relate to mechanical or connectivity (link) failures. In two cases the link to the UAS was lost. In one case the Part 107 pilot lost control of the UAS and it crashed; in the other case, the datalink was re-established, and the flight was recovered. In other cases, one drone had an engine failure and was able to return to an airport without further damage, while another drone crashed into powerlines.

From the NASA ASRS reports, there are plenty of issues to focus on to improve UAS safety in the U.S.; mainly compliance with airspace restrictions and reducing NMACs between unmanned and manned aircraft.

Let’s hope that the hysteria and conflated reports of “mysterious” UAS operations in the U.S. have come to an end. Farfetched conspiracy theories such as the “drone carrier from Iran” by lawmakers in New Jersey and contradictory reports by government officials did nothing to quell public fears.

For the trained eye, many of the recent “drone” images posted on social media appear to be manned aircraft (airliners, business jets, or helicopters) equipped with position and anti-collision lights. So no real mystery: just reports by individuals who lack proficiency in “looking up.”

The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by AIN Media Group.