Buttonville Drone Collision

[Inverted2]

https://www.cp24.com/news/plane-damaged ... -1.5554610

A plane has major damage after a York Regional Police (YRP) drone struck the aircraft at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport earlier this month.
On Aug. 10, a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna plane was on a flight to the airport in Markham at an unknown time during the day.
The small plane was about to land at the airport’s runway when the pilot felt a jolt that “pushed them back on their seat”, according to a report from Transport Canada issued this week.
The pilot thought the plane hit a large bird and proceeded to land the plane, the report said.
When the pilot exited the aircraft they saw a “major dent” on the left underside of the engine cowling and the airbox was also bent.
No injuries were reported but the airplane suffered significant damage, including a propeller strike.
A few hours after the incident, police confirmed that a YRP drone had struck the aircraft, according to the report.
The drone was part of a YRP operation in Richmond Hill.
NAV Canada, the country’s air navigation service provider, had not been notified about the YRP drone, Transport Canada said.
The cause of the collision is not known.

[pelmet]

During operations in support of police activity approximately 1.5nm NW of Toronto Buttonville
Airport (CYKZ), Ontario, a DJI Matrice 210 RPAS operated by the York Regional Police, collided
with C-GKWL, a C172 operated by Canadian Flyers International Inc., which was on final approach
to runway 15 at CYKZ with an instructor and student pilot on board. The collision occurred along
the approach path for Runway 15. There was minor damage to the propeller of the aircraft and the
left hand side of the lower nose cowling was significantly deformed. The aircraft landed without
incident. There were no injuries to the pilots or to persons on the ground. The RPAS was
destroyed.

[RatherBeFlying]

Are TC inspectors investigating this? I could see charges for dangerous operation of aircraft (as the RCMP laid for landing at a Dairy Queen) as well as a CARS violation for operating in a control zone without clearance. That's a few kilobucks some cop should be out of pocket.

And let's just be grateful that the drone didn't come through the windshield and take out the pilots.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[trey kule]

Yeah, lets do it? Form a mob. Heat up the tar, and grab a pitchfork.

We are going to lynch those cops. They probably targeted that aircraft thinking it was full of some diversity or gender disadvantaged. Don’t we all hate it when the police are doing their job. At the very least we should now be demanding they be disarmed. Why do they need guns with all the new gun ban laws?

It was a bad incident, that fortunately did not have a worse outcome. I expect that things will be discussed and changes made as a result of this. No where near as satisfying as a good old cop hating lynching or fine, though.

As to TC.. They are a joke. Stand around the ice cream store and photograph what they believe is dangerous flying..and do,nothing. Don’t try to prevent an incident. Just get proof so they can take action later. Wait….what were they doing at a DQ during work hours?
This will get thrown out of court and should result in a couple of TC inspectors explaining their presence at a DQ.

[Conflicting Traffic]

Don’t we all hate it when the police are doing their job.

It appears they caused a midair collision*. I'm pretty sure that's not in their job description. What do you think would happen if a non-cop was the drone operator? Holding a person in authority accountable for misbehavior is not "lynching".

* - As more fact come to light, maybe it will turn out they are not at fault, although that seems unlikely. In the mean time, why should they be given any more of a pass than someone who (gasp!) *landed a helicoper*?

I expect that things will be discussed and changes made as a result of this.

Changes like actually following the rules they're supposed to be enforcing? Changes like not being negligent? Do you really expect a power-happy bureaucracy to change when there are no consequences for mid-deeds?

[photofly]

I’m fairly sure the official response will be that if small planes can’t be operated in such a way as not to adversely affect police operations such as the use of drones, then more restrictions are needed on small aircraft.

As for whoever decided to locate an airport close to where drone operations were taking place, what were they thinking? If the airport can’t be moved to somewhere safer, it should be closed, permanently.

It was a bad incident, that fortunately did not have a worse outcome. I expect that things will be discussed and changes made as a result of this.

Doesn’t your without-irony use of the passive voice raise any flags for you? It does for me.

[rookiepilot]

Maybe here’s the problem some have:

https://dronedj.com/2021/08/20/police-d ... ne-canada/

. YRP, which has been operating drones since 2015, is yet to acknowledge the incident publicly.

As the news broke, many drone operators were quick to point out had this alleged act of negligence been caused by a civilian pilot, the police would have cited them by now.

This incident is not on YRP’s twitter feed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ma ... t-n1254365

This person was charged and could have faced a year in jail.

[trey kule]

Sometimes, despite the demand from Avcanaders to know everything, the details of police operations should not be made public. I expect the bad guys here would love to get all the details out in public as to the exact location and time. Intelligence is a wonderful tool for both sides of crime.

I am unashamedly, pro police, as if the present government has their way with disarming lawful gun owners, they will be our only line of defence from well armed criminals.

That being said, I expect that out of sight of the public, this very serious incident is being reviewed, and changes are being made to avoid a repeat. Notams are not the answer, as the bad guys can typically read, and see them.

This situation is different , IMO, then someone who flys a drone just for fun into restricted airspace.

As to the DQ incident. The RCMP have little discretion in laying charges if TC wants charges laid. And as two inspectors stood by and did nothing but take pictures on instructions from higher ups, this could well be the case. My thinking is this will be thrown out of court, if it ever does, in fact, get there. And a helicopter pilot will be added to the TC..”lets get them” enforcement list. After all, even the TC inspectors could not refuse the delicious temptation of DQ during work hours.

I am not, and I emphasize not, downplaying the serious of this incident. Just the pathological desire to air it (pun intended) in public.

[rookiepilot]

This situation is different , IMO, then someone who flys a drone just for fun into restricted airspace.

You’re right. It’s far worse. The standard always should be higher, not lower, for those in a position of public trust. Zero tolerance, otherwise trust in police disappears when some aren’t accountable for their actions — in full public view.

You sound like one of many who would defend police brutality on the grounds that police just aren’t criminals, even if they kill someone, which if that drone was just three feet higher, would have happened.

I am unabashedly pro police as well. I doubt you understand this.

[photofly]

Sometimes, despite the demand from Avcanaders to know everything, the details of police operations should not be made public. I expect the bad guys here would love to get all the details out in public as to the exact location and time. Intelligence is a wonderful tool for both sides of crime..

Well if they want to know the location and time they can just ask the instructor and student who were in the airplane. I’m pretty sure that nothing helps the “bad guys” quite as much as having the drone surveilling them taken out by a C172.

If you want to plead special consideration for law enforcement you had better start with the expectation of at least a modicum of competence from them. It’s hard to fathom the depths of stupidity plumbed by flying a drone on approach to a busy airport, and even harder to fathom intelligent individuals not being outraged that a police department charged with public safety was responsible.

[Posthumane]

I agree with photofly et al. There is a lot of daylight between announcing police intentions to do surveillance at a specified address in advance in the form of a NOTAM and using normal means to deconflict with regular airport traffic. I seriously doubt that having the RPAS operator monitoring the appropriate radio frequency and making a call as necessary, such as "buttonville traffic, RPAS xyz operating on a 1 mile final rwy 14 at 500' for the next 5 minutes" is going to compromise their operation. If the people they are after are so intent on avoiding surveillance that they are monitoring the airport frequency then they could just as easily be looking in the sky. Anyway, unless they are engaged in actively preventing/stopping something that poses an immediate threat to the public (in which case stealth is probably not a high priority) then public safety always trumps investigative activities such as airborne surveillance.

[photofly]

Let’s hope the threat of litigation makes YRP ante up for the repairs and for the consequential loss of revenue or the operator due to down time, and that having to write a cheque for $50k to $100k makes them have those internal discussions that TK is confident will occur.

[Capt. Underpants]

Sometimes, despite the demand from Avcanaders to know everything, the details of police operations should not be made public. I expect the bad guys here would love to get all the details out in public as to the exact location and time. Intelligence is a wonderful tool for both sides of crime.

I am unashamedly, pro police, as if the present government has their way with disarming lawful gun owners, they will be our only line of defence from well armed criminals.

That being said, I expect that out of sight of the public, this very serious incident is being reviewed, and changes are being made to avoid a repeat. Notams are not the answer, as the bad guys can typically read, and see them.

This situation is different , IMO, then someone who flys a drone just for fun into restricted airspace.

As to the DQ incident. The RCMP have little discretion in laying charges if TC wants charges laid. And as two inspectors stood by and did nothing but take pictures on instructions from higher ups, this could well be the case. My thinking is this will be thrown out of court, if it ever does, in fact, get there. And a helicopter pilot will be added to the TC..”lets get them” enforcement list. After all, even the TC inspectors could not refuse the delicious temptation of DQ during work hours.

I am not, and I emphasize not, downplaying the serious of this incident. Just the pathological desire to air it (pun intended) in public.

What a bizarre comment. TC inspectors have a responsibility for public safety just like your buddies in uniform do. It seems you only want accountability for anyone who could hold you accountable. Nice hypocrisy.

[rookiepilot]

“Waiting for response”.

[RatherBeFlying]

Cop jailed for fatal accident:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal ... -1.4912730

There was an initial glossing over until public outrage forced an independent investigation.

YRP should be grateful that incapacitated pilots didn't crash into a school bus.

[drone_driver24]

Does anybody know, and I'm asking legitimate question, if law enforcement have to a apply for a SFOC, or get NAV CANADA approval for their flights? I know it's used for commercial requests, but I can see where law enforcement might not have the same time frame for a request.

Thanks.

[photofly]

With the greatest of respect to the people worrying about the procedural niceties of whether YRP broke some rule or didn’t follow some procedure, that’s not the point.

The point is some dumb fuckwit plod constable thought it was a good idea to fly a drone on the approach to an active runway in the first place.

[gwagen]

With the greatest of respect to the people worrying about the procedural niceties of whether YRP broke some rule or didn’t follow some procedure, that’s not the point.

The point is some dumb fuckwit plod constable thought it was a good idea to fly a drone on the approach to an active runway in the first place.

Thing is photofly, I’d be willing to bet all of the marbles that the existence of the airport or flying a drone near the approach to one didn’t even occur to the adjectively aforementioned plod.

[Beefitarian]

I’m fairly sure the official response will be that if small planes can’t be operated in such a way as not to adversely affect police operations such as the use of drones, then more restrictions are needed on small aircraft.

As for whoever decided to locate an airport close to where drone operations were taking place, what were they thinking? If the airport can’t be moved to somewhere safer, it should be closed, permanently.

I enjoyed the sass but, geeze Louise. Don’t even joke about that. Too close to Okotoks for my liking.

[photofly]

I think Buttonville is closing (again), anyway. At least, that's the latest I heard.